CalTrout Quantifies Economic Value of Fisheries. Can I Get an "Amen" From The Underground?
By Tom Chandler on Jan 11, 2008 in Environment, News
Every time some developer, timber company, or Axis of Evil member Nestle wants to compromise our rivers and streams, they trot out bullshit economic forecasts and promise a few menial jobs, and outdoorsmen are left sputtering, saying “Yeah, but fishing’s good for our economy, and fish are pretty, and gosh…”
Thankfully, we’re not shooting blanks any more.
CalTrout’s just-released study says sportfishing is worth $2 Billion to the California economy in direct spending. That’s direct spending — and it’s a lot of horsepower when it comes to fighting and winning some of these battles.
$2 billion, my friends, is a hell of a lot of money, and that ignores the indirect (ripple) effects — the economic impacts of one fishing-supported job supporting several other jobs in the community.
More importantly, fishing (and a clean environment) means jobs: secure, reliable, sustainable jobs — provided fisheries are allowed to prosper.
I’m still hacking my through the report, but I have learned that each Klamath River salmon is worth $200 to the local economy, and that every 1,000 fish caught recreationally generates four jobs in the area.
What This Means To Us
Wondering how important this information is? Allow me to illustrate.
The Undergrounders who followed our recent fight to preserve stream access in Siskiyou County will remember Supervisor Armstrong, who in her own February, 2007 column, said tourism was worth $150 million to Siskiyou County.
As the battle over the extractive-industry-friendly Natural Resource Policies heated up, that number became disagreeably large; in a letter responding to comments about the deeply flawed natural resources plan, tourism’s economic impact to the county was magically reduced to $50 million (while ag and extractives zoomed ahead).
A study like CalTrout’s gives us the ability to fight these fights — including our ongoing battle with corporate legal thug Nestle — with real, live ammunition.
I’ll post more about this report later. My advice for now? Download this happy little document, and at least read the summary.
You’ll see what your pasttime really means in terms of money and jobs (you can probably extrapolate to your own part of the country; a New York steelheader could make good use of this information in their own area).
While You’re At It, Save This Information Too
While we’re on the subject of economic reports, also save this little gem (found via Ted Williams) that quantifies the economic impacts of National Wildlife Refuges, and comes to the conclusion that non-consumptive uses (fishing, hiking, hunting, etc) generate 82% of the dollars that flow from refuges — a handy bit of information to throw at those fighting to mine, divert, or otherwise damage our few remaining wild areas.
(UPDATE: Add this hunting & fishing study to the list)
With mining for precious metals and energy drilling running rampant, the California Delta in a state of collapse, and our water under assault from profiteers like Nestle and Westlands, this kind of report is badly needed.
See you reading CalTrout’s report, Tom Chandler.
And Now, a Few CalTrout Report Bullets
CalTrout’s report can be downloaded here (in .pdf format). It includes some interesting bullet points, like:
- If salmon populations were increased in the Klamath River, each additional fish caught by anglers would be worth $200 to the economy. Approximately every 1,000 fish caught recreationally generates four jobs in the area.
- In the Ventura River, the population of steelhead has been reduced to fewer than 200 from an historical run of at least 4,000 adult fish per year. One study showed that a single steelhead may be worth $75 to $300 in increased sport fishing revenues. Increasing the sport catch in the Ventura River by 2,000 adult fish could generate as much as $600,000 per year for local businesses.
- In the Central Valley, potential economic benefits of increased recreational catch of chinook and coho salmon and steelhead were estimated to generate an average expenditure per fish of $140.
- Fish populations in the Eel River have declined substantially over the last 100 years as Potter Valley Project dams have blocked salmon and steelhead habitat on the river. The Department of Fish and Game estimates that 75 miles of spawning habitat in the Upper Eel River and its tributaries is blocked by Scott Dam alone, resulting in the loss of 3,000 steelhead trout and 2,500 chinook salmon.
- In a study estimating the impact of salmon from Clear Creek caught recreationally along the Sacramento River and in the ocean, it was found that recreational fishing results in $17.3 million total spending, and a total economic impact of $32 million, based on both direct and indirect spending.
- At the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge in north central California, over $2 million is generated in recreational expenditures, which in turn leads to over $350,000 of local tax revenues.
Technorati tags: fly fishing, fishing, caltrout, ecnomic value of fishing, economic value of fisheries, value of recreational fishing in california, klamath river, salmon recovery, supervisor marcia armstrong
Smellslikefish | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Tom,
Thanks for posting (the link to) this report. Interesting to see someone finally codify the positive impacts of fishing in economic terms. With my vacation rental property and appraisal business in Siskiyou County, I know firsthand that fishing makes a big contribution to this area and to my own financial well-being.
A couple of points of however: First, Ted Williams calling fishing and hunting “non-extractive” is not exactly accurate. “Sustainably extractive” would be more so. But then at what cost?
Secondly, I’m not in favor of using the data from the report as an argument to increase funding for fisheries management - as increased funding usually means everything else continues its usual funding and we the people earn a tax increase. How about using it as an argument for decreasing funding for management of lands for traditionally extractive activities - and then diverting those funds toward fisheries management.
To be fair, I read the summary and skimmed the report. I didn’t notice anything in it about managing for put and take angling versus catch and release. So, without more specific data, I can see any additional management funds going directly to hatchery operations rather than toward restoration and maintenance of fisheries.
Still, thanks to Cal-Trout for finally putting some accurate numbers behind what most fishermen already knew - especially when we look into our wallets after a fishing trip.
GG | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Man, you did a great job on this post. Thanks for providing the info and summary.
In my area the municipal leaders are really short-sighted. I lived off the Eel River and Klamath prior to returning to southern California and just hate watching things develop.
Here the issue is not related specifically to fishing but to over development and invasion into wildlife habitat.
The mindset is more about attracting tourists and new residents and to hell with the Bald Eagle Habitat (traded to a developer for other land) and we will worry about water and wildlife later.
Those stats and study might come in handy!
Tom Chandler | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Smells: Good comments, though you are still an ignorant slut.
You could call fishing sustainably extractive, but in truth — as long as the fish harvest falls well below the baseline mortality rate — there’s often little if any impact on overall populations.
Cost of wild fish management? Outside of enforcement (supposedly paid for with license fees)… none. That’s always been the argument for managed wild fisheries vs hatcheries, where that 1 pound trout can cost the state (e.g. YOU) better than $2.
This isn’t a fly fishing specific report, so I could see why they didn’t get into the hatchery vs wild fish issue.
I think the intent was to make an argument for healthy habitat and habitat restoration; proving that the region benefits economically (on a sustainable basis) if the Klamath dams come out certainly squelches most of economic arguments against dam removal.
Compared to timber, mining and other related extractive industries — where lands are disturbed, and damage is done to the ecosystem — recreational fisheries can’t be classified as extractive unless they require hatchery support.
Smellslikefish | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
“Cost of wild fish management? Outside of enforcement (supposedly paid for with license fees)… none.”
Granted Chevy, but the report did specifically suggest “increased state funding” for sustaining and restoring, so I’ve got to assume that part of that increased funding would go to put and take management.
The problem with using this report as argument for increasing funding, is that it oversimplifies benefits while not reporting costs at all. This is not to say that flawed arguments don’t win votes, but this argument is lacking. To say that “each additional fish caught by anglers would be worth $200 to the economy” is ignoring decreasing marginal benefits as well as marginal costs and is therefore misleading. If they’re using this as justification for increasing funding, then the figures need to be examined well beyond the scope of this report - lets include marginal costs versus marginal benefits, at the very least.
Like I said before, I’m happy to finally see some numbers applied to the economic benefits of sport fishing. Lets not then weaken the credibility of the report by glossing over facts about future benefits.
- Jane Curtin
Tom Chandler | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
C’mon Jane — you’re fishing out red herrings left and right.
The release doesn’t mention put-and-take fisheries at all, and it’s clear in the report summary that the focus is on habitat restoration and improvements to compromised species.
From the report summary:
“Increased funding should be targeted to activities that sustain and restore fisheries and habitats for their ecological values and benefits to people.”
There’s no put and take there. Never was.
In other words, your assumption about put and take is wrong. It’s clearly not what the report authors are calling for.
As for marginal benefits and costs, perhaps you could define exactly what you mean by that.
In fact, tell you what — you define those, I’ll add indirect economic benefits to the $2 billion (purely in the interest of completeness).
– I’m Chevy, and you’re not.
p.s. — wasn’t the other Point-Counterpoint person Dan Akroyd?
Smellslikefish | Jan 11, 2008 | Reply
Yes, I think it was Akroyd rather than Chase. My memory of that bit seems to be overwhelmed by the image of Jane Curtin’s lacy bra - hey, I was about 12 or 13.
But I don’t think my comments are red herring at all. The specific comment, ["funding be targeted to activities that sustain and restore fisheries and habitats for their ecological values and benefits to people"], could just as easily be interpreted as recommending an increase in put and take management as funding for “habitat restoration and improvements to compromised species”. Especially since the summary itself indicates that increased catch rates equate to economic improvements.
As to marginal costs/benefits - this is the area where the report is misleading. Stating that “each additional fish caught by anglers would be worth $200 to the economy” is basing that figure on the average total benefit. When in reality the marginal benefit decreases. To simplify; the next fish caught may be worth $225 to the economy, the following fish $215, then, $210, $200, $175, $140. There is a point where an additional caught fish equates to zero economic increase. Hence, decreasing marginal benefit.
Likewise with increasing marginal costs. To increase the catch count by 1000 fish (a $200,000 benefit by CT’s figures - which does not account for decreasing marginal benefit) may only cost $50,000. However, increasing the count by 5000 fish may cost $2,000,000. Whatever the jump, the cost per fish would increase to a point where an additional fish would cost more than its worth to the economy.
You can add indirect benefits if you want - an accurate cost/benefit analysis should. But then don’t ignore indirect costs.
And this is where the report goes lacking. Just as you say about developers and corporations trotting “out bullshit economic forecasts” (I agree whole-heartedly), Cal Trout is suggesting increased funding based on incomplete and therefore misleading data. And basing the opinion that “funding should be increased” on purely economic data would indicate that there is a point where the costs outweigh the benefits - a point which seems to be ignored here.
It is highly probable that a cost/benefit analysis would indicate support for increased funding. Cal Trout’s report then calls for a more detailed economic analysis.
- Dave, not Jane
wayne eng | Jan 12, 2008 | Reply
god, look what happens when you send Dave to school.
Myrna Rae
Taku | Jan 12, 2008 | Reply
Despite all the bickering above, it is necessary and important to start getting some of the data out there on recreational activities. Much has been done in other places on estimating impacts of non-traditional economics. Take a look at what South Dakota estimates the pheasant hunt is worth to the state is a prime example. Right now the skiing is better than the fishing, but the Bitterroot snowpack is doing great. Hopefully it won’t all melt in March.
icefishingpro.com | Jan 12, 2008 | Reply
“Amen”.
That is such a well written article. Quite impressive actually.
Check out my site at icefishingpro.com
isaac roman | Jan 14, 2008 | Reply
a little note about money—I was just informed that water quality board just had a meeting in fort jones on friday—their main objective—put a well on EVERY sq. mile in scott valley for monitoring purposes—looking ahead to scott lake?
Tom Chandler | Jan 14, 2008 | Reply
That’s interesting. Wonder what “monitoring purposes” really means?
isaac roman | Jan 14, 2008 | Reply
one of the bad parts to this deal is that the property owner has to foot the bill for each well—-could add up fast$$$$$—and only a certain few know the real meaning behind the “monitoring”. all I know is that every time shasta lake gets low, there is “major water issues” that start popping up. down with the dams, let mother nature decide when the water comes and goes. man just can’t stop playing god, though. i guess i might be a little overboard, but the earth does change and there was a time mankind would flow with these changes, not try to control the effects. we’ve become soft in our ways. long live nature and all her splendor!!!!!