That is such a well written article. Quite impressive actually.

Check out my site at icefishingpro.com

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

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?

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

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.

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!

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.