One of the big debates in sportfish regulation is how more
restrictive regulations impact the recreational fishing industry.
Many industry members often oppose regulation, sometimes
vehemently, arguing that tightened regulations mean that anglers won’t be able
to take as many fish home, and thus discourage anglers from going fishing. Party boat operators are often the most
extreme proponents of that position, sometimes arguing that if anglers can’t
bring home enough fish to pay for the trip, many will make an economic decision
not to spend money on fishing.
The other side of the argument is that fishing is primarily
a recreational activity. Surveys
have shown that, while bringing fish home remains among anglers priorities, intangible
values are more important; anglers rank spending time with family and friends, and
merely catching fish even if they don’t keep them, far above bringing home fish
to eat. Such surveys also show strong support for marine conservation. Because fishing is primarily recreational, they
argue, regulations that increase the abundance of fish, and allow for a higher
number of angler encounters with their chosen quarry, actually benefit the
industry, even if they reduce the number of fish that anglers may retain.
It’s a difficult question to resolve, because there are
multiple things going on at once.
Yes, anglers might take fewer trips after more restrictive
regulations were adopted, but did they fish less because of the new rules, or
because of the shortage of fish that caused such rules to be adopted? Often, one’s answer to that question is
driven primarily by underlying beliefs, and not by any available data.
But recently, down in Louisiana, conditions converged to
create a situation that seems to shed real light on the question.
As I’ve written before, the premier Louisiana sportfish,
speckled trout (spotted seatrout) and redfish (red drum), which historically
have driven most of the state’s for-hire fishing activity, are not doing well.
Speckled
trout are badly overfished. The
population, which is badly skewed toward younger fish, has been in a steep
decline for well over a decade, but pushback
from some quarters, in particular the Coastal Conservation Association’s
Louisiana chapter, has made it difficult for state regulators to implement
the management measures that they believe will best rebuild the stock.
Redfish, although not overfished, are suffering from
overfishing, with the “escapement rate”—that is, the
number of fish that survive long enough to grow past the current, 27-inch maximum
size and enter the spawning stock, is only about 65% of the rate needed to
maintain a healthy and sustainable population. As a result, current redfish abundance has
declined badly, and has now fallen as low as it did during the 1980s. Once again, some
anglers, led by CCA Louisiana, are blocking the management measures that would
allow the stock to rebuild within a reasonable amount of time.
Both speckled trout and redfish provide good study subjects,
because neither one supports significant commercial fisheries. Louisiana has outlawed all commercial redfish
harvest, while commercial fishing for speckled trout is limited to rod and reel. As
a result, commercial redfish landings are nil while commercial seatrout
landings are negligible. Louisiana's last
reported seatrout landings, about 4,000 pounds, occurred in 2018; one has to go
back another decade, to 2008, to find landings in excess of 10,000 pounds.
Thus, recreational fishermen bear sole responsibility
for the state of both stocks of fish; no one can credibly argue that commercial
fishing caused either stock to decline.
In addition, Louisiana regulations for both species have been unchanged for a considerable time. Louisiana’s red drum regulations haven’t been updated since 2001. Its speckled trout regulations will become more restrictive this week, but prior to the upcoming change, were last revised in 1988.
Thus, the Louisiana fisheries provide what
may be the best opportunity to determine how recreational overfishing impacts
the recreational fishing industry.
It seems that anglers are more willing to book charters, engage
in fishing-related travel, and support fishing-related businesses when there
are more fish in the water, and that such businesses suffer when fish stocks
decline.
The report’s analysis was based on fishing trip records and
on the market price of charter boat trips in the State of Louisiana. It used the travel costs of anglers accessing
the redfish resource to assess the monetary benefits provided by that
resource. As the report explains,
“it takes the travel costs associated with accessing a
resource (here fishing) and charts a demand curve—relating the travel costs (prices)
versus the amount of trips taken (quantity).
This affords a researcher to compute the consumer surplus associated
with the resource by netting the price (typically $0) off of willingness to pay
for the resource. Core to the analysis
are the car/airfare costs, opportunity costs (off work), and entrance costs
(guiding fees) associated with, in this case, fishing for redfish.”
The Guides Association provided Dr. Meadows with the results
of a survey taken by over 100 anglers who pursue redfish in Louisiana, which
the researcher called
“particularly useful, given the specificity in all travel costs.”
Applying an accepted economic approach to his analysis, Dr.
Meadows found that the value of a Louisiana redfish trip is $2,074, although he
noted that
“Given the fact that many redfish tourists pay flights,
rental cars, guide fees, gas, employment off, and hotels (omitted here), this
estimate might well be a [sic] average or underestimate of the true value of
the resource.”
Applying the per-trip value to charter boat trip data
provided through LA Creel, Louisiana’s system for tracking the state’s angler
effort, Dr. Meadows found,
“the peak value of the fishery was 2018, at $329.64 million,
declining to 2022’s level of $322.95 million (a loss of $17.69 million, or $4.4
million a year).” A linear trend of this
value would show the fishery losing another $22 million of economic value.”
Dr. Meadows also proposed an alternative valuation of the
fishery, to provide an idea of the minimum economic loss resulting from the red
drum’s decline. He stated that
“To bin the analysis on a lower point, it’s also possible to
leverage the minimum, prevailing charter price ($600) for redfish charters, and
rich data from Louisiana Fish and Wildlife (LA Creel Data Query) that displays
fishing effort (days fished) and harvest records from 2014-2022…By simply
multiplying the market price (which represents the minimum value anglers have
for the fishery, otherwise they would not book the trip), and the days fished
per year, a general economic value of fishery is established. To be clear, this represents a lower
bound, minimal level of valuation for the fishery, as this represents the
willingness-to-pay to fish in Louisiana.
Using this method, values of the fishery peak in 2018 at $95.37 million
and decline to 2022 at $90.25 million (a loss of $5.2 million).
“Overall these two
methods present a ‘bandwidth’ of economic values of the redfish fishery in
Louisiana. At best, the guided/charter
fishery has lost $5 million of its value during the current stock declines, and
more likely, it has lost $17.69 million dollars, with current
trends pointing to another $22 million decline over the next 5 years. [emphasis added, internal references omitted]”
That is not a trivial loss.
However, the Louisiana legislature—more particularly those members of
the legislature’s regulatory oversight committee representing the House of
Representatives, are willing to inflict such economic loss on the state and on
its guides and charter boat operators, in order to appease anglers’ rights organizations
such as CCA Louisiana who opposed the
Louisiana Department of Fish and Wildlife’s preferred management measures.
It seems a foolish and short-sighted approach to redfish
management, that will more than double the time it will take to return the red
drum stock to full health and sustainability, and also increases the uncertainty as
to whether the stock will reach the intended goal.
But then, focusing on “anglers’ rights,” rather than on the
health of the fish stocks, which is essential to maintaining the health of both
the recreational fishery and the recreational fishing industry, has always
seemed to be a foolish thing to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment