Sunday, November 19, 2023

DECLINES IN REDFISH ABUNDANCE HURT RECREATIONAL INDUSTRY

 

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.

A recent report, prepared for the American Saltwater Guides Association by Dr. Ben Meadows, who is an expert in natural resources economics, a professor at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, and the principal of Ben Meadows Consulting LLC, examined the impact of Louisiana’s declining  redfish stock on the state’s recreational fishing industry, and found that it has caused, and will continue to cause, significant harm.

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