This is one of the better writings on the rec. vs commercial arguement that I've read. I asked the writer, a very well spoken fellow from OZ with experience in fisheries management as well as rec./game fishing, for permission to post this so that all could perhaps learn a little about the issues fishery managment. Worth the read.

" There are a broad range of issues involved in fisheries management.
its inevitable that each user group thinks up approaches that it sees as giving it the biggest share with the most justification.

a common thread is that rec fishers wish commercial fishing to stop and leave the fish for them because the fish are a public resource.

- problem is ..........rec fishers aren't the general public.
- they are part of the general public.
- when it comes to individual fish species the rec fishers for that species are typically a very small percentage of the general public.

Gov't has to balance the level of access to a resource between:-
- those who want to catch it for themselves & have a right of access
- the right of access of those who either don't have the desire or opportunity to catch it for themselves
- the public benefit achieved in trade of fish.

in this latter issue a major consideration is the effect of the different recreational & commercial fisheries on the balance of trade.
- recreational fisheries are nett importers of commodities & imports reduce the value of the domestic dollar.
- commercial fisheries are nett exporters & increase the value of the domestic dollar.
- Gov't income per dollar per sector is higher in the commercial fisheries than the recreational fisheries.( the FTE multiplier effect of job creation , both upstream & downstream of the fishing activity itself is higher ).
- The impact on regional economies is very beneficial from the commercial fisheries............
- The commercial fisheries are typically regionally based, where opportunities for alternative employment are limited.
- the recreational fisheries are urban based , where the opportunities for alternative employment are high.
- recreational fisheries are a discretionary expenditure.
ie you can ban recreational fishing & the nett impact on the economy is nil or in fact beneficial ( depending on the import level of the alternative recreational activity).
ie
Tackle stores etc go to the wall , but the golf, tennis, shooting sales go up.
- whereas banning commercial fishing has a negative impact on the domestic economy.

OK
everyone getting a rational picture of their place in the scheme of things here.

Now lets look at why Gov't makes the sorts of decisions it does on resource sharing .

The main driver here is Administrative Law principles.
Gov't has no head of power to just take one person's economic situation & give it to another.
If Gov't does that for the sole purpose of redistributing wealth it has to compensate.
Soooooo..........in the fisheries world things start from a state of low knowledge about the resource & an economic benefit from its harvest.
Gov't does not have any justification to limit access unless it has data to identify the risk to sustainability of the resource.
ie
Everyone has open access
- This is called " The Tragedy of the Commons".

- As the resource is harvested in greater numbers the science generates more information on the resource.
Note that the level of information lags behind the harvest .........it does not precede the harvest & it cannot precede the harvest because research dollars are typically proportional to the value of the harvest.

We get to a point where Govt can assess the status of the resource & the resource status goes from:-
- undeveloped
- underdeveloped
- moderately developed
- fully developed
to
- growth overfished.
&
- sustainability overfished

Overfished does not automatically mean that the harvest is not sustainable.
the resource typically goes thru a stage where there are still plenty of fish but the average size has declined to the point where the value of the fish harvest is lower than it would be if the resource was managed at a higher average size and harvest volume for the same number of individuals.

Gov't can only really step in & manage the resource with restricted access when a resource reaches ( or approaches ) fully fished status.
Up to then access is open access.
when Gov't steps in it must respond within the Administrative Law principles.
It cannot redistribute relative wealth between different sectors by whim.
It assesses the HISTORICAL level of harvest of the different sectors & must provide a proportionate response in its resource management to those sectors.

I Hope this helps explain how the access to fish species is administered by Gov't and why.
There are a range of different administrative Law reasons & economic reasons that are balanced in the decisions made.

Any adjustments to the resource share of the different sectors basically occurs "on market" after allocation is undertaken.
ie
You want a bigger slice of the pie than you had historically..........you pay for it.............and fundamentally , only, if there is someone who voluntarily wants to sell their share.

Soooooo..........
Whinging about which sector caused the problem or not is a waste of breath & internet capacity.
Its an outcome of the Administrative Law situation & the "Tragedy of the Commons" ..............
- the response is what Gov't can do within the law.
- the timing of the response is dependent on the level of information available to Gov't to justify its actions.
The primary justification for restriction of access from
open" access is when a resource reaches or approaches
- maximum economic yield
- maximum sustainable yield
(or minimum sustainable stocks).

A typical Management Target is to maintain resource stocks at 40% of their unexploited biomass .

A domestic Gov't can only control its domestic situation , it has no mandate to control the international situation.
Just as there are different views of adequate resource share between different domestic user groups there are different views between countries wanting a share of international highly migratory fish species in the interests of their own economy.
This is the most difficult situation to manage as more advanced countries start to implement harvest controls in their area , other countries focus on increasing their share of the international access. They tend to stay outside the international Management forums until they have escalated their activity level to what they want & then reluctantly enter the international forms to provide agreement on overall management of the resource.

What has happened has happened . Whinging about what has happened is a waste of time & effort.
The focus needs to be on what you do to manage the impact on your sector and the mortalities of your sector that are attributed to your share of resource access to maximise the level of access you have to that resource in the way you want to access it.
Fail to engage with Govt & provide certainty in the information Gov't uses to make its decisions on your sector & they simply make those decisions without you.

Messy & complicated.......... Hey.
but thats the way it works & the fundamentals of why it works that way"

The problem with this is the fact it looks at ALL commercial fisheries as one. This is simply not the case. There are fish out there that the majority of fishing is done commercially. You take these fish out of the equation and yes there may be some regional economic downturn among the commercials only. If you take Fluke or Striped Bass then that would certainly skew the numbers.

Here in NY, commercial Bass fishermen do not make a living off these fish. If you shut down that commercial fishery then they just focus on another fish. If you shut down the recreational bass fishery then tackle shops go out of business. Lure builders suffer. Charter and party boats suffer greatly. If there was a bass shut down then recs would not be going out to play tennis, they are going to fish. Then the rec. Fluke fishery takes a massive hit, or the Blackfish, etc..

What you posted was a black and white opinion. The fisheries are not black and white, they are grey. All of them. They work off each other and if one goes down they all get hit.

While your posts does have some valid points, I can't say I really agree with it as a whole.

Not from a fishermans standpoint, but from a business perspective, that is one of the most ridiculous commentaries I have ever read. I'd be thrown out of work if I came to a meeting with those conclusions.

example -
- recreational fisheries are a discretionary expenditure.
ie you can ban recreational fishing & the nett impact on the economy is nil or in fact beneficial ( depending on the import level of the alternative recreational activity).

FACT - As a recreational fisherman and boat owner - I pump over 5K a year into the Rhode Island economy for slip, gas, repairs, eels, tackle, etc. Thats a conservative estimate! So this "expert" concludes that if you ban rec fishing the impact will be minimal? How many boat yards, mechanics, staff, tackle, bait (bait includes commericial fisherman WHO FISH FOR EELS/BUNKER/CLams/CRabs, etc!) would dry up immediately in a state like RI that has over 10% unemployment! Thats just one absurd point, I wont bother about the rest. I have nothing against comms, but that is the worst argument I have ever heard on any topic.

" but that is the worst argument I have ever heard on any topic."
Guess you've never read any of your arguments on the political forum! :-)

sokin...... and i just though u was full of shi t .i like your style..... it is what it is. if you dont like it too bad.rec guys won't beleave thatand most rec guys would never let a 40lber go" no balls ". but if i had my way it would be slot size for rec and comm 1 per day24 to 34in for rec and 20per day from 34to44" for the comm. we all know the big fish are females take a pic and let it go ,all of us .. you got to learn to let them live and breed.

This article is so full of holes it is very hard to take seriously. Main issue is it is talking about all fisheries as if they were one and the same. This is especially true with his econimic statement on balance of trade. Guy needs to take some business courses.

"- problem is ..........rec fishers aren't the general public.
- they are part of the general public.
- when it comes to individual fish species the rec fishers for that species are typically a very small percentage of the general public."

Partly true but very short sighted in that the economic gain for certain types of fish are far greater due to the money recreational fishermen are willing to spend.

"- The commercial fisheries are typically regionally based, where opportunities for alternative employment are limited.
- the recreational fisheries are urban based , where the opportunities for alternative employment are high.
- recreational fisheries are a discretionary expenditure."

I guess rec fisherman don't have cars and aren't willing to drive to the middle of no where to fish. Those regional fisherman seem to be making a lot of money from the recs coming to their area. From the trade balance stand point, he is forgetting that many foreigners come to America to fish. When the fishing sucks here many won't stop fishing, they will just leave the country and spend their money in other counteries.

Just about the entire freshwater fishery is maintained to support recreational fisherman. Why is that? Because the economic gain and benefit to the public is far greater if we manage this from a recreational stand point. Same is true for hunting. While both were a commercial resource historically there was no obligation to continue this and we didn't.

The real point is the narrow thinking that it is only commercial fishing if the money comes directly from the sale of the fish. From a true economic standpoint what we call recreational fishing, including charter boats, is commercial fishing.

Sokinwet, your friend (and you as well as many others both commercial and recreational) doesn't get it.

The argument for gamefish status is NOT an economic one. Very clearly the maximum economic benefit of any fishery includes commercial use. No argument there.

The argument for gamefish status is a constitutional one. The constitution says nothing about managing fisheries for maximal economic yield. Rather, it establishes a government for the sole purpose of protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Gamefish status involves our right to pursue happiness.

Some people find happiness catching (or cooking) and selling bass for profit.
Some people find happiness paying for and eating bass at $17.50 a lb.
Some people find happiness fishing for striped bass recreationally.
Most people (i.e., the general public) could care less either way.
When conflict in the pursuit of happiness develops, it is resolved democratically.

Economic activity is not the sole determinant of happiness (unless you feel the economy will collapse when bass become gamefish).

Good fishery management would insure maximal happiness from use of the resource, not maximal economic yield. That, however, is not the goal of current fishery management. Consequently the millions of recreational anglers who need more abundant striped bass to be happy are having their rights trampled and justly should try to change the law to correct it. If enough of them agree, it will get changed :).

Australia also has a luxury tax on everything fishing related.

Its a rich person's sport per se.

Very different market than here.

This is what we should all be worried about:

Destroy the forage fish, destroy every other fishery rec and commercial.

Sitting off the beach a few miles from Wellfleet to Truro

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t304/kal9wt/IMG_0294.jpg