Rec & Commercial Fishing -Good Read

[sokinwet]

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"