Quote:
Originally posted by MakoMike
Spence & John,
Yes, recreational fishing for stiped bass generates more economic activity than commercial fishing. OTOH the recreational catch of stripers is more than double the commercial catch. If we are going to analyze it in strictly economic terms we have to measure economic acitivty per pound of fish, or something similar.
...snip...
No one knows what the marginal econonomic aciticty will be for an additonal pound of stripes caught by either sector. So any speculating that increasing the recreational catch would be economically more beneficial than leaving the current catch with the commercials is just pure B.S. [/B]
|
I don't think anyone here ever speculated that there was a linear relationship between the rec quota and revenue generation. For sure there is a lower cut off where the rec industry would go entirely underground. There is also a high cut off where the rec market is maxed. The key here isn't increasing rec quotas, it's maintaining a healthy species to ensure the rec industry can be sustained. It's quite possible that max rec revenue would require lower rec quotas to be sustainable. I would have no issue with that.
If recs were near or at their max revenue capacity, and they were consuming a minority of the fish things may be different. But it's clear that the recs already consume the majority of the fish. So what's the economic impact of allowing a commercial harvest that must be tightly regulated to mitigate the potential risk?
To me it appears that the economic impact of commercial striper fishing is minimal and doesn't represent a significant value justification to warrant a commercial catch which has the potential to upset the recreational benefits.
-spence
Threaded Mode