Rec & Commercial Fishing -Good Read

[MikeToole]

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.

[numbskull]

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 .

[likwid]

Australia also has a luxury tax on everything fishing related.

Its a rich person's sport per se.

Very different market than here.

[Typhoon]

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