Subject: Re: The Fishing Net - Commercial Fishing Homepage

From: [email-masked] (Mark Langille)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 02:15:28 GMT

[email-masked] (Longrigger) wrote:

>I got an idea, why don't you chart the economic income produced by
>recreational fishermen per pound of tuna (100 bucks) vs average yellowfin
>tuna price sold by Purse Seiners for catfood (45 cents) and then go into a
>long discussion about the economic merits of commercial fishing.
>Longrigger
Why dont you compare other completely different fisheries while you
are at it.  Lets see rec trout fishing ($0 per pound)  to the
commercial scallop($7-10+ per pound) and lobster($3-5+ per pound)
fisheries of Nova Scotia?

I dont want to get into an arguement about what is more important
economically, but the reason for the commercial fishery is as a form
of employement where rec fishing is a for of relaxation.  If you are
getting $100 per pound for rec fishing I think you might consider this
commercial fishing.

By the way the commercial tuna fishery in Nova Scotia sells yellow and
bluefin tuna for $2 - 50+ per pound.  The reason seiners get such a
low price is because the fish is of lower quality.  If the same fish
were caught by rec fishermen I dont think they would be worth any
more.
********************************************
Mark Langille  ([email-masked])
Calgary, AB
Canada
********************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Mark Langille)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 02:23:09 GMT

[email-masked] (Paulyfish) wrote:

>Hi
>I am recreational angler/writer in NJ
>I would like to find a comm.fisherman that is online and fishes for
>Menhaden (Bunker) in Raritan Bay NJ for Interview...can you help?
>Paul
I have posted your question under the "Information Requested" section
of The Fishing Net.  I will also keep my eye out for any info that can
help.  Hope this helps you.
********************************************
Mark Langille  ([email-masked])
Calgary, AB
Canada
********************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (John H. Kim)
Date: 1 Nov 1995 16:54:14 -0500

>getting $100 per pound for rec fishing I think you might consider this

He's talking about the economic activity generated per pound of fish
killed, not how much it's sold for.  Recreational fishing generates
jobs too - tackle manufacturers, bait resellers, charters, etc.
Puerto Rico did a little math and figured out recreational fishing was
injecting hundreds of dollars per pound of marlin into the local
economy while commercial fishing gave less than $10/lb.  Guess which
fishery they closed.  The only U.S. study I've seen comparing this
type of economic impact was by NMFS and was obviously erroneous
(recreational fishing ended up a *cheaper* way to catch fish than
commercial fishing)

The particular incident he's referring to was the White Dove off
Virginia several years ago.  If I remember correctly, it scooped up
several hundred tons of yellowfin tuna, wiping out the recreational
charter fishery for yellowfin for the year.  The fish were sold for an
average of 45 cents/lb.  From previous years, the income these fish
had provided the affected businesses (charters, tackle, hotels, etc.)
gave a figure around $100/lb.  I don't wish to argue this either, as I
haven't seen where they got these figures.  I'm just posting this as a
FYI.  I don't think the "commercial fishing provides jobs" argument
works.

-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
John H. Kim        "A common mistake that people make when trying to design
[email-masked]       something completely foolproof is to underestimate the
[email-masked]  ingenuity of complete fools." -- Douglas Adams

---

From: [email-masked] (Danny Harvison)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 19:32:00 MST

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mark Langille) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Mark Langille)
>Subject: Re: The Fishing Net - Commercial Fishing Homepage
>Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 02:15:28 GMT

>fisheries of Nova Scotia?
Why don't you check the latest state of affairs in Nova Scotia. I saw a news 
report a few months ago on this. The fishermen are in dire straits and boats 
are rotting at anchor. The reason? Commercial fishermen did what they do 
best. They had depleted the fish stocks completely and there was nothing 
left to catch! No surprise to me. I have seen gillnets loaded with barracuda 
that have no commercial value. The result? Several square miles of floating 
bycatch. It was disgusting.

>were caught by rec fishermen I dont think they would be worth any
You are exposing your ignorance. Yellowfin tuna is delicious. I eat it sashimi 
style as long as I can keep it fresh. The rest is great on the grill. Its a 
real bummer to see a purse seiner take thousands of fish while I only want two
or three to eat. 
>Mark Langille  
([email-masked])>Calgary, AB

---

From: [email-masked] (Branstettr)
Date: 2 Nov 1995 10:09:09 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (John H. Kim)

>jobs too - tackle manufacturers, bait resellers, charters, etc.

However, in this case, the entire infra-structure of the recreational
catch and cost was evaluated (hotels, restaurants, airline tickets, night
life, etc.)  whereas the commercial economics included only the ex-vessel
price of the fish.  

I do not doubt that the dollar per pound for this type of activity is
greater; a recreational fisher on a vacation is going to drop dollars into
the local economy, whereas a commercial fisher is trying to limit his
expenses.

On the other hand, this hundreds of dollars per fish recreational vs. a
few dollars per fish commercial is just as biased.  How about the money
flow generated by the commercial fisher?  ice for the boat, boat repair,
groceries, fuel, local housing, insurance, car sales, etc.  These also
create an infrastructure of jobs and sales that boost local economies.  

> The only U.S. study I've seen comparing this

Oh, because it came out that recreational wasn't the "best" it must be an
erroneous survey?  That sounds much like the often heard comment that
landings data indicating the greater impact of recreational catch on
stocks than commercial catch are erroneous because of the survey
technique.  (I recently posted a note on landings by recreational vs
commercial on another newsgroup, noting that recreational catches far
exceeded commercial catches for most popular fish species, and the major
comment that came back was "well, we know how poor the recreational
estimates are; I'm sure they're wrong!"  Yes, they probably were wrong;
they probably underestimated the actual catch.

In most fisheries, recreational catch is much larger than commercial catch
simply because of the regulatory regimes (bag limits vs quotas).  Although
a bag limit is a technique used to produce a total allowable catch (TAC),
it depends on an estimate of effort.  It is impossible to accurate predict
how many recreational fishermen will catch fish thus a bag limit may
exceed the TAC goal.  On the other hand, the commercial quota is filled,
and the fishery closed; there is a much greater level of control here.

Back to the point, considering the above comments, that recreational was
less important it might not be accurate, but it may not be that far off.  

Steve Branstetter

---

From: [email-masked] (Hal Geiger)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 20:48:19 GMT

>long discussion about the economic merits of commercial fishing.
Assuming your figures are correct, why do you think the COST of
catching a pound of tuna ($100) in the sport fishery should be should
be compared to the REVENUE ($0.45) in a commercial fishery?  This
would only lead to a muddled discussion about the economic merits of
either fishery.  
                                                            ---Hal

---

From: [email-masked] (Keith Hamburger)
Date: 3 Nov 1995 14:46:04 GMT

Hal Geiger ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] (Longrigger) wrote:

: >I got an idea, why don't you chart the economic income produced by
: >recreational fishermen per pound of tuna (100 bucks) vs average yellowfin
: >tuna price sold by Purse Seiners for catfood (45 cents) and then go into a
: >long discussion about the economic merits of commercial fishing.
: >Longrigger
: Assuming your figures are correct, why do you think the COST of
: catching a pound of tuna ($100) in the sport fishery should be should
: be compared to the REVENUE ($0.45) in a commercial fishery?  This
: would only lead to a muddled discussion about the economic merits of
: either fishery.  
:                                                             ---Hal   
Because, assuming that the fish is not being sold at a loss, the revenue
is the highest dollar figure available to be used for economic impact.
If you just used what was spent to catch the fish and no one was going
broke in the process, it would be less than the revenue.

Keith

---

From: [email-masked] (Dave A. Prochnow)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95 17:53:19 GMT

>were caught by rec fishermen I dont think they would be 
worth any

============================================================
	What Mark is saying, I believe, is that the tuna 
*COSTS* him $100 per pound, this money going into the local 
economy in many ways.  He's not selling it.  
	I know that the kingfish that I catch here on the 
Texas Gulf Coast, when all the costs are factored in (boat, 
fuel, bait, tackle, beer, flowers for my bride, etc.), 
probably cost me in the same $100/lb. range.  But hey!  I'm 
doing this for FUN, and everyone knows that "it ain't cheap 
having fun!"
	
	Dave
============================================================

---

From: [email-masked] (Ken Durham)
Date: 3 Nov 1995 19:30:40 GMT

If you are considering employment of commercial fisherman as a factor
in this discussion, consider that hook and pole fishing for tuna or other
species would result in more jobs than purse seins, drag nets, roller nets,
or other highly efficient methods. Do you want to kill fish or provide
employment?

Just a thought. Ken

---

From: [email-masked] (Cedro Wooley)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 1995 23:43:47 GMT

OK, Men!

For a definative analysis of what's happening in the commercial
fishing industry (excluding BassMaster tournaments,) read the November
issue of National Geographic. If their report doesn't open your eyes
nothing will...

cw

--
Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.

---

From: [email-masked] (Greg Pavlov)
Date: 6 Nov 1995 14:42:12 GMT

>jobs too - tackle manufacturers, bait resellers, charters, etc.

 Well, that's part of the point: the numbers are manipulated.  Anything that
 may even remotely connect with recreational fishing costs are thrown in to
 calculate "cost per pound" for rereational fishing.  This is then compared to
 cost per pound at the dock paid to a commercial fisherman, i.e., "how much
 it is sold for."  In the former case, the value of the entire infrastructure
 ans support costs are thrown in - no matter how applicable they may be - 
 while in the latter only the cost of the raw goods is included.  

 greg pavlov
 [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Greg Pavlov)
Date: 6 Nov 1995 15:31:47 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Keith Hamburger) writes:
>: be compared to the REVENUE ($0.45) in a commercial fishery? 
>:                                                             ---Hal   
 But that conveniently ignores the fact that most of the ultimate economic
 value of commercial fishing accrues after the fish are caught while the 
 economic value of recreational fishing is almost completely accrued before
 the fish are caught.  So the PR folks for the recreational fishing industry
 ignore it.  It would be similar to calculating the value of the food industry
 on the basis of what we pay farmers.  It would then be easy to "prove" that
 we should dispense with farming altogether, import all of our food, and con-
 vert all of our farmland to golf courses.  Because, after all, a set of golf
 clubs cost a heck of a lot more than a bushel of corn. 

 greg pavlov
 [email-masked]

---

From: jokim@ (John H. Kim)
Date: 6 Nov 1995 17:35:01 GMT

Greg Pavlov <[email-masked]> wrote:

> But that conveniently ignores the fact that most of the ultimate
> economic value of commercial fishing accrues after the fish are
> caught while the economic value of recreational fishing is almost
> completely accrued before the fish are caught.  So the PR folks for
> the recreational fishing industry ignore it.  It would be similar to

Before or after shouldn't matter so long as you account for it.
I should point out that the only NMFS (the folks in charge of
maintaining the U.S.'s fisheries) study I've seen on this did quite
the opposite of what you're claiming - in calculating economic impact,
it focused on wages paid to fishermen and how much the fish were sold
for.  It did not cover cost of boats, fuel, housing/lodging, etc.,
saying these were secondary effects, not primary economic impact.
i.e. it ignored most of what happens before the fish are caught and
concentrated on what happened after.  By your definition (which I
agree with) this unfairly favored the commercial industry.

> calculating the value of the food industry on the basis of what we
> pay farmers.  It would then be easy to "prove" that we should
> dispense with farming altogether, import all of our food, and con-
> vert all of our farmland to golf courses.  Because, after all, a set
> of golf clubs cost a heck of a lot more than a bushel of corn.

Your farming example works because you're using the cost at one data
point (the way things are now) to project cost for an entirely
different situation (if we were to convert all our farmland to golf
courses).  If the food produced by farming were really important
(which it is), the cost of food would far exceed that of golf clubs
well before you reached the point of 100% golf courses.  (And just so
you a-free-market-will-solve-everything folks don't get too cocky,
whether this would allow for enough farmland to feed everyone is
questionable, since the set of people who buy food and the set of
golfers are different, both in numbers and wealth.)

For small changes in allocation of land or fish catches, using the
current economic impact is valid.  For large changes, you've changed
the playing field enough that the economic impact per acre of land
or pound of fish will have changed, warranting reassessment.

In this respect, I think it's telling that the National Geographic
article says that commercial catches are way down, yet prices have
remained the same.
-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
John H. Kim        "A common mistake that people make when trying to design
[email-masked]       something completely foolproof is to underestimate the
[email-masked]  ingenuity of complete fools." -- Douglas Adams

---

From: [email-masked] (Greg Pavlov)
Date: 7 Nov 1995 14:50:36 GMT

>Before or after shouldn't matter so long as you account for it.
 Precisely.  And when the recreational fishing industry throws out numbers
 such as $100/lb for recreational catch vs. $.45 for commercial catch, it is
 very clear that they do not.

---

From: jokim@ (John H. Kim)
Date: 7 Nov 1995 15:21:45 GMT

> while in the latter only the cost of the raw goods is included.  

Hold on a sec.  The whole point to commercial fishing is to make
money.  Since the only way they make money is by selling fish, by
definition their infrastructure and support costs per pound of fish
cannot exceed the price they sell the fish for.  Otherwise they would
soon be out of business.

With recreational fishing, the point is to have fun.  People will put
as much money into infrastructure and support costs to achieve that
fun, regardless of how much the fish is worth to them as food.  As I
said, I haven't seen how they arrived at the $100/lb figure so I won't
defend it, but my own high school experience says about $5/lb for
party-boat charters alone (high school budget).  This is for a mix of
tuna and yellowtail fishing off Southern Calif.  Add cost of tackle,
travel and lodging, or a boat and fuel and I can easily see it being
in the tens of dollars per pound.
-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
John H. Kim        "A common mistake that people make when trying to design
[email-masked]       something completely foolproof is to underestimate the
[email-masked]  ingenuity of complete fools." -- Douglas Adams