Commercial vs. Recreational Fisheries

[silverking]

Let's Compare Apples to Apples in our Fishery Statistics
By Rob Southwick
President, Southwick Associates

A recent editorial by Jerry Fraser, publisher of the commercial fishing industry news publication National Fisherman, caught my attention. The editorial, titled "NOAA Report Reaches to Compound the Interest and Rewards of Sport Fishing," downplayed statements by NOAA in a November press released regarding its annual Fisheries of the United States report. While making some worthwhile points about proper comparisons of commercial and recreational fishing's economic contributions, others were off-base, warranting a response in event readers outside of that publication's core audience take note.

Mr. Fraser is correct in saying the $5.3 billion in 2016 commercial landings do not account for the value created as raw fish landed by commercial harvesters moves through the economy. This is a good point and must be considered when comparing the economics associated with recreational and commercial fisheries. He correctly claims, though NOAA doesn't make the direct comparison, outsiders might erroneously compare the billions in commercial landings to the greater billions spent by recreational anglers, which would be an apples-to-oranges comparison.

So, let's take an apples-to-apples look. Such data are provided in NOAA's Fisheries Economics of the United States 2015 report, the latest source for fisheries economics insights. This report tells us in 2015 $5.2 billion in fish and shellfish landed dockside generated $52 billion in economic activity as it moved through the economy, exchanging hands between processors, distributors, wholesalers, retailers and restaurants. The economic effects associated with imported seafood are excluded. This is a multiplier of 10. Very respectable!

This same publication tells us U.S. saltwater anglers spent $28.7 billion annually. This is the amount spent at retail by anglers, which is not to be confused with their economic impact created as sportfishing tackle and travel dollars move through the economy. Much of the multiplier effect associated with recreational fishing could be said to occur prior to anglers' purchases as raw materials such as metals, resin and cork have already undergone value-added processes to produce fishing tackle. Even with anglers' lower multiplier of roughly two, their overall economic contribution of $63.4 billion remains greater than that of commercial fishing – which is especially notable given anglers take only a fraction of the total numbers and pounds of fish landed by the commercial sector (e.g., two percent of all domestic finfish are harvested recreationally, compared to 98 percent commercially) and anglers do not even pursue many of the same species targeted by our commercial friends.

The National Fisheries article states "there is no basis" for the value of the recreational catch. This is simply not true. NOAA spends considerable effort monitoring anglers' effort and catch, and in developing better data collection efforts just as they do for commercial fisheries. While the seafood industry has 'bottlenecks' in the industry, such as fish houses and other points, that allow for effective and feasible data collection and tracking, anglers do not have such bottlenecks. The nation's 9 million saltwater anglers begin and end their trips from countless public and private ramps, docks, backyards, beaches, roadside causeways and more. Monitoring all recreational landings and trips as is done for the commercial sector, while enviable, will never be feasible. NOAA therefore employs scientific surveys to determine catch, just as is done with household surveys by many other government agencies and private companies. While the recreational sector supports NOAA's ongoing efforts to develop even better recreational data, to claim there is no basis for recreational estimates is misleading at best.

Finally, a note of caution. Mr. Fraser concludes by implying there is no true economic impact from recreational fishing. He quotes a New Zealand researcher: "Counting [recreational] fishers' spending on groceries and restaurants during fishing trips as an economic impact of fishing… only makes sense if fishers would not have eaten anything if they had stayed home." This is a living-in-a-glass-house moment. If wild seafood were no longer was available, would we not still have plenty of food options available? Aquaculture continues to gain larger and larger shares of American's fish and shellfish diet. Only a fraction of most American's diets is comprised of wild and aquaculture seafood. Under Mr. Fraser's implied logic, one would have to wonder if there is truly any economic value to the commercial industry. I personally think the commercial seafood sector provides the U.S. with significant economic benefits, most of the time from healthy fisheries that do not compete with recreational fishing. As an above average purchaser of wild fish and shellfish products, I'd hate to see these options ever disappear from my menu. To make sure we have sustainable, healthy fisheries, let's be sure to engage in healthy, reasonable debate based on facts.

[fishdux]

FWC personnel are at the docks that I leave from doing surveys almost every day. They get length and weight of every fish that the fleet brings in along with information from the anglers who caught them. This is just one marina. You cant tell me that they dont have information on the recreational catch. They just refuse to use it.

[silverking]

Can you cite an example as to when they aren't using recreational catch data? The cobia changes just announced are a case where they did take into account input from recreational anglers who were concerned about declining numbers of ling.

Bear in mind, there is a difference between the FWC (state waters) and the feds (Gulf Council/NMFS).

[Steve Stinson]

I believe the FWC does attempt to increase the accuracy of their recreation fish data and consider the same in their management. Based on my experience, I only get approached by an FWC person regarding catch data about twice a year. At that time, they do not measure each fish, but rather ask me a series of questions about my day and my catch.

Unfortunately, they exclude tournament anglers from their data. This could be a vast increase in their input if they would include it. Last year at the NFGFC Steinhatchee tournament, I was approached by a FWC data collector. I began to answer their questions, then told them I had to hurry up or I would be late for my weigh-in. She tossed my partially completed data sheet and moved on, although I invited her to come to the weigh in and get data on each boat's catch.

- Steve Stinson

[Steve Stinson]

While we are on the subject - FWC held public meetings here in Tallahassee to get input on seatrout and redfish regulations from recreational anglers. I was surprised by the lack of participation when I went to the library in Tallahassee. Myself, Capt. Steve Hobbs, Capt. Pat McGriff, Capt. Mike McNamara from St. Marks and a few others were there, but not many.

FWC listened to everyone who wanted to speak and diligently took notes. There was agreement on some issues and differences on others. We will see what happens.

- Steve Stinson

[homboyfsu]

I got a question for everyone. Do you think that Commercial fishing will continue to last in the next decade? We are losing some species of fish right now ex. salmon. I know the oceans are large but if we keep taking and not putting back ( like some ethical sport fishermen) will the wild population continue to thrive? I can remember a time in my life time where I seen people bring back coolers full of spotted trout. Now we have more stricter regulations for these fish. Commercial fishing does not have some of the Sport Fishing regulations but if the did there would be a whole lot of dead fishing in the oceans. I been on a party boat where we where throwing back under sizes, gut hooked fish, or because of them being out of seasons.

[FishWithChris]

I got a question for everyone. Do you think that Commercial fishing will continue to last in the next decade? We are losing some species of fish right now ex. salmon. I know the oceans are large but if we keep taking and not putting back ( like some ethical sport fishermen) will the wild population continue to thrive? I can remember a time in my life time where I seen people bring back coolers full of spotted trout. Now we have more stricter regulations for these fish. Commercial fishing does not have some of the Sport Fishing regulations but if the did there would be a whole lot of dead fishing in the oceans. I been on a party boat where we where throwing back under sizes, gut hooked fish, or because of them being out of seasons.

Great question - I listened to a podcast on my drive to MS yesterday from BBC Radio 4 - "Costing the Earth: Fish Farms of the Future" and they spoke directly on protein resources and sustainability of it by utilizing fish farming (Tilapia, Salmon, etc...). One of the arguments was the differences of benefits/risks of farming in singular tanks with massive filtration systems or open water farming with a pass-through net system in the ocean. Another part of the conversation focused on the sale of that protein to general consumers and how it is marketed (historically and to the future).

Give it a listen.