Economic impact of fish limits studied

Economic impact of fish limits studied

Report comes as Congress revisits catch and size rules

By MOLLY MURRAY • The News Journal • July 24, 2009

Capt. Paul Eidman knows his fishing charter customers shop locally, judging by the cups of coffee, bag lunches and fishing tackle he sees them bring along on saltwater fly fishing trips.


Fish, and lots of them, "help to run the waterfront economy," said Eidman, who runs his Reel Therapy Charters out of central New Jersey.
Eidman said the long-term economic gains of managing fish stocks far outweigh the short-term losses that come with strict catch and size limits.

The Pew Environmental Foundation found the same thing in a report issued Thursday that looks at the long-term economic impact of fisheries management, as applied under existing federal laws that set strict time limits of 10 years for fish stocks managed in regional recovery plans.

The report comes as Congress is considering the Sustainable Fishing Act of 2009 -- a proposal to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation & Management Act and allow for more flexibility for certain overfished species.

The concern among bill sponsors is that the 10-year fixed timeline for fish conservation management plans may cause economic hardships in some fishing communities.
The Pew study doesn't dispute the possibility of short-term economic fallout.

Instead, said Lee Crockett, director of Federal Fisheries Policy for the Pew Environmental Group, they decided to look at the flip side of the issue and assess the long-term economic benefit when fish stocks recover for mid-Atlantic states from New York to North Carolina.

Report author John Gates, professor emeritus in the Department of Economics at the University of Rhode Island, looked at four key mid-Atlantic species that are being managed with recovery plans: summer flounder, bluefish, black sea bass and butterfish.
Gates found that once stocks recover, commercial fish landings would increase 48 percent and recreational landings would rise 24 percent.

But the bigger impact is financial -- a $33.6 million direct annual impact for commercial fishermen and an increase in the value of recreational fishing to $536 million a year.

(2 of 2)

To Eidman, this translates into more fish, more charters, a better fishing experience for his customers and more repeat busines.


Plus, he said, there is the spinoff benefit to local businesses from motels to restaurants to retail stores.
Much of the push for a change in the time frame comes from anglers in New Jersey and New York.

Fishermen in Delaware, while perhaps not enthused about increase catch and bag limits designed to meet the management goals of species such as summer flounder, haven't been as vocal.
Craig Shirey, acting state fisheries administrator, said one reason is that Delaware routinely has met quota requirements for such species.

"We've been able to stay within or very close to our quotas," he said. "I think we're seeing some gains."
Much of the opposition to the timeline for summer flounder is coming in states that exceeded their quotas and have had to take dramatic steps to cut back harvests, he said.

Shirey said he has no doubt that a strong fish syock can have a dramatic impact on the economy.
"You only have to go down to Mispillion or Bowers ... when the weakfish were so abundant," he said. "Unfortunately, we might not have realized it at the time" or there may have been a sense that it would continue.

Unless you make cuts, "you kill 'em as fast as they come back," Crockett said.

Spread the recovery over too long a period and you end up with a period of continued decline, said Carl Safina, president of the Blue Ocean Institute. "You simply cannot have good fishing if the fish don't recover."