Cutthroat Trout - Colorado Aquaculture Association

The official web resource of the Colorado Aquaculture Association

Colorado State University to Lead Effort to Quantify Economic Contribution of Recreational Fish Producers

by CSU Agricultural & Resource Economics Team

A team of researchers at Colorado State University and several other institutions has been awarded a grant by the Western Regional Aquaculture Center to document the economic contribution of the suppliers of recreational fish in the Western United States. Dr. Craig Bond, Assistant Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at CSU, will lead the effort.

Contributions of an industry to a local or regional economy are typically measured by tracing the flows of spending between the firms in an industry and the rest of the economy. The linkages between these industries, and the share of local versus non-local purchases, interact to create an overall industry contribution to regional economies. Often, these results are reported in the form of “multipliers.” For example, an output multiplier of 1.62 for an industry in a particular economy implies that for every dollar of sales, an additional $0.62 of sales is generated elsewhere in that economy.

To most accurately trace these spending flows, the research team plans to collect primary data from the supplying producers themselves using a survey. The survey will include production data by species and size, volume of production and sales, employment and wage data, and perhaps most importantly, spending on inputs (including materials, machinery, etc.). This information will be used with a regional input-output model across the twelve-state Western region to estimate total economic contributions of the industry. In accordance with Colorado State University regulations, information for individual firms will be kept private and confidential, and no results will be published that allows identification of specific operations.

The research team is currently developing the survey instrument and conducting focus groups in order to refine and improve upon the current version of the survey. A first mailing of the survey is planned for early February. As the accuracy and representativeness of the results critically depend on producer participation, the research team would like to invite producers to visit an informational website at dare.colostate.edu/wracimpact.html, and/or to contact Dr. Bond at 970-491-6951 or craig.bond@colostate.edu with any questions.

The Many Values of Recreational Fishing

by John G. Nickum, Senior Biologist and
Resource Philosopher

The direct and indirect economic benefits of recreational fishing have been documented repeatedly, generally by states and federal agencies anxious to show the benefits of their hatchery and management programs. In contrast, various extreme environmental groups have claimed that recreational fishing and the management programs that encourage fishing are harmful to native fishes and natural ecosystems. Hatchery programs come in for special criticism by such environmental purists. But, is this all there is to the story, and what about the roles of the private sector in recreational fishing? No, there is much more to the story. [Isn’t that typical of such controversies?]

Various government agencies have calculated economic benefits from recreational fishing, especially those supported by propagation programs, as more than $150 in direct and indirect economic activities for every dollar spent for hatchery production at government operated facilities. Some have argued that certain costs, such as the cost of the physical facilities, or even some operational costs, were not calculated properly in these studies. However, even if additional allowances were made for such costs, the economic benefits of propagated fishes used to support recreational fishing are very large. Although these same government agencies have attempted to compare costs of production at public hatcheries with costs at privately owned hatcheries, there have been no studies of which I am aware to analyze the economic benefits of recreational fisheries supported partly or wholly by private sector aquaculture. I am confident that the results would show very positive benefits. Such studies clearly are needed; however, I suggest that we should not restrict our cost-benefit analyses to economic factors alone. There are many benefits to recreational fisheries in addition to dollars.

The benefits from recreational fisheries include environmental benefits, social benefits, and psychological benefits. Fishing is “good for the soul”. For the most part, fish live in beautiful places, so it is hard to be tense and angry in the relaxing world of ponds, lakes, streams, and rivers. Fishing also helps urban dwellers, who increasingly are separated from nature and even the managed ecosystems (farms and ranches) that supply their food. Fishing helps them to reconnect with nature and to understand their dependence on biological systems. Richard Louv’s recent book, Last Child in the Woods, provides a very interesting look at the “nature deficit disorder” and the problems associated with youngsters’ loss of free time playing and exploring nature. Recreational fishing has been shown to be valuable in getting kids out of the house, away from TV and computer games, and back in touch with nature.

“We protect that which we value”. Recreational fishing adds greatly to the value of aquatic ecosystems. In the absence of fisheries, many people (I would argue a large majority) lose interest in aquatic ecosystems and don’t really care if these systems are polluted, dewatered, or used to just transport wastes. When fisheries are involved, these same people will fight for their waters. Thus, all aquatic species, including imperiled species, benefit from the better water quality and greater quantities required to maintain recreational fisheries.

In a recent conversation with H. Dale Hall, the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale stated his belief that fish farmers need to start telling the world about the benefits that they and their farms bring to aquatic resources. Pond systems provide habitats for a variety of species in addition to those being reared there. Admittedly, some of these uninvited “guests” (free-loaders) create problems for fish farmers, but as long as they are there, take credit for the habitats provided. Dale mentioned that many people only think of fish farmers in terms of producing food and the benefits to recreation need to be publicized. Get out there and toot your horn!

Fish farmers also need to become informed about potential criticisms. The record is clear that fish farmers have not been the primary vector for introducing non-native fishes and disease agents of fish; yet, there are many, particularly in the extreme environmental groups, who contend that fish farmers are the major culprits for introducing “alien invasives”. Don’t wait for the criticisms to come to you; put out the positive messages first.

A current fad among extreme “greens”, and some resource managers, revolves around genetic purity. The fish produced by the private sector, and many public hatcheries also, are perceived to be less than “pure”. This begs the question, “Who gets to decide what is pure?” In North America, few ecosystems have existed in their present state for more than a few thousand years. Chance events determined what was there in the first place and what has been able to colonize new areas since the final retreat of continental ice sheets. Change has been the primary “constant” over time since the ice sheets. Relatively few fish populations have been isolated long enough to become truly “pure” and even then, it is still the decision of someone considered to be a “competent authority” as to what is “pure.” In most situations, fear that fish from fish farms are “domesticated” and “genetically impure” is not supported by rigorous research. Once again, aquaculturists should be proactive and proclaim loudly the quality of their fish and the positive effects of their operations rather than waiting for critics to exaggerate and/or invent problems that have little or no basis in reality.

A study of the economic benefits of private sector aquaculture to recreational fishing has been proposed recently. Such a study is needed and certainly should be done; but don’t limit reviews of private sector aquaculture and recreational fisheries to economic considerations. Look at all the benefits. And in the few situations where there are problems, identify the nature of those problems and take steps to correct them. All-in-all, I predict that the private sector fish farming will be shown to be extremely beneficial to recreational fishing, the environment, and society in general.

• Home •