I've seen a number of reports and studies like that. Here's a recent one from British Columbia - http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Files/0c425...2012Edition.pdf

In BC, recreational fishing is estimated to contribute $325.7M dollars out of an annual $667.4M total (including aquaculture). So about 50% of the total economic impact there is rec. Similar to us, rec. generates that proportion of economic impact with <15% of the catch (sometimes much less, depending on species). 85/15 = 5.6x the resource allocation to generate approximately the same economic impact. So for every pound of fish that gets move from commercial to recreational quotas can be argued to generate 5.6x the $'s that same pound of fish would have otherwise.

My goal is to put a face on this to show that the revenue generated goes to normal, middle class folks. My reason for focussing on the economics is that the commercial lobby likes to make the argument that shifts of quota are costing jobs "just" to generate entertainment for the recs. However, the reality is it costs jobs in one sector but creates jobs in another AND it generates entertainment for the recreational fisher. The economic argument is KEY since asking for changes in allocation is not simply the recreational sector being "greedy" for our recreation, it's about generating the greatest economic impact from a public resource. Putting a face on those who benefit from the economic impacts (e.g. the guides, hotel owners, marinas, boat builders, tackle shops etc) is intended to show that the economic impacts benefit real people with real jobs. E.g. it's not about me or you wanting to catch more fish, it's about keeping people like Mystical Legends Phil, Bob, Superfly, Todd, the people at Clackacraft, Willie, Lavro etc. gainfully employed. A side benefit of better management and more sensible allocations is the extra fun we and our kids get to have fishing.

So - guides and others on the site who earn a living (or partial living) from this industry, would you provide such info to a web site for this purpose? Also under who's auspices would you most trust such information - CCA, PSA, some other group?

On edit - I just realized that if I subtract out the economic impact of aquaculture in the BC example above, the rec industry generated $325.7M dollars of BC fishing related GDP while the commercial capture fishery generates only $102.3M or $102.3/325.7 = 0.314x the GDP generated by the recreational fishing. If you put that factor in, the recreational fishing industry generates about 18x as much GDP per pound of allocated fish as the commercial industry.