I often hear of studies that show a sport caught fish is much more valuable to the economy than a commercial caught fish. If this is so, why are the tribes netting steelhead and selling them for a dollar a pound? It would seem to me that in our free market system, the most valuable use of a resource would naturally become dominant. My question is ,why isn't the free market working in this case? Any economists out there that can explain this?

It has absolutely nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics. The numbers have been there for a good many years to show that the sport fishery for salmon and steelhead is, even today, of much greater value to the state's economy than the equivalent commercial fishery. Treaty rights, in the case of the tribes, and political clout, in the case of the non-tribal commercials, have always over-ridden and continue to over-ride any management process based on a sound economic basis.

[This message has been edited by Preston Singletary (edited 01-23-2001).]

WDFW, the primary fish management agency in the State, also manages fish for harvest, with a priority to commercial harvest first, followed by recreational harvest, despite what the economic numbers say.

Given dwindling stocks, fisheries agencies need to manage for conservation, but this is much costlier since the collection of most data to make management decisions would fall on the agencies shoulders. Now, commercial and tribal numbers are largely used to determine fish populations.

Old school thinking, and as Preston said, politics....

I can explain the $1/pound steelhead. To a sport fisherman the demand (need) for a steelhead is worth quite a bit. That is why not many people sport fish solely for food. They enjoy the experience, and that experience has a worth that is apparently greater than the financial costs (I think it is anyway).

The consumer who buys commercially harvested steelhead (or salmon for that matter) is looking for a tasty hunk of food. I suspect the general consumer (non-dedicated angler) views this food source as roughly equivalent to other options (Steaks, other seafood...depends on the consumer). So, if it (commercially caught fish) becomes overly expensive, the consumer will simply substitute something else (like a big steak).

As I think about it, it kind makes me question the validity of the argument about fish being more valuable if sport caught then if commercially harvested. I am sure on a per/ fish basis sport caught generates way more economic activity. But the difference is volume. Commercially caught salmonids must number in the millions in the pacific each year and maybe hundreds of thousands of fish harvested by Washington based commercials. I suspect that the tens of thousands of sport caught fish (even if priced at several hundred dollars each -- most of that being indirect revenue) carres less impact to a penny pincher (i.e. department of fish production) than the money generated by commercial harvest and retail sale.

Oh well, I am gonna go pay a pile of money for a chance at a steelhead tomorrow

L8R

Dino,
If you're sufficiently interested I'll try to dig up the numbers (and I hope you aren't because I'm going fishing for a few days), but the economic impact of sport fishing is greater by a very substantial margin to the state's economy than commercial fishing. These are not "per fish" numbers, but overall economic value. There was a study done by a UW economist in the '70s which concluded that the state would be far better off if commercial fishing were eliminated entirely and the fishery managed strictly for sport.

[This message has been edited by Preston Singletary (edited 01-23-2001).]

Preston,

Trust me, I'll take you word for it. I am very glad to hear that. I might ask if you could point to a resource where I could get the information. I think it would be useful in my regular debates at the local watering hole.

Thanks,