The Economic Benefits of Conservation

Bryan Irwin, the PNW Executive Director of CCA, recently wrote this article for, The Ripple Effect, a CCA newsletter for PNW members.  This article is a real eye opener. With his permission I am able to share it with you.

When you examine the economics of recreational fishing, it’s clear that it fuels a major consumer goods and service industry. It also has a positive impact on conservation. How, you might ask? I have wrestled with that question over the years until I recently saw a statistic that was an eye opener when comparing recreational and commercial fisheries. 

Of our nation’s total fish harvest, 97% is commercial and 3% is recreational 1. Think about that for a moment. In the Pacific Northwest we spend countless hours arguing over a 5% swing in the allocation in the Columbia River salmon harvest, a number that is a rounding error in the total harvest of salmon when looking at the big harvest picture. 

Now, it stands to reason that we as a society are realizing a huge economic benefit from the commercial use of 97% of our marine resource, right?. Not really.  Nationwide, saltwater recreational fishing contributed $82.2 billion in sales to our nation’s economy and provides 553,000 jobs. Commercial fisheries (finfish) landings bring $28 billion in sales and 423,000 jobs 2. Yes you read that right, with 3% of the allocation the recreational sector contributes nearly 3 times to the US economy.  Closer to home in the Columbia Basin, recreational fisheries provide $35.8 Million in economic benefit compared to $2.1 Million from commercial (non-tribal and tribal combined) harvest.3 That’s 17 times more benefit from recreational fisheries with much less impact on the resource.

So, back to the conservation question. As harsh as it sounds, our harvested fish are essentially a resource, one in which our fisheries managers trade away the conservation benefits in exchange for the economic benefits. Sure, you could argue in isolated circumstances that some of this harvest is excess to conservation needs, but in most cases a harvested fish is one less fish to contribute to the next generation. If you look at the big picture, its pretty clear where we need to reduce harvest. The good news is that modest increases in the recreational share will more than offset any economic consequences of reducing the overall harvest.  And, reducing overall harvest benefits conservation.

Another conservation benefit of recreational fishing that provides economic value is the funding of conservation programs. I’m not talking about the support of CCA and other state and regional fish conservation groups; I’m referring to the unique tax on fishing tackle, motorboat fuel and other sportfishing equipment that has generated $5.7 billion for fisheries conservation, clean water programs and habitat restoration dating back to 1950. Our fishing license sales (nationally) give back $560 million annually to state conservation and education programs. In a very tangible way, the sportfishing economy gives back to the resource more than any other user group.There will always be room for commercial fisheries, as there should be. However, the current levels of harvest are not sustainable, and as our population grows, the pressure is just going to get worse.  But cutting sportfishing opportunities is not the solution. In fact, economics tells us the opposite is true.