Stripers Forever and MASS Southwick study

[BUCKTAIL WILLIE]

Stripers Forever members ?

The Massachusetts Southwick study is out and it dramatically points out
why we need everyone to pitch in and push for recreational ONLY management
in this pivotal state. The number of mature breeding-age female bass that
are
killed in MA is staggering, and this directly effects the health and
quality
of the entire East coast fishery. This is your opportunity to have a
direct
impact on YOUR fishery.

The Massachusetts state-specific version of our highly acclaimed Southwick
Study compares the relative social and economic values of recreational and
commercial striped bass fishing, and then forecasts the changes that will
take place when commercial striped bass fishing is finally ended. The
numbers speak for themselves. Continued commercial fishing for striped
bass in MA will cost the state dearly in terms of jobs and economic
activity.

But jobs and economic activity are just two big reasons to end commercial
striped bass fishing. As one MA chatroom post recently remarked, ending
commercial striped bass fishing would immediately result in a 15% decrease
in the killing of large striped bass. The truth is that with the illegal
commercial catching that goes on daily, it would be far more than that.
And if it weren?t for the fishery managers responding to their commercial
constituents we would be fishing at much lower overall mortality levels
today. That is what the recreational fishing public has always asked for
? better fishing and a healthy spawning stock.

Still, many feel that the best way to end commercial striper fishing is to
show that it is economically counter-productive. And that it is. Here
are a few highlights from the Massachusetts study:
· The recreational fishery produces 10,986 full time equivalent jobs, 21
times the 524 offered by the commercial fishery.
· The recreational fishery offers $236.86 per pound harvested in economic
activity, the commercial fishery offers only $22.97, less than one tenth
as much.
· 64.4% percent of all recreational fishing trips in MA target striped
bass, and 26.6 % of all charter trips are for stripers. There is no
substitute for striped bass for either Massachusetts fishermen or the
recreational industry that they support.
· Eliminating the commercial fishery would create 2,871 net new jobs in
Massachusetts, and generate $334 million in net new economic activity.

What state couldn?t use these social and economic benefits? Right now,
large breeding-age stripers are being destroyed so that a comparative
handful of individuals can finance their fishing vacations by killing and
selling the same fish that the rest of us try so hard to conserve. It
must be stopped.

It?s all on our website at [ http://www.stripersforever.org
]www.stripersforever.org. You can?t miss it. Read it, print it out, or
send us the cost of printing/mailing and we will send you quality printed
documents. The instructions are all on the website. Just hit ?contact
us? if you have any questions.

Stripers Forever is mailing copies to every legislator in Massachusetts,
and some of our most active members have already offered to go to their
legislators and ask for legislation that will make striped bass a gamefish
in MA like it is now in ME, NH, and CT. If you live in MA we hope that
you will do the same. If you fish in MA, love striped bass, or just like
sound public policy, we hope that you will write the Governor of MA and
let him know what you think. All contact information can be found on the
website by clicking MA on the map located on the left side of the website
home page. Send us an e-mail and let us know if you are willing to help.

Brad Burns - President, Stripers Forever Fred Jennings Ph.D. - MA
State Chairman
Dean Clark - MA Vice-Chairman

[Brian E. Mullaney]

The recreational fishery offers $236.86 per pound harvested in economic activity, the commercial fishery offers only $22.97, less than one tenth
as much.

anyone with half a brain should realize the economic benefits. That alone is reason enough - even if you dont care about fish.

Just look at all the money we Barners spend on fishing stuff.

Nightstrikes and Hip skew the median :D

[henrybasstardo]

Killing the future Mothers of a great fishery is really stupid and common sense for most of us but I have to say that mankind sucks ass. I have no further comment other than greed and hypocracy rule our nation. Nevermind going out and learning the water and enjoying yourself FISH or not. I find peace on the water, the fish come after that.
Our fathers are turning over and our children and theirs will all pay in the end.


Cheers

[CaptTB]

Henry, simply because YOU enjoy yourself, fish or not, does not mean that is the best way, the only way, or the right way, for anyone else but you. I have no problem with the rest of your comments, but perhaps there are people who do not find enjoyment out of "learning the water" (I'm bored to tears by it personally) but find their enjoymeny in actually catching fish, and only catching fish (of course sometimes attempting but not catching!)

It's the disdain with which I see some people write/speak when talking about what people should or should not want or do that turns me off, much like your comment.

Believing that what you want or like is what everyone should want or like is just plain arrogant.

[CaptG]

word Capt TB

Nothing wrong w/ slashing a stipers throat from ear to ear and taking it home for dinner. As long as it's done w/in the legal limits. A slot fish is a future mother just the same as a 50 lbr. Though, I do think it's dumb to kill more bigger fish than smaller fish as the regulations dictate, but I don't make the decisions.

[hipkvw]

Originally posted by CaptG:
word Capt TB

but I don't make the decisions. Thank God! ;) J/K

[CaptG]

LOL Hip, if I did C&R would be outlawed LOL!

[henrybasstardo]

I hear you TB,
I shouldn't post with my feelings especially after coming home after working 48 hours in three days. Should have went to bed but you know how the BARN addiction is. :D I'm well rested now and I'll comment that if it's legal I have no problem taking BIG fish. I'm all for it and I do it. To each his own, if I release some it's my decision and I respect everyone elses even if they want to kill evrything they can under the law. YES, thank god for regulations!!!

Nothing wrong with making a living commercially also but if studies show we should back off or the future fishery won't be the same I think it's common sense that men who are on the water would agree and comply without hesitation for their children. Greed

Sorry to be a poo poo :D
Welcome to the weekend, tight lines.

Cheers

[Fishpicker]

Capt TB or anyone for this matter.
How can the Southwhick group come up with the numbers that it did.
" The recreational fishery offers $236.86 per pound harvested in economic activity, the commercial fishery offers only $22.97, less than one tenth
as much. "

I think that this is very misleading. How can they throw figures around like that when they don't know how many fish are caught to begin with ???

I certainly agree the the commercial side is close to being correct {perhaps a little low}. Heck here in NJ it would be a big fat 0.00, lets be honest here. To throw numbers around like that to me is just junk sciences. I view this as more propaganda sent out by special interest groups looking to keep it self in the Rec fishing minds.

[CaptTB]

Picker, I know southwick has done studies for the states, not just special interest groups. They are an independent group. (I'm not defending them, but alot of the numbers they have generated for state sponsored studies are used by GSSA and commercial fishing interests as well as recreational)

I can only guess they are going by what is known. How many angler trips, fish etc. that are calculated.

That doesn't mean they are 100% correct, nothing ever is.

Again, I'm not defending the numbers becuase I have not actually seen the report and exactly how it arrived at it's conclusions. My main point to you was I would not just dismiss it and question the integrity of the group doing the study (Southwick, not SF...I question SF's motives all the time) since southwick studies have been used to further your arguments too (perhaps not by you, but by the commercial organizations out there)

[Fishpicker]

Capt TB My argument isn't with what group did the study it is how they arrived at these figures and why.

The bottom line is NOBODY really knows how much fish is out there Nor how much is caught by the Rec sector. Regardless of what type of fish, (bass, flounder, blue fish etc etc) I think before dollar signs are thrown out to the public, The public needs to be made aware of how much is caught, by each sector.

That is my sole argument and will be until the day that a realistic monitoring system is in place for the Rec sector.

[BUCKTAIL WILLIE]

Capt TB--I can send you a copy of the Southwick study if you would like to read it

[Fishpicker]

This issue has had me asking questions all day. I was given some extremely good answers. Also a very good lesson in economics. Here is one of the opinions that I was given.

Southwick study is absolutely correct, Yes the first fish that a Rec angler catches is most likely worth a crazy amount like 200.00. Just like the first fish that a Comm catch is probably worth a lesser amount like 22.00. Where things start changing is after the third or forth fish is caught. For the Rec sector the price goes down to practically nothing and stays there right around .50 to .25 cents a pound. For the Comms it bottoms out around 8.00 a pound.

I all kinda makes sense to me The Southwick group probably factored in the Avg amount that a Rec spends a year in Boats, Tackle and bait. { Mostly B&T }

What I think is that Stripers Forever might have forgotten to leave out the second half of the study. Why would they do that ????

Capt TB what is National Standard according to the Magnumsom Stevens act ?? I believe it is section 3.

[CaptTB]

Picker, why not look it up yourself? especially if you already know the section. Not to mention, which National Standard? There's more than one. I'm tired of doing everyone else's work and research for them, time to take some personal initiative.

Also, irregardless of what YOUR issue is, the current information on rec harvest is what was obviously used. Even if it is an over or an underestimation, it is nevertheless what's currently available. In lieu of something better, we should not simply pretend there is nothing at all just because it suits your purposes.

In addition, I would love to see the study that proves what the third or fourth fish is worth. Can you back up that assertion with anything concrete or did someone from GSSA tell it to you so you automatically believed it.

I'd like a realistic accounting of ALL landings, commercial and rec. The commercial numbers are excellent by comparison, but they are certainly far from complete. At least with the rec sector our non-compliance is expanded through the fishery. There is at least a guestimate added on to our landings for illegal fish. With commercial landings the total numbers assume that all illegal harvest was the illegal harvest that was confiscated, as if they catch 100% of the illegal harvest. I don't think it's rampant or anything, but it annoys me when I see people talk about the commercial catch as if we know exactly what is caught. Nothing could be further (farther?) from the truth. Just because the rec numbers may suck a** doesn't mean the commercial numbers are perfect. At least they assume (and figure into the numbers) that more fish are being caught by recs than are estimated (both illegal and legal) whereas with commercial catch there is no factoring in for unseen illegal harvest. Of course all discards are estimates, commercial and rec.

[ 08-12-2005, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: CaptTB ]

[Fishpicker]

Capt TB Besides your own personal beef with GSSA they have nothing to do with any part of this post/thread. The information that I obtained about the Southwhick study was from Two very intelligent business men. So please leave GSSA out of this they have nothing to do with this issue.

I also must apologize to you, My assessment of the study may have been slightly wrong. When I gave what I though was a legitimate explanation of how the study came up with there figures I tried to keep the explanation short and sweet. I was just trying to give a casual explanation in layman's terms.

I will be more then happy to read the National Standard and show why it is relevant to this issue.

[CaptTB]

Picker, did you obtain any information about the SOuthwick study or was that these people's thoughts on the subject.

As I said, pleaase show me some actual information that supports your claim of the value (even if 50 cents is not accurate, any example will do) of recreational vs. commercial fish.

While I'm sure that many of us appreciate you trying to keep it short and sweet, that still does not make it accurate. Saying the fish (numbers 3 and 4 per person etc.) go down in value is one thing. COmparimng that amount of decline to the commercial decline cannot be done casually. It must be done as accurately as possible, otherwise your comments are meaningless in that context. DO commercial fish level off at $8.00 a pound and rec fish 25 or 50 cents?

Again, you saying it does not make it so.

[Fishpicker]

Capt TB This is how my post started word for word.

"" This issue has had me asking questions all day. I was given some extremely good answers. Also a very good lesson in economics. Here is one of the opinions that I was given. ""

OPINIONS is the key word here ! It lets you the reader know that my finding were Not factual but thoughts from one or more persons.

I can assure you that during my long steam tomorrow afternoon I will be reading the Southwick study in its entirety. Hopefully then I can make a graph that accurately shows the value of the third and forth fish. The way it was explained to me the value of the third and fourth fish drops significantly.

[CaptTB]

I gotcha Pick, it was only a question.

So, the answer is no, you did not get any direct information, just something someone told you. Sorry I missed the opinion part, (by the way, you know what they say about opinions :D )all you needed to do was answer the question, which you did and then some.

Something else to keep in mind when talking about the value of the fish, is the avg. catch per person.

Since most species caught recreationally have balimits, plus since the majority of those have an avg. catch far below the bag limit (FLuke, Seabass, Porgies, Bluefish, Stripers, etc. all have avg. catch per angler below the bag limit) make sure you don't figure costs per fish based on the bag limit (or even avg. per person per species) but on the actual avg. harvest (not catch) per person.

Additionally, since so many recreational species have a very high rate of C&R, those many anglers that fish, but rarely keep even if when they catch keepers, helps keep the value per fish up. For the (example) millions of fish kept, they were kept by a smaller number of anglers than the total fishing for the species, keeping the value higher on average.

Just some additional food for thought.

By the way, which National Standard were you referring to? Again, there is more than one.

[ 08-13-2005, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: CaptTB ]

[Bob ECT]

FP,

I'm sure Southwick gaves the details in the Mass Study just as they did in the National one.

[BUCKTAIL WILLIE]

YOU CAN GO TO STRIPERSFOREVER.COM and download the entire Southwick Report and that may answer some questions
BUT I don't expect a netter to understand it or agree with the facts

[Fishpicker]

Hold on to your seats !

[ 08-16-2005, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Fishpicker ]

[Fishpicker]

Misnomer Southwick not ?study?-- essay

The purpose of this report is to help readers understand the greater economic returns from recreational fishing compared to commercial harvests, even when overall harvests are reduced. ( Executive summary page iii)
Clearly this is not a ?study? but an ?Essay? or ?paper?. A study has no conclusion until finished. This ?paper? states its purpose (conclusion) at the beginning.

Improper assumption on flexibility of expanded Recreational bass fishery.

This paper uses Average Spending per Pound of Harvest (ASPH) figure for the ?marginal propensity to spend? for the recreational sector. (page11) This figure is calculated as the AVERAGE spending for recreational striped bass fishing throughtout the entire range of bag limits (currently 2 fish per man but proposed to include additional allocation). This figure (ASPH) cannot be used when applied to additional harvest because of the two following reasons.

Marginal propensity to spend by each angler
The ?marginal propensity to spend? is not the average amount spend per item, but the amount a consumer will spend for the NEXT item. Consider this example: there are 2000 people at a baseball game. The hot dog salesman offers hot dogs for sale--- $5.00 each, and 100 (very hungry) people buy them. total sales $500 ($5.00 per dog). So he says, I?ll just sell more ! How ?? 100 people won?t pay for 2 each. So he makes them a deal. Buy one at $5.00; get the second one at $2.50. The average price of a dog is now (5.00+2.50)/2=3.75 it takes 227 dog sales to make $1000 from those same 100 customers. So then tries to sell more dogs to those 100 customers by offering them a ?triple steal deal? buy 3 dogs for $8.00 !(that?s $5,00 + 2.50 +0.50) Now he finds that he must sell 750 dogs to gross $2000 The average price is now $2.66 per dog, So to double his sales, he now must sell $1000/3.75= 267 dogs. .




You can now see the ?economic return? curve taking shape. At 500 dogs the MPS is unknown;at 267 dogs, MPS =$2.50 ; at 750 dogs, MPS = 0.50. But be careful---If there are only 1000 who want to eat dogs in the whole stadium, he will run out of customers before he runs out of dogs and he will have to give the next one away (MPS =0). Just how much cash he can milk out of those 1000 people is what market research ishould help you learn before you give them away too cheap.

Number of dogs Total economic output Average price per dog Marginal propensity to spend on dogs Number of sales
100 500 5.00 unknown 100?
275 1000 3.75 2.50 275??
750 2000 2.66 .50 ???
10000 ? ? 0.00 1000


You can see that the $5.00 per dog value does not extend on out until you run out of dogs. There are only so many dogs that those 100 customers will buy. So the real question, is what are the spending habits of those 100 people ( and the next 100 people who obviously wouldn?t even spend the $5.00 for the first dog, but might buy one for less) It gets quite complicated to gather that data.. That?s what market researchers (southwick) should have done. Ie you can?t just take the average amount that people are spending now, and think that they are going to continue to do so if you make more dogs ! So Why does southwick assume that the rec angler will continue to spend at the average (AVG) currently spent per pound that he does now for additional pounds of fish? It?s an invalid assumption. Yes the angler will spend more. He will spend the MSP not the AVG. .. So?.Just Calculate the current MPS for bass ! (see attached spreadsheet) not the MPS for the recruitment of new anglers (and their different spending habits) My first stab at the current MPS for rec bass is $0.30 but play with the numbers yourself and see what happens

Market saturation
The second problem our poor hot dog salesman encounters, is that he will run out of customers. Just bringing more hot dogs to the stadium (greater allocation of fish) will not make more customers. face the truth, even if you ran the ?:blow-out special? (lowered the price .01. (MPS=.01); There are some people who won?t take them. So even if the vendor has 10000 dogs, he?s smoking something funny if he thinks that he?s going to have a big night by selling all 10000 dogs at $5.00 each and go home with $50,000 !

The same ting is true of fishermen. Increased allocation of fish, will generate more anglers, but they won?t spend the current average they?ll spend something LESS Some people just don?t want to fish. (eat or touch), And there are a lot in the middle between those who now fish, and those who won?t touch them who will pay varying amounts per pound to even fish once. But the key word here is ?VARYING?. We?re back to MPS again. The ?market? must be researched and tested with at least these 2 variables (increased spending by current fishermen, and spending by new fishermen) to determine the MPS values of additional allocation.. The whole mathematical ?surface? (in 3 dimensions) is complex calculus. And the total possible revenue return is the double integration of those equations (in 3 space) yielding the volume under the mathematical surface. Even I don?t want to go there!! Southwick should have, but it appears that they did not.

As a side note to market saturation, note the following: Anglers fish for at least 3 reasons.

Social aspects of angling . This is either the solitude of fishing alone, or the ?party? effect of being out with the guys. They don?t need more fish to get this benefit. So allocating more fish to anglers generates no more of them.
The thrill of the hunt-- The catch and release boys?. Allocating more fish to anglers generates no more of these guys
Meat fishermen--- yea, some people actually want to catch fish to eat. So an additional allocation of fish to anglers should generate more in this group. But since NJ has already tried this (giving 3 fish to all other states 2). What was the effect (MSP again) for the 3rd fish ?
So in conclusion on MPS, Notice that at all points on the curve, (above a certain level) additional allocation generates diminishing returns because of market saturation and MPS by current fishermen The same is true for Commercial fishing, however the point is that the commercial ?economic return? curve is much flatter (currently at $35?southwick page 14) than the rapidly falling rec curve.

Economics ???? Whoever southwick is, they don?t get it !! They assume that there are endless anglers (mistake #2) who are willing to continue spending at the current per pound level (mistake #1), until all of the fish are caught (mistake #3 diminishing returns per unit of angling effort has an effect on angler spending habits.) Southwick took that ?highschool grade? work and printed a paper, called it an ?economic study?; called themselves experts , and declared that the world is better off with no fishing industry. Give me a break. Even a dumb fisherman like me with a little education can see thru this one. Stripers Forever should get their money back from southwick, because the market analysis was not done !!!

Wrong multiplier used for commercial economic impact (low by a factor of 3.88)

Notice on page 54 the analysis of the commercial multiplier. The conclusion for the overall multiplier that should be used for commercial landings is 19.627. However, on page 5,11,and 15 ( and elsewhere ) in this report, a multiplier of 5.8 is used. Where did that number come from ? Since for the recreational sector they use the figure 2.746 (the total US rec multiplier from page 53. ), southwick should have been using the comparable figure of 19.627 for the commercial multiplier. Did I miss something? Or is this a HUGE mistake !!

[ 08-16-2005, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Fishpicker ]

[Fishpicker]

Evidence of "diminishing returns" (MPS decreasing for 3rd fish)

(southwick page 7)

New york 24.8%

new jersey 25.5%

Delaware 21.3 %

Average new York +Delaware 23.05% (REGIONAL AVERAGE of states having 2 fish bag limit)

increase in Jersey over other states in region due to 3rd fish = 2.45%

note that even with the Bonus fish allocation, NJ can't even achieve the national average percent

of trips targeting striped bass. (NATIONAL AVERAGE --- 31%)

What is not said is that those extra 2.45% may have gone fishing for flounder instead if they

wern't allow to have the 3rd fish. So the allocation of additional fish may not have caused more

trips to be taken, just shifted from one species to another. ie the increase in striped bass

fishing may have come at the expense of flounder fishing. Since it's all Rec fishing, the net

increase may have indeed been ZERO.

But notice that if you deal in averages, the MPS even shows up there. New jersey has 12.75% of all trips taken to catch each of the first 2 fish of the bag limit, but only a 2.45% increasein the number of trips taken that are attributable to the allocation of the 3rd (bonus) fish. Therefore the Bonus fish did not create the same "economic impact" per pound as the first two i.e. diminishing returns ( decreasing MPS by rec fishermen). Given those figures. The $288 per pound national average per pound only generated 7.06 (288 X .0245 = 7.06) per pound of economic impact in new jersey. That?s LESS Than if it had been harvested commercially (national average of economic impact = $35( even using the wrong multiplier) page14

This is a very quick analysis and needs to be checked for accuracy

!!

[ 08-16-2005, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Fishpicker ]

[observer]

Originally posted by Fishpicker:


The same ting is true of fishermen. Increased allocation of fish, will generate more anglers, ... Ding! Fries are done!

:D

[Fishpicker]

I have some more info on the southwick group if anybody is interested. I would hate for the public to be denied of this minor little detail. Sorry Brad but the fishing public must know.

[Fishpicker]

I had a dream; I was driving a tractor trailer load of striped bass up the parkway, in route to Fulton street. Behind me were millions of Commercial fishermen from around the world cheering. The band was playing and all I could hear was Bradly's tears hittin the ground.

We only want what is our 300,000 we'll leave the rest for science and research.

Come back !!!!!!