Sportfishing Ban Could Cost California’s Economy $100 Million
Previous analysis underestimated impact by 90 percent.
by Forbes Darby
Long Beach, CA—California officials have drastically underestimated
the economic impact of proposed sportfishing bans in the Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS), according to a report released today
by the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) and the United Anglers
of Southern California (UASC). mailto:mjwilliamson@asafishing.org
The findings of the ASA/UASC report were released during a press conference
held at the Fred Hall Fishing Tackle and Boat Show, an annual event
in Southern California that draws anglers and boaters by the tens of
thousands. "We already knew recreational fishing is a huge part of the
Southern California lifestyle, but now we have proof positive that it’s
an integral part of the economy as well," said Bart Hall, producer of
the popular Fred Hall Fishing Tackle and Boat Show.
The report cites significant losses to water and tourism-based business
of up to $100 million based on the percentage of CINMS closed to fishing.
Under the most restrictive of options now being considered (whereby
more than 40 percent of the sanctuary would be closed to fishing), as
many as 2,700 jobs and $13 million in tax revenues could also be eliminated
from California’s economy. Many environmental groups are pushing
for these most restrictive closures.
Recreational fishing accounts for nearly 80 percent of all recreation
now taking place in the CINMS. Other activities such as whale watching
and sailing would have to increase at by at least 350 percent in order
to offset the economic losses encountered by eliminating sportfishing
in large sections of the sanctuary.
"These huge losses to the California economy aren’t even necessary,"
says Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association.
"I challenge anyone to offer up scientific evidence that recreational
fishing is causing a problem in the CINMS. It’s extreme to lose
fishing’s economic benefits with no science to back it up."
Tom Raftican, President of United Anglers of Southern California added
"Recreational anglers are not the problem and this economic loss should
not be balanced on our shoulders."
In 2001, the CINMS officials prepared an economic evaluation of the
impact of sportfishing closures. That evaluation used old angler data
and flawed methodology that did not include equipment such as tackle
and boats — items that are the majority of anglers’ purchases.
Not including these items seriously skews the results making larger
sportfishing bans look more palatable. The ASA/UASC report indicates
that this earlier analysis underestimated the economic losses due to
large marine closures by nearly 90%.
Explaining why angler purchases must be included in the analysis, ASA/UASC
report author and economist Rob Southwick offers this analogy. "It’s
like saying the economic impact of the automobile industry only comes
from fuel purchases, not the price of your car." Most of sportfishing’s
economic impacts come when an angler buys a rod and reel. To leave these
purchases out of any economic study is to say these tackle and boat
businesses do not exist.
"The bottom line is that the economic impact of banning sportfishing
will be much more severe than previously reported," concluded Nussman.
To download a pdf version of the report click here.
