View Full Version : Best Availiable Science?

09-21-2005, 09:22 PM
Wow, here is an study I found to be rather interesting. After reading about this study I don't understand why the NMFS can't get better available science. This study was avail to me on the internet. It truly contradicts many of the figures that the NMFS is claiming as "best availiable science". We need these guys to do an economic impact study for grouper fishing. I understand these figures are for a cost analysis and not fisheries managment figures, but to read them and imagine what the "use value" of grouper fishing gulf wide would be is astounding.

Economic Impact and Recreational Value of Artificial Reefs in Northwest Florida

Fred Bell. Florida State University, Department of Economics, Tallahassee, FL 32306. Phone: 850/644-7092. Email: fwbell@garnet.acns.fsu.edu

Wednesday: 3:20-3:40

Artificial reefs provide a valuable aid in recreational fishing and diving.

However, there have been few studies of the economic impact of artificial reefs on coastal communities and the added recreational value provided to anglers and divers who use artificial reefs. This study was funded by the florida department of envirnomental protection to ascertain what the economic benefits are compared to the cost of deploying artificial reefs in northwest Florida.

The area of study included bay; Walton; Okaloosa; Santa Rosa and Escambia counties in Florida. Users of artificial reefs were divided into visitors and local residents for these counties. For the five county area. It was found that in 1998 visitors spent over $357 million on such items as bait; charter boat fees and lodgings that were directly related to the use of artificial reefs. Residents of these counties spent over $57 million during

This same time period for a combined economic impact of over $415 million. This combined impact supported nearly $84 million in wages and salaries and 8,163 jobs associated with the use of artificial reefs. The deployment of Artificial reefs was associated with a considerable injection of money into the local economies by visitors plus residents. Indirect impacts by visitors were not considered in this study, but would added to the overall economic importance of artificial reefs.

The use of artificial reefs for fishing and diving enhances the value of the recreational experience. This is called "use value" by economists and measures the added output of the services provided by the recreational aid called an artificial reef. Although this "use value" is not directly measured by the market, three well know techniques were employed to estimate "use value". These techniques are the (1) turnbull; (2) dichotomous choice and (3) travel cost method. Using survey data of anglers and divers, it was found that the artificial reef system off the five counties under study added over $31 million annually to the recreational experience. Since this "use value" is an economic benefit that flows to anglers and divers over time, its asset(capitalized value) at 3% is nearly $1.2 billion. From 1978 to 1998, the state and local governments have invested about $5 million in artificial reefs off the study area. Thus, the economic implication are immense. In this study, the investment in artificial reefs created a recreational asset 240 times the initial investment.

The study methodologies and statistical analyses form the framework for evaluating in one unified model the economic impact and use value of recreational resources in not only marine coastal areas, but for inland waterbodies as well. The entire study may be obtained from Jon Dodrill of The Florida Department of Environmental Protection(850-922-4340). In addition to Dr. Bell, Dr. Mark Bonn of Florida State University and Dr. Robert V. Leeworthy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were also authors of this study. The study is under consideration for use in southest Florida and biologists; planners and administrators may want to apply it to their areas to document the economic payoffs from the deployment of artificial reefs.

09-22-2005, 08:21 AM
How much does it cost to commision an economic impact study by someone reputable? The numbers would be astounding for recreational red grouper fishing versus commercial red grouper (longlined).

09-22-2005, 09:27 AM
I read about an independent study being done up in the northeast that will be doing an in depth financial impact analysis of recreational fishing.
I believe that study will be extremely valuable here, as well as around the country.
I also believe that the numbers will be staggeringly high.

Once completed we will be able to shove this into the faces of those government officials who are so blind to how big it truly is.

Fish Tale
09-22-2005, 12:24 PM
Since the dollar rules the descision making proccesses here in Florida, that kind of economic study could be useful for protecting existing natural habitats as well.

11-12-2006, 09:05 AM
BTT, I thought I would bring this thread back now that everyone is getting a little more versed "Economic Impact" and what it could do for us.

Spear One
11-12-2006, 09:37 AM
The last thing the NMFS wants is accurate scientific or economic data. If accuracy is what they truely wanted, they would ask congress to appropriate adequate money to accomplish the task. The reality is, the more ambiguous their data collection is, the better they like it. Having the ability to "fall back" on the their "best available data" position gives them an immense amount of wiggle room to justify passing whatever rules they want to shove down out throats.

The Fishing Rights Alliance has targeted the MRFFS data collection to expose it for exactly what it is, a sham! Force NMFS to hire and conduct "proper" data collection before making rule changes, and you might have a shot at slowing down this "runaway train" of rule making. Unless or until MRFFS is scrapped, just bend over and take it, because nothing is going to change until MRFFS is replaced with a more "reputable" system.

11-12-2006, 09:38 AM
BTT, I thought I would bring this thread back now that everyone is getting a little more versed "Economic Impact" and what it could do for us.

Economic Impact should be used more to allocate the resource, the Commercial sector gets most of the TAC, yet they have a lot smaller Economic Impact than the Recreational Fisherman, unfortunately for us, we are not as well organized as the commercial guys are.

And with groups like the CCA going along with reductions in our bag limits, that doesn't help us much either.

11-24-2006, 11:44 AM
Those numbers would not only be astounding they migth compell some people that have deeper pockets than the current scientific funders to take note.. when the sales of ice, fuel, coolers, leaders, ramp fees take a nose dive maybe those who the little guy keeps in bussines will wake up...