From a Coastal Conservation Association news release:
With the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council set to review allocations for Gulf red snapper and grouper during its meeting this week in Tampa, Coastal Conservation Association has presented a summary of 19 studies going back to 2000 that show the economic benefits of shifting a greater portion of the allocation of these two species to the recreational sector. All of the studies, conducted by private, academic and government scientists, have been presented to the Gulf Council previously and the Council has chosen to take no affirmative action.
“We’re not talking about one or two studies, we’re talking about an overwhelming body of work spanning more than a decade by some of the most respected economists in fisheries management,” said Chester Brewer, chairman of CCA’s National Government Relations Committee. “The best available economic science clearly supports increasing the recreational allocation. It is difficult to understand why NOAA Fisheries has not acted on these studies before now to produce the best possible outcome for the economies of the Gulf states and for the nation.” ...
CCA supplied the summary of economic data to Gulf Council members and NOAA staff in a letter to Council Chairman Robert Gill. CCA urged the Council to act on the information and look objectively towards maximizing the benefits generated for the entire nation by these valuable marine resources.
If you click on that "summary" link you'll find a couple of Haab et al. studies (where Whitehead is one of the "others").
My opinion is that there is probably some evidence to allocate towards the recreational sector, but those columns of commercial and recreational values is a comparison apples and oranges (or red and green apples). The commercial value is market price while the recreational value is consumer surplus. The appropriate comparison is producer surplus on the commercial side and consumer surplus on the recreational side. Since market price includes includes cost, then it overstates producer surplus.
Another problem with the comparison is that many of the recreational values were not developed with allocation analysis in mind. To paraphrase a report of the SAFMC's SSC Socioeconomic Panel:
... estimated recreational values are marginal values but the allocation analysis uses these as averages. It is expected that marginal values will fall with increasing catch due to the principle of diminishing returns. Using marginal values as averages would lead to overly generous recreational allocations. We conclude that this analysis provides evidence that an increase in the allocation of quota to the recreational quota would improve the allocative efficiency of fisheries management. But, the analysis should not be used to inform the Council about the magnitude of the increased recreational allocation.
If you are interested in fishery allocation a must read is:
Mark L. Plummer, Wendy Morrison, and Erin Steiner, Allocation of Fishery Harvests under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Principles and Practice, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-115, February 2012. [PDF]
Update: Brad Gentner in the comments:
Actually, the $1.14/pound commercial value from Carter et al. 2008 is producers surplus from a multi-output revenue model and ALL the other commercial estimates are quota lease prices (from NMFS catch share reports)which area measures of producer surplus. None of the commercial values presented are dockside prices. That would then make these apples to apples comparisons.
I stand corrected. And a reread of the text surrounding the table makes it clear that these are lease prices and therefore marginal values. Brad goes on to say:
You are correct that most of the reports only calculate a point estimate of recreational consumer surplus, but even that point estimate suggests allocations should move in the direction of the recreational fishery. Many of those studies were not conducted for allocation analysis, but so what? They are still measures of the marginal WTP for increases in catch, are they not?
I think we are in agreement. I'm just trying to be careful to state that it is difficult to compare these values and state that all of the quota should be allocated to the recreational sector.
