Post by yihunt on Apr 6, 2008 11:28:51 GMT -4
Wildlife: Opening day economics support trout stocking
Sunday, April 06, 2008
By Scott Shalaway
I've never been a fan of raising wildlife such as ring-necked pheasants and trout just to release them one day and have someone harvest them the next. Wildlife managers call this stocking, and I'm most often reminded of this practice on opening day of trout season when anglers stand shoulder to shoulder on heavily stocked segments of streams. It seems neither sporting nor much fun.
But then I remind myself that the people who buy the licenses and trout stamps that finance these programs -- no money comes from the state's general fund -- are the clientele of wildlife agencies. If these agencies don't provide what users want, they'll find something else to do with their free time. So fisheries and wildlife managers allocate millions of dollars annually to the farming of certain species.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Shalaway is a biologist and author and can be reached at scottshalaway.googlepages.com and RD 5, Cameron, WV 26033.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a biologist, I tend to focus on animals and habitat, but there is a third and more important component of wildlife management. It is people.
The best definition of wildlife management is, "the art and science of manipulating wildlife populations, habitat and people to achieve a specific goal."
If it weren't for people, there would be no need for wildlife science. And because people, primarily anglers and hunters, pay the bills at most state wildlife agencies, their needs are important. One of their primary desires is a healthy trout fishery that can be enjoyed each spring.
So while stocking a resource just to consume it is difficult to justify ecologically, I understand its basis. Ultimately, however, wildlife management is driven by economics, and too few biologists, including me, remember that. If there was no way to fund the services that biologists and managers provide, there would be no wildlife agencies.
This is why I find it interesting and educational when I discover studies that examine the costs and benefits of wildlife management programs. A recent paper by Russell Greene and Robert Weber of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is a terrific example. Its conclusions remind us that there's more to fishing than just frying up some freshly caught fillets.
Anglers spend lots of money during trout season, and only a portion of it is directly related to fishing. In addition to the cost of licenses and gear, there are the costs of transportation, lodging, food, drink and other related expenses. When this spending is weighed against the costs of producing the stocked trout that attract anglers to the streams, I'm forced to look at stocking programs in a new light.
Sections of streams that are most heavily stocked typically get the heaviest use by anglers because that's where the majority of the fish are. Greene and Weber collected information from 76 stocked stream sections around the state. A key finding is that the, "cost to produce and distribute the preseason allocation of stocked trout exceeded the opening weekend angler trip and fishing license expenditures" on just six stream sections, or 7.9 percent of the stream sections studied.
This means that on more than 90 percent of the stream sections studied, trout anglers spent more to fish than the cost of producing the stocked trout. Therefore, stocking trout is not only cost effective, it also stimulates local economies.
Because a previous study showed that nearly 30 percent of total angler activity on stocked streams took place during opening weekend, compared to the season's entire first eight weeks, it's reasonable to base management decisions on information gleaned from opening weekend surveys.
Consequently, Greene and Weber recommend that preseason trout stocking should be reduced or eliminated on stream sections where trout production costs exceed angler expenditures. Furthermore, they suggest that opening day angler counts should continue so costs and benefits of trout stocking can be evaluated annually.
This suggests a simple management plan: stock trout where anglers congregate to keep customers happy. So, anglers who frequent popular fishing holes shouldn't expect crowds to thin anytime soon.
Greene and Weber's paper is available at www.fish.state.pa.us/pafish/trout/trout_plan/cost_benefit2007.pdf.
First published on April 6, 2008
Sunday, April 06, 2008
By Scott Shalaway
I've never been a fan of raising wildlife such as ring-necked pheasants and trout just to release them one day and have someone harvest them the next. Wildlife managers call this stocking, and I'm most often reminded of this practice on opening day of trout season when anglers stand shoulder to shoulder on heavily stocked segments of streams. It seems neither sporting nor much fun.
But then I remind myself that the people who buy the licenses and trout stamps that finance these programs -- no money comes from the state's general fund -- are the clientele of wildlife agencies. If these agencies don't provide what users want, they'll find something else to do with their free time. So fisheries and wildlife managers allocate millions of dollars annually to the farming of certain species.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Shalaway is a biologist and author and can be reached at scottshalaway.googlepages.com and RD 5, Cameron, WV 26033.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a biologist, I tend to focus on animals and habitat, but there is a third and more important component of wildlife management. It is people.
The best definition of wildlife management is, "the art and science of manipulating wildlife populations, habitat and people to achieve a specific goal."
If it weren't for people, there would be no need for wildlife science. And because people, primarily anglers and hunters, pay the bills at most state wildlife agencies, their needs are important. One of their primary desires is a healthy trout fishery that can be enjoyed each spring.
So while stocking a resource just to consume it is difficult to justify ecologically, I understand its basis. Ultimately, however, wildlife management is driven by economics, and too few biologists, including me, remember that. If there was no way to fund the services that biologists and managers provide, there would be no wildlife agencies.
This is why I find it interesting and educational when I discover studies that examine the costs and benefits of wildlife management programs. A recent paper by Russell Greene and Robert Weber of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is a terrific example. Its conclusions remind us that there's more to fishing than just frying up some freshly caught fillets.
Anglers spend lots of money during trout season, and only a portion of it is directly related to fishing. In addition to the cost of licenses and gear, there are the costs of transportation, lodging, food, drink and other related expenses. When this spending is weighed against the costs of producing the stocked trout that attract anglers to the streams, I'm forced to look at stocking programs in a new light.
Sections of streams that are most heavily stocked typically get the heaviest use by anglers because that's where the majority of the fish are. Greene and Weber collected information from 76 stocked stream sections around the state. A key finding is that the, "cost to produce and distribute the preseason allocation of stocked trout exceeded the opening weekend angler trip and fishing license expenditures" on just six stream sections, or 7.9 percent of the stream sections studied.
This means that on more than 90 percent of the stream sections studied, trout anglers spent more to fish than the cost of producing the stocked trout. Therefore, stocking trout is not only cost effective, it also stimulates local economies.
Because a previous study showed that nearly 30 percent of total angler activity on stocked streams took place during opening weekend, compared to the season's entire first eight weeks, it's reasonable to base management decisions on information gleaned from opening weekend surveys.
Consequently, Greene and Weber recommend that preseason trout stocking should be reduced or eliminated on stream sections where trout production costs exceed angler expenditures. Furthermore, they suggest that opening day angler counts should continue so costs and benefits of trout stocking can be evaluated annually.
This suggests a simple management plan: stock trout where anglers congregate to keep customers happy. So, anglers who frequent popular fishing holes shouldn't expect crowds to thin anytime soon.
Greene and Weber's paper is available at www.fish.state.pa.us/pafish/trout/trout_plan/cost_benefit2007.pdf.
First published on April 6, 2008