Go Fish! Managing the eco(logical and nomic)-impact of commercial and recreational fisheries

In a day’s work <p>Last week, I spent an afternoon “clamming” in a Massachusetts estuary with my family. After a few hours of futile “raking,” a local resident told my dad and me that a commercial fisherman swept the area just the week before, and we were unlikely to find very many clams. He directed us toward an area that the commercial fisherman overlooked.<br /> </p> <p> </p> <p>A common “tragedy of the commons,” the fluid nature of fisheries can make them somewhat difficult to manage. If overfished, a fishery loses the numbers necessary to replace itself.In addition to a devastating biological loss, an overfished fishery can result in a significant economic hit to coastal communities. As a result, state biologists, regulators, and sometimes even legislators, must balance short-term economic gain against long-term economic sustainability, and in doing so, must consider the value of various “uses” of fisheries.</p> <p>This spring, the state of North Carolina weighed the economic impact of commercial versus recreational coastal fishing for three coastal fisheries in the state: the red drum, spotted seatrout, and estuarine striped bass. House Bill 983, the Fisheries Economic Development Act, sought to manage these fisheries for maximum economic output by officially designated three species of coastal fish as “gamefish,” meaning they could only be caught, kept, and eaten for recreational purposes. The state would pay commercial fisherman for loss from the bill from 2014 through 2016 with money raised through an increase in the price of recreational fishing licenses</p> <p>One reason cited for the legislation was to protect coastal fishery resources [...]</p>