price levels (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 

 1982). Consequently, the NEV for the combined 

 bass fishery per angler day ranges from $23.14 

 at site 4 to $52.83 at site 1 in 1982 dollars, while 

 NEV ranges from $1.9 million at site 4 to $8.8 

 million at site 2. The NEV of the combined bass 

 fishery to licensed New York resident anglers 

 would be approximately $27.6 million in 1982 

 dollars. 



Conclusions 



This paper has reported results of a study of 

 the economic value of the St. Lawrence River- 

 eastern Lake Ontario bass fishery to licensed 

 New York resident anglers. A regional travel 

 cost model was used to estimate demand and eco- 

 nomic value for the sites that make up the fish- 

 ery. The economic value of the fishery to anglers 

 is considered to be the most appropriate measure 

 of the fishery's contribution to economic welfare. 

 Benefits to New York anglers are likely to be an 

 important element of the fishery's recreational 

 value. 



The results of this study are important for 

 policy concerning management of the fishery re- 

 source, but they should be interpreted cautiously 

 for several reasons. First, there are benefits in 

 addition to those considered here, including those 

 to other anglers as well as to nonanglers. Second, 

 there are possible errors in the benefit estimates 

 either from misspecification of the underlying 

 participation equation or from possible errors in 

 the survey data. Third, an important issue in the 

 valuation of recreational fisheries concerns the 

 appropriate treatment of substitute sites. This 

 study used an approach which considered substi- 

 tution among a limited number of alternative 

 bass fishing sites within the fishery, but did not 

 consider all possible substitute sites or species 

 because it would be impractical to do so. It should 

 also be noted that the procedure used in this 

 study allows the relative value of fish species to 

 be compared (either within this study area or 

 with bass fisheries elsewhere), but these results 

 cannot be added to those for other species to de- 

 termine their combined value. Despite these limi- 

 tations, the results of this study of the St. Law- 

 rence River-eastern Lake Ontario bass fishery 

 should be useful for policy purposes. Many of the 

 resource management options that are evaluated 

 are likely to influence the quality of the fishery, 

 and it is important that information on economic 

 value be considered. Economic analysis is no 



panacea for resolving problems of alternative 

 natural resource uses, but should play a part in 

 informed policymaking. 



Acknowledgments 



The research reported here was supported by 

 funds from the New York Sea Grant Institute 

 and the U.S. Department of Interior. T. L. Brown 

 and J. K. Mullen provided helpful comments at 

 various stages of the work. Fishery Bulletin re- 

 viewers provided helpful comments on an earlier 

 version. Data were provided by the New York 

 State Department of Environmental Conserva- 

 tion, Bureau of Fisheries. 



Literature Cited 



Brown, W. G., A. Singh, and E. N. Castle. 



1965. Net economic value of the Oregon salmon-steel- 

 head sport fishery. J. Wildl. Manage. 29:266-279. 



Burt, 0. R., and D. Brewer. 



1971. Estimation of net social benefits from outdoor rec- 

 reation. Econometrica 39:813-827. 

 Cesario, F. J., and J. L. KNETSCH. 



1970. Time bias in recreation benefit estimates. Water 



Resour. Res. 6:700-704. 

 1976. A recreation site demand and benefit estimation 

 model. Reg. Stud. 10:97-104. 

 Cicchetti, C. J., A. C. Fisher, and V. K. Smith. 



1976. An econometric evaluation of a generalized con- 

 sumer surplus measure: The Mineral King controversy. 

 Econometrica 44:1259-1276. 



Clawson, M. 



1959. Methods of measuring the demand for and value of 

 outdoor recreation. Resources for the Future, Reprint 

 10, 36 p. Wash., D.C. 

 Clawson, M., and J. L. Knetsch. 



1966. Economics of outdoor recreation. Johns Hopkins 

 Press, Baltimore, 328 p. 



Dwyer, J. F., J. R. Kelly, and M. D. Bowes. 



1977. Improved procedures for valuation of the contribu- 

 tion of recreation to national economic development. 

 Univ. 111., Water Resour. Cent., Res. Rep. 128, 218 p. 



Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 



1982. National economic trends, monthly report dated 

 March, 1982. Fed. Reserve Bank St. Louis, St. Louis, 

 Mo., 16 p. 

 Freeman, A. M., III. 



1979. The benefits of environmental improvement, the- 

 ory and practice. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Balti- 

 more, 272 p. 

 Grubb, H. W., and J. T. Goodwin. 



1968. Economic evaluation of water-oriented recreation 

 in the preliminary Texas water plan. Texas Water De- 

 velopment Board, Austin, Rep. 84, 21 p. 

 Gum, R. L., and W. E. Martin. 



1975. Problems and solutions in estimating the demand 

 for and value of rural outdoor recreation. Am. J. Agric. 

 Econ. 57:558-566. 



Knetsch, J. L, R E. Brown, and W. J. Hansen. 



1976. Estimating expected use and value of recreation 



174 



