WAHLE, VREELAND, and LANDER: BIOECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION 



in estimates comparable to those originally re- 

 ported forthe 1962 Oregon survey (Gordon, n.d.)-^ 



The value of $20 per day is believed to be a 

 reasonable estimate based on existing research 

 information. However, limitations associated 

 with this estimated value should be recognized. 

 A range of values is needed for sport-caught fish 

 that reflect differences in quality variables such 

 as distance from metropolitan areas, environ- 

 mental conditions, species involved, and success 

 level. The reports mentioned here not only indi- 

 cate an average value for these different vari- 

 ables but involve different time periods, geo- 

 graphic areas, and research methods. This is 

 also an estimated market value and does not in- 

 clude other values such as consumer surplus (i.e., 

 benefits to consumers that are not measured by 

 market prices), benefits due to employment and 

 income generated in local communities and the 

 regional and national economy, and benefits to 

 nonusers who may not fish but may want fish- 

 ing preserved and available. 



Since the value per fishing day is an average 

 of various quality factors, no values by species 

 are estimated directly. The only method present- 

 ly available to determine values for fish is by 

 success levels. This requires careful interpreta- 

 tions; for example, greater success results in 

 lower values per fish. This means that higher 

 total values would result with poorer success 

 since the number of fish involved at the esti- 

 mated market price is not fully taken into 

 account. For this report, success is assumed to 

 be estimated at an average of the total landings 

 of all species. This is probably reasonable since 

 mostly ocean fishing and entire seasons are 

 involved. 



Limitations of estimated sport and commercial 

 values need to be emphasized. The estimated 

 market price of $20 per fishing day excludes con- 

 sumer surplus whereas the estimated number of 

 fishing days does not. Consequently, multiply- 

 ing market prices by actual participation is not 

 comparable with the ex-vessel prices used for 

 values of commercially caught fish since these 

 values do not contain consumer surplus. There- 

 fore extreme caution should be observed in com- 

 paring values between fish species or total val- 

 ues of sport and commercial fishing. 



** Douglas Gordon, (n.d.). An economic analysis of Idaho 

 sport fisheries. Univ. Idaho, Coll. Forestry. Wildl. and 

 Range Sci., Idaho Coop. Fish. Unit., Review draft, 60 p. 

 (Processed.) 



To obtain values for the 1965- and 1966-brood 

 sport-caught coho salmon, the estimated market 

 value of $20 per day of fishing is divided by the 

 success level in each region. This value per fish 

 is then multiplied by the number of coho taken 

 in each region. The results are presented in 

 Tables 8a and 8b. 



Benefit/Cost 



The total net economic values of the 1965- and 

 1966-brood coho salmon were $8,508,590 and 

 $9,065,579, respectively. Benefits were also de- 

 rived from the sale of excess 1965- and 1966- 

 brood coho carcasses at the study hatcheries. 

 The revenue from carcass sales is used to pur- 

 chase additional fish food. This allows additional 

 fish to be reared, thus providing future benefits 

 to society. 



Coho carcasses were sold at Fish Commission 

 of Oregon and Washington Department of Fish- 

 eries hatcheries. The values of the 1965- and 

 1966-brood coho carcasses sold are $75,035 and 

 $40,973, respectively. When these values are 

 added to the net economic values, total benefits 

 of $8,583,625 for the 1965 brood and $9,106,552 

 for the 1966 brood are obtained. The benefit to 

 cost ratios are then $8.583.625/$l,292,300 or 

 6.6/1 and $9,106,552/$1,226,600 or 7.4/1 for 

 the 1965 and 1966 broods, respectively. The 

 average benefit to cost ratio is 7.0/1. 



SUMMARY 



When this marking study was designed, four 

 marks were available from the Pacific Marine 

 Fisheries Commission. The Columbia River was 

 divided into four sections. Each section was 

 assigned a specific mark. All study hatcheries 

 within a given section (except Leavenworth 

 station in the Uppermost River section) marked 

 approximately 10% of their coho salmon produc- 

 tion with the assigned mark (Table 2). Two 

 broods, 1965 and 1966, of coho salmon were in- 

 cluded in the study. During the 2-year marking 

 phase, 4.1 million of the 40.1 million total coho 

 production were marked (Table 2). Approxi- 

 mately 22.9 million 1965-brood and 17.2 million 

 1966-brood coho were released (Table 2). 



Sampling for marks was conducted in most 

 coho salmon fisheries, with few exceptions, from 

 Avila Beach, Calif., to Pelican, Alaska (Figure 



157 



