FISHERY BULLETIN: VOL. 87, NO. 1 



ket prices and quantities are generally not available. 

 Even less well known is the impact that fishing ef- 

 fort (both past and present) has on the resource base 

 and, hence, the current and future value of the fish- 

 ing experience (e.g., quantity and average size of 

 catch, crowding, etc.). Effects of stock externalities 

 have been studied extensively for commercial fish- 

 eries and, although these externalities may exist for 

 sport fisheries, little empirical evidence is available. ^ 

 We present an economic methodology for valuing 

 recreational fishing assuming no stock externalities. 

 Of particular interest is to separate the value of the 

 quantity of fishing (e.g., the number of trips) from 

 the value of the quality or success of the fishing ex- 

 perience (e.g., catch rate). Economic value can be 

 derived from a demand relationship where the level 



-The stock externality results when increased fishing effort by 

 individual participants affects the fish stock such that catch per 

 day or average size of catch are adversely affected, and, hence, 

 the value of a recreational fishing day for all participants is dimin- 

 ished. (Anderson 1983.) 



or quantity (Q) demanded is related to price (P), in- 

 come (I), and a vector of other relevant variables 

 (S) including quality measures such as fishing suc- 

 cess. The demand relationship is given as 



Q = f(P, I, S), 



(1) 



where P, I, and S are treated as exogenous in the 

 individual's demand or consumption level decision. 



For recreational fishing, Q is usually measured as 

 the number of fishing trips; P may reflect an entry 

 price but more often is measured in terms of trip 

 related costs; I reflects angler income (e.g., annual 

 salary or hourly wage); and S reflects such things 

 as fishing success and prices of substitute and com- 

 plementary goods. Fishing success may be measured 

 in terms of number and size of fish caught and/or 

 kept. 



The model is graphically presented in Figure 1 

 with quantity (Q) and price (P) on the horizontal and 

 vertical axes respectively. The relationship between 



P (e.g., distance 

 travelled per trip) 



f(P, l,S2) = Dj 



f(P.I,S,) = D, 



Q (e y,, trips 

 per season) 



Figure 1.— Demand model relating travel frequency (Q) and cost (P). 



224 



