Fisherman mends his nets. 



Scott D. Taylor 



many conflicts are largely perceived, 

 then they may be resolved easily by 

 providing accurate information to 

 opposing groups. 



Two, the research will show how 

 conflicts reflect political and social 

 alliances, thus identifying key groups 

 of people who need to be involved in 

 solving frictions. 



Finally, it is hoped the research 

 will reveal local, informal ways of 

 dissolving disharmony that may be 

 incorporated into more formal 

 resource management techniques. 



Everywhere you turn, economists 

 are shaping policies that will mold our 

 country's future. 



The same holds true for fisheries 

 management. Economic theory is 

 gradually becoming a greater factor in 

 management decisions. 



Fisheries managers are beginning 

 to utter words such as assets, net 

 values, net benefits, supply, demand 

 and optimum yields. And rightly so, 

 says N.C. State University economist 

 Jim Easley. 



Easley, a Sea Grant researcher, 

 recently organized an economics 

 summit for North Carolina's fisheries 

 managers, bringing in several of the 

 nation's top natural resource and 

 fisheries economists to introduce the 

 complexities of economic theory. 



The summit, co-sponsored by Sea 



Grant and the Division of Marine 

 Fisheries, focused specifically on how 

 managers can make tough decisions 

 about allocating stocks between 

 commercial and recreational fisher- 

 men. 



"There's a lot of competition for 

 our fish, between different commer- 

 cial groups, between commercial and 

 recreational fishermen, a whole range 

 of people," Easley says. "The back- 

 drop is there have been a lot of 

 numbers thrown about justifying 

 larger shares of allocation, and in 

 many cases, inappropriate numbers or 

 inappropriate economic analysis to 

 undergird that sort of decision. 



"If you are going to decide to shift 

 part of a harvest from one group to 

 another," he says, "you want to make 

 sure there are net gains. That's the sort 

 of issue we took up. ... We probably 

 presented more economic principles ... 

 than those folks ever want to see 

 again. But I think it was a productive 

 workshop." 



When making allocation decisions 

 between commercial and recreational 

 fishermen, people often compare 

 expenditures for the two groups. But 

 Easley says this is like comparing the 

 proverbial apple and orange. 



"What you really want to measure 

 is net benefits," he says, "That is, 

 benefits to consumers or users of a 

 resource that are above the costs of 



harvesting. We need demand func- 

 tions for these harvests and then net 

 out ... the costs of the harvesting. We 

 need the same sort of analysis for both 

 groups." 



When it comes to deriving the net 

 benefit for recreational fishing, 

 managers should substract the costs — 

 the gasoline, the lodging, tackle 

 rentals and devaluation of the boat — 

 associated with recreational fishing 

 from what an angler would pay rather 

 than forego the pleasures of snagging 

 a bluefish or king mackerel. 



In examining commercial benefits, 

 Easley says all profits for harvesting 

 seafood, from the vessel to the 

 processor to the seafood market to the 

 consumer, must be considered in 

 allocation decisions. 



Once managers can determine the 

 net benefits for commercial and 

 recreational fishermen, then they can 

 start making comparisons and analyz- 

 ing different allocation scenarios. 



Using demand functions, manag- 

 ers can see how shifts in quantities of 

 fish caught affect each harvesting 

 sector and the economy. 



Easley stresses this is the kind of 

 economic analysis that fishery 

 managers must begin doing, and doing 

 soon, if they want to manage the 

 state's fisheries responsibly and with 

 an eye on having stocks of fish for the 

 future. El 



14 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1993 



