Understanding the social and economic benefits of billfish angling

A more complete human dimensions understanding of recreational billfish fisheries is emerging from two recent studies in the U.S. Western Atlantic Ocean (Fisher and Ditton 1994) and in Puerto Rico (Ditton and Clark 1994). This paper will summarize new knowledge regarding the social and economic benefits of billfish angling since an earlier paper (Fedler and Ditton 1990) presented at the 1989 International Billfish Research Symposium. Also, this paper will give emphasis to existing as well as emerging research protocols for collecting human dimensions information from anglers and using it for fisheries management decision making purposes. Implications of new understandings for research, educational efforts, conservation organizations, the recreational fishing/tourism industry, and economic development will be discussed. INTRODUCTION In 1988 several human dimensions researchers were invited to present papers at the International Billfish Research Symposium in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Rockland (1989) provided an overview of the economics of recreational billfish fisheries. He carefully differentiated economic valuation from economic impact in order to guide future data collection efforts relative to these two concerns. Orbach (1990) provided a policy overview and analysis to enhance understanding of regional differences in billfish management and the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Billfish which was about to be approved by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce after many previous efforts by one or more of the five regional fishery management councils in the area. Maiolo (1990) provided results from a pilot study on the social organization of tournament billfish anglers (n=140) in the U.S. Atlantic. Tony Fedler and I were asked to provide a review of previous human dimensions research on the recreational billfish fishery. After Fedler and Ditton (1990) summarized what little was known about billfish anglers and their fishing experiences and some of the limitations of the data, they developed a social and economic research agenda in support of billfish Proceedings of the 47th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 564 conservation. They specifically directed their remarks to non-governmental interests. They did so because of 1) the relatively small number of billfish anglers compared to other fisheries, 2) the lack of allocation disputes once the FMP was approved, and 3) the lack of human dimensions perspective in both research and management among the federal fisheries management community (i.e., they weren? t devoting resources to support human dimensions research in other fisheries; why would they do so for billfish? ). Fedler and Ditton (1990) offered several examples where social and economic data were used effectively to support resource allocation decisions, enhanced research funding, and conservation decisions. Specifically, they noted that: Constituency groups need to explore ways to be more effective if they are to coax government to exercise fully its responsibilities for management of common property fisheries resources. Instead of relying on ethical and biological arguments, those who represent billfish anglers in political decision-making need to recognize the imperative of using well-grounded constituent and economic arguments. Biological points made by anglers can be (and often are) dismissed by management agencies as naive, anecdotal, uninformed, and not based on data. Legislators often do not understand biological arguments as well (Fedler and Ditton 1990:266). They suggested that to the extent private groups, (i.e., The Billfish Foundation, International Game Fish Association, Game Conservation International, National Coalition for Marine Conservation, and the Coastal Conservation Association among others) achieve a strategic understanding of billfish anglers, they will have a better chance of securing favorable attention to and necessary funding for billfish conservation and management matters. Overall, Fedler and Ditton (1990) saw greater social and economic understandings as the prerequisite first step to additional funding for and implementation of further research and management efforts. Instead of doing social and economic research after other biological research has been completed (it is never completed! ) as a first priority in support of resource protection, they suggested a radical alternative; that attention be devoted first to social and economic research to provide widespread understanding of the human benefits provided by this fishery and their value so the need for additional biological research, monitoring, and law enforcement efforts is abundantly clear. In response to this challenge, The Billfish Foundation (TBF) of Fort Lauderdale, FL with financial commitments from many other groups and individual anglers, has supported two social and economic studies of billfish anglers. The first focused on tournament billfish anglers in the U.S. Atlantic and was undertaken to blunt legal challenges at the time to the FMP for Atlantic Billfish (Ditton and Fisher 1990; Fisher and Ditton 1992). The second study focused on those participating in Proceedings of the 47th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 565 sixteen billfish tournaments in Puerto Rico in 1991-1992. This included those who resided in Puerto Rico as well as those non-residents who traveled to Puerto Rico to participate in billfish tournaments. We were interested in all of their billfish fishing activity over the previous twelve months, not just their tournament participation (Ditton and Clark 1994). This study was conducted in partnership with the Puerto Rico Sport Fishing Association, the University of Puerto Rico Sea Grant College Program, and the Club Nautico de San Juan International Billfish Tournament. Recently, with funding support from The Billfish Foundation, we initiated social and economic studies of the recreational billfish fisheries in the Cabo San Lucas/Mazatlan area of Mexico and along the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Whereas many of the research questions are the same as in the previous studies, the focus in the two new studies will be on charterboat billfish fisheries. By using a different sampling frame than previously, we expect to better understand angler diversity within this fishery. Against this backdrop of social and economic studies, there have been continuing challenges for billfish management over the past six years in the U.S. and abroad. Whereas the FMP for Atlantic Billfish reserved the resource for the traditional recreational fishery (the rationale was to optimize the social and economic benefits to the nation), problems have arisen which threaten billfish stocks. Commercial by-catch of billfish has become so ubiquitous as a source of mortality that The Billfish Foundation and other groups have recently proposed four specific time and area longlining closures in the U.S. Atlantic. These were proposed to the National Marine Fisheries Service in order to curtail excessive billfish mortality in areas with high billfish abundance within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Elsewhere commercial bycatch (even where prohibited under law) as well as occasionally directed fisheries threaten the abundance of billfish populations, billfish catchability by anglers practicing catch and release, and fisheries benefits documented previously in socio-economic studies. These cases point to the need for non-governmental constituency groups to make effective use of available social and economic data in support of billfish conservation. In the U.S. jurisdiction, for example, managers are charged with managing for optimum yield under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802): “. that amount of fish which will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, with particular reference to food production and recreational opportunities; and which is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from such fishing, as modified by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factorF This mandates data collection that enables such determinations. Other nations with traditional commercial fisheries must encourage new Proceedings of the 47th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 566 fishing practices, gear modifications, and other actions (as needed) if they are to continue to enjoy the tourism benefits associated with recreational billfish fisheries. With careful attention to recreational and commercial fisheries, the goal is to find a way for both fisheries to produce a sustainable flow of benefits to their respective constituencies and nations. To the extent that overfishing occurs as predicted in the commons dilemma, however, the social and economic benefits associated with the recreational fishery and the related tourism industry may be threatened. Since these benefits often far exceed those associated with commercial fisheries, this situation may necessitate a ‘good hard look’ at what is in the respective nation? s best long term interest. While overfishing of billfish by commercial fisheries produces social and economic damages for both recreational and commercial fisheries, losses from the recreational fishing activity forgone will be the greatest by far. METHODS In the following sections, this paper will deal with: 1) recent understandings of the human dimensions of billfish fisheries that have emerged since the Second International Billfish Symposium in 1988, 2) research questions that remain to be answered, and 3) a discussion of future applications of human dimensions research elsewhere. Some Recent Understanding Since the Second International Billfish Symposium in 1988, we have learned much more from our studies in the U.S. Atlantic (Ditton and Fisher 1990; Ditton and Clark 1994) about the socio-psychological benefits billfish anglers seek from their fishing experiences, how these are quantified in addition to fishing trip monetary expenditures to understand th