Two anglers show off their catch. Image: Great Lakes Fishery Commission
By Clara Lincolnhol
After a day out on the water, the total amount of money spent on fishing gear, transportation and food doesn’t truly reflect the worth of a fishing trip to Great Lakes anglers.
Some people are willing to pay $100 more for a fishing trip than what it costs, according to a recent Appalachian State University study funded by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
“This study raises awareness of the importance of managing the Great Lakes fishery,” said Rob Southwick, co-author of the study and president of Southwick Associates, an economics and market research company that specializes in outdoor recreation.
The study is the first of its kind to find the surplus value — the measure of what a person is willing to pay for a good or service beyond its market cost — of recreational fishing trips in the Great Lakes region, Southwick said.
The researchers asked more than 8,000 licensed anglers questions about their spending on fishing. Participants reported spending an average of $278 on their most recent fishing trip on the Great Lakes.
Researchers then asked them a series of questions to find out how much they would be willing to spend on a typical fishing trip. Their willingness to pay ranged from $54 to $101. Multiplied by the number of anglers, the surplus value was $611 million.
Actual total spending on recreational fishing in the Great Lakes region was $4.1 billion for the U.S. and Canada in 2020, according to the fishery commission. That spending provided 35,800 jobs, $1.9 billion of income and $5.1 billion in total economic output.
Anglers fish on the Old Grin charter boat in Grand Haven, Michigan. Image: Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Finding out what people are willing to pay for goods and services is helpful for policy makers, said John Whitehead, co-author of the study and professor of economics at Appalachian State.
“Without a number like this, a decision making body like the Great Lakes Fishery Commission would have no baseline value of what the fishery is,” he said.
Government agencies often see only the costs associated with implementing a new policy, and have incomplete data on the other side of the ledger, Whitehead said.
“When those decision makers have benefit numbers, they can compare benefits and costs and make better decisions,” he said.
For example, if invasive species are harming local fish, government agencies know that managing the harmful species is worth the investment because anglers place a high value on healthy fisheries, Whitehead said.
“We always refer to the value of the Great Lakes as being one of a triple bottom line,” said Greg McClinchey, director of policy and legislative affairs for the fishery commission. “There’s the economic one of course, but we never want to lose sight that it’s an ecological treasure and a shaper of societies.”
The commission is a binational organization for managing Great Lakes fisheries. Regulators from the eight U.S. states and the two Canadian provinces that border the Great Lakes use the science provided by the commission to make collective policy decisions, he said.
Knowing the surplus value of recreational fishing is an important argument in favor of the federal funding the commission receives to conduct research and manage invasive species, McClinchey said.
“If somebody’s willing to go and spend a hundred dollars on something, which is big money these days, then we know that’s important to them,” he said. “And I think that’s a mandate for all of us working in this field to make sure that we work to preserve those kinds of things people really enjoy and value.”