Tournaments and conservation

[NachoLibre]

I've always wondered something. Many individuals who seem to stand firmly on conservation issues and openly criticize others' decisions to fish within their legal limits also participate in (and promote) "catch and kill" tournaments. I know a lot of people who are not striper or bay fishermen but are lured by the big payout of these tournaments. The pressure on the fish during tournament days is tremendous.

My question is: what are the positive impacts of these tournaments? I'm sure some people will get bent out of shape about this question, but I am genuinely curious and have no position on this.

[jumbo1]

This should be interesting......

[27 sailfish]

Most tournaments - whether freshwater , bay or ocean bring a boost to the local economy.
Tournament anglers often book motels , buy food and fuel , eat at restaurants , buy extra tackle / bait , etc.

Virginia Beach has tournaments in winter that draws anglers from 4-5 states - these guys spend a lot of cash to get there.

The MSSA spring tournament has about 600 boats - figure on average 3-4 anglers per boat - that's 1,800 to 2,400 people spending cash somewhere during those three days. I know some guys spend about $400.00 over that long weekend in hotel / food / bar expenses. I know when Boater's World held the MSSA captain meetings - the store brought in extra staff to handle the huge volume of sales.

No doubt - the downside is the killing of many large fish. Some tournaments use a very high minimum size to ensure only a few fish are killed. More are leaning towards a catch / release format.

Bay tournaments are tough to predict what size to set - my crew and I once won first place in MSSA fall with a little 17 pounder.
It was a very tough bite on a snotty day. Who would have thought that fish would win ?

I've also heard less fish overall are killed as many release legal but smaller fish - saving the spot for a big one.

[bebopper]

Economic impact. That's the reason for everything anymore. It's also one of the most debateable subjects you can get into. What if they had no tournament? No one was going to fish that weekend and no one would buy bait, tackle, gas? We don't eat without tournaments? Reminds me of a freind that said going faster then the speed limit doesn't prove anything because you have to make stops for gas, the bathroom and eats. So it all evens out. I just asked him that if I went slower I wouldn't have to make those stops.
Normally the one's saying that smaller fish are released in hopes of catching a bigger one are the tournament promotors. As stated there are usually 3-4 anglers per boat. Maybe they start releasing after they have the first three in the box. They do pay out more then one prize.

I happen to think that the downside of more large fish are killed is pretty damn big. Especially since it has been such a big attention getter on this board about the rape of larger fish along the Atlantic seaboard. Am I to undersatnd that those folks spending money to fish at the CBBT and off of Carolina for the big bass are less important then tournament anglers in the economic impact area?

Seems the White Marlin Open in OC has minimum sizes and it has worked quite well. Actually it's better then quite well.

Personally I don't like kill tournaments. But that's my decision. I have no beef with anyone who feels otherwise. It may be misplaced but I go along with what the governing bodies decide about these things. If they think they are ok who am I to complain. Same goes with the trophy season, C&R, creel and sizes limits, etc. I have no beef with anyone who abides by the rules.While I believe those that have posted that the numbers are down and that this is also supported by AMFSC and the rules makers say there is no need for alarm at this time then who am I to debate it. I have no actual scientific data at my disposal to back me up. As do most on this board. Exterpolating what a handful of fishermen say at the ramp about not seeing many fish this to mean that the fish are down in numbers is the same as assuming that the guy who caught his limit means everybody caught their limit (I actually believe AFMSC does this).

[J.A. Veil]

I have been reamed out for expressing this sentiment before, but I offer it again. Many TFers have a knee-jerk reaction against the commercial fishing sector. How is it different to enter a tournament for the express purpose of winning a money prize? In my opinion, fishing, when you hope to make money from your efforts, is a commercial undertaking. I recognize that the amount of fish caught by a commercial fisherman greatly exceeds the amount caught by any single recreational angler. But from the standpoint of intent, there really is no difference - fishing for financial gain is a commercial activity, whether you sell the fish to market or collect a monetary prize from a tournament.

I feel different about a catch-and release tournament. In that case, no fish are killed for the sake of making money.

[blue lou]

Positive impact is money in my pocket.

[B-Faithful]

cut and pasted from an old thread from the spring:

I believe the MSSA is working on something to explain why tournaments are good for recreational angling. I believe some of the key points will be:

•draws attention to the sport and showcases fishing to the public
•increases involvement in recreational fishing
•HUGE economic impact (hotels, fuel, tackle, restaurants, marinas, etc.)
•place to educate anglers about management and political issues facing the sport
•place to educate anglers about better fishing practices
•provides data to the state DNR fisheries management team

There are other key points such as a Univ of Wisconsin study that shows a decline in mortality rates during tournaments due to conservation efforts of participating anglers, improved handling skills, and the releasing of fish. Combine the study, the points above, and with the fact that during the MSSA spring and fall tournaments less than one fish per boat is ever checked in and the tournaments are a true asset to recreational fishing in Maryland. (yes, less than one fish per boat is ever checked in during the Fall or Spring tournaments - anglers know it takes a significant fish to place)

From speaking with Dave Smith, I know he is working on making the tournaments even better. Some of the things he mentioned to me were:

•education for better C&R practices are going to a key part of the captains meetings.
•raising the min size of checked in fish to even further reduce the number of fish killed in the name of tournament
•increased prizes for the catch and release division (I believe the MSSA increased it this year on their own and will look for sponsors next year to further increase that prize)
•better communication during the tournament to participants to what has been checked in so anglers can make more educated decisions to what fish they keep.
•MSSA invited dnr representatives to participate in the weigh-in stations to ensure even more accurate data for their fisheries management team

It is important to note that with increased participation and the with a larger economic impact recreational fishing comes more political strength for issues that concern recreational anglers.
__________________

John, anglers in a tournament do not go out and harvest fish with the expectation of earning money. They are not guaranteed money for harvesting fish. It is a prize based on winning a game within the sport.

The postitives of tournaments far out-weigh any negatives as anglers fish within issued creels that all must adhere to whether they are fishing a tournament or not. Some may not like the increased participation in recreational fishing that tournaments can lead to. However, without strong participation in recreational fishing our society suffers economically and socially.

[Baldzilla 2.0]

Most tournaments - whether freshwater , bay or ocean bring a boost to the local economy.
Tournament anglers often book motels , buy food and fuel , eat at restaurants , buy extra tackle / bait , etc.

Virginia Beach has tournaments in winter that draws anglers from 4-5 states - these guys spend a lot of cash to get there.

The MSSA spring tournament has about 600 boats - figure on average 3-4 anglers per boat - that's 1,800 to 2,400 people spending cash somewhere during those three days. I know some guys spend about $400.00 over that long weekend in hotel / food / bar expenses. I know when Boater's World held the MSSA captain meetings - the store brought in extra staff to handle the huge volume of sales.



Let me preface this by saying, I don't care what you do within the confines of the law, and these tournaments are within the confines of the law, so they are therefore OK legally. You can debate all day and night the killing of huge fish, how many are killed, how many are released, etc. I don't care if you kill 20 40 inchers a year, if you do it legally. Hell, there are some on this board, you included that kill a ridiculous amount of smaller fish a year, but preach saving the small % of 40"ers caught per year. Killing the small breeding stock which has many more years to spawn, could be argued as worse than killling a 40" fish that may not live another year, or spawn again. But that is not what this is about.

I'll throw the BS flag on this one. This whole economic impact BS is what people who can't come up with another good reason to support something say because they don't think anyone is intellingent enough to disprove it. Show me the economic study that shows a great economic impact for having these tournaments? I'll tell you that I did my thesis on the bringing a sports team to a city, which generates a helluva lot more $$ than a stupid 3 day fishing tournament. Most economists have proven that the impact of bringing a new sports team to a city generates a negligible economic impact over time. So that being said, a fishing tournament, where 600 boats fish it, can't generate hardly any economic impact. Do you really believe that these 600 boats come from out of town, stay in hotels, buy all kinds of new tackle, spend nights out drinking, spend all of their hard earned out of town money for this tournament? The definition of positive economic impact would be bringing in new money from one economy to another. That being said, I'd bet very little of this money is new. I'd be willing to bet that 97% of boats are local. They don't go spend nights in hotels. They stay at their house becuase they spent a ridiciuous amount of money to enter the tournament and the calcuttas for a chance to win the big bucks. They have already been fishing the trophy season for 2-3 weeks, so they already have their tackle. Therefore they are not going out and buying all kinds of new tackle for this tournament. So even the small tackle shop, which I firmly support and back, sees very little if any benefit of these tournaments.

I'd bet if you did the real analysis it would be less than a .000000000000000000001% impact to our $275 Billion GSP (and I'm probably being generous). Who makes money off the MSSA tournament, MSSA (and a few lucky people who win)

annnnnnnyyyyywaaaaaayyyy, I don't care, fish your tournaments, but stop talking about the economic impact of fishing tournaments, or anything with such a menial impact

[5th Tuition]

Who makes money off the MSSA tournament, MSSA (and a few lucky people who win)
annnnnnnyyyyywaaaaaayyyy, I don't care, fish your tournaments, but stop talking about the economic impact of fishing tournaments, or anything with such a menial impact

Baldy; you forgot about the hookers brought in for the tournament. Damn, they just busted the prostitution ring operating out of Easton today (11/17/10). Looks like the guys will go home with some extra cash in their pockets after this weekend.
5th (Marty)

[bebopper]

Let me preface this by saying, I don't care what you do within the confines of the law, and these tournaments are within the confines of the law, so they are therefore OK legally. You can debate all day and night the killing of huge fish, how many are killed, how many are released, etc. I don't care if you kill 20 40 inchers a year, if you do it legally. Hell, there are some on this board, you included that kill a ridiculous amount of smaller fish a year, but preach saving the small % of 40"ers caught per year. Killing the small breeding stock which has many more years to spawn, could be argued as worse than killling a 40" fish that may not live another year, or spawn again. But that is not what this is about.

I'll throw the BS flag on this one. This whole economic impact BS is what people who can't come up with another good reason to support something say because they don't think anyone is intellingent enough to disprove it. Show me the economic study that shows a great economic impact for having these tournaments? I'll tell you that I did my thesis on the bringing a sports team to a city, which generates a helluva lot more $$ than a stupid 3 day fishing tournament. Most economists have proven that the impact of bringing a new sports team to a city generates a negligible economic impact over time. So that being said, a fishing tournament, where 600 boats fish it, can't generate hardly any economic impact. Do you really believe that these 600 boats come from out of town, stay in hotels, buy all kinds of new tackle, spend nights out drinking, spend all of their hard earned out of town money for this tournament? The definition of positive economic impact would be bringing in new money from one economy to another. That being said, I'd bet very little of this money is new. I'd be willing to bet that 97% of boats are local. They don't go spend nights in hotels. They stay at their house becuase they spent a ridiciuous amount of money to enter the tournament and the calcuttas for a chance to win the big bucks. They have already been fishing the trophy season for 2-3 weeks, so they already have their tackle. Therefore they are not going out and buying all kinds of new tackle for this tournament. So even the small tackle shop, which I firmly support and back, sees very little if any benefit of these tournaments.

I'd bet if you did the real analysis it would be less than a .000000000000000000001% impact to our $275 Billion GSP (and I'm probably being generous). Who makes money off the MSSA tournament, MSSA (and a few lucky people who win)

annnnnnnyyyyywaaaaaayyyy, I don't care, fish your tournaments, but stop talking about the economic impact of fishing tournaments, or anything with such a menial impact

Amen

[B-Faithful]

Rec fishing is a big enomomic engine in this state and tournaments increase participation in the sport. It is because of participation that the economic impact is 1 billion to 1.3 Billion dollar engine in our state. You may poo-poo what tournaments bring in but yes, many anglers stay in hotels, book slips at different marinas, buy new tackle, etc. Evidence in this is the fall MSSA tournament about to take place this weekend. All-tackle was packed last night for a capts meeting and just about everyone I saw had a bag in their hand. The Hotel at solomons Island I believe is booked solid and I know a number of people who have booked slips down south when their boats are typically slipped up north. I am sure the restaurants and bars will have a lot more increased activity this weekend too. All these activities are taxable by the state. This is a smaller 200 boat tournament too. I dont know the out of state number for this tournament but know the spring tournament is growing with out-of-state participation. Regardless, money is changing hands and many businesses, particularly small businesses, are benefitting and all the transactions around the event are taxed. None of this includes the many social benefits of recreational fishing that create a healthier society too .

I realize emotionally some dont like tournaments and put it off on the killing of fish. However, my bet is that those anglers do harvest fish for themselves within the creel throughout th year and just dont like to hear of or see other anglers keeping fish. It is the increased participation in fishing that they do not like. Of course it is nice to have the resource all to ones self but it isnt a beneficial use of the resource. Limiting participation only stands to hurt the sport and recreation in the long run.

Bottom line though is that tournaments do have a number of posititives for recreational fishing and very little down side (unless you want the resource limited to a few and all to yourself, which isnt good for recreational fishing as whole)

[uncljohn]

I'll tell you that I did my thesis on the bringing a sports team to a city, which generates a helluva lot more $$ than a stupid 3 day fishing tournament. Most economists have proven that the impact of bringing a new sports team to a city generates a negligible economic impact over time. So that being said, a fishing tournament, where 600 boats fish it, can't generate hardly any economic impact.

This is a weak comparison. There is a LOT of overhead in bringing a pro sports team to a city (which I'm sure you know if you did a thesis on it). The overhead for a fishing tourney is MILLIONS less. Also, the "stupid 3 day tournament" is normally an annual thing, so you're not talking about 3 days and that's it. You're usually talking about an annual event. And the "negligible economic impact over time" is based on the average of ALL teams within a sport, so you're averaging the Heat as well as the Clippers, the Cowboys as well as the Jaguars. I'm sure Dallas would argue that they have a great economic impact from the Cowboys. The Jags, who are now selling half their seats for each game, not so much.

If you've ever been to a Nationals game, you'll note that half of the fans are rooting for the other team. Many of them are from out of town.

I am curious about all these people that Nacho Libre seems to know of who tout conservation and then fish catch-n-kill tournaments. It would definitely seem hypocritical. From the people here who are true 'conservationists', I don't know of any of them who support catch-n-kill tourneys.

[B-Faithful]

I am curious about all these people that Nacho Libre seems to know of who tout conservation and then fish catch-n-kill tournaments. It would definitely seem hypocritical. From the people here who are true 'conservationists', I don't know of any of them who support catch-n-kill tourneys.

To me, people who catch and keep outside of a tournament then rant and rave about people keeping fish while participating in a tournament seem hypocritical. After all, whether you kill a fish while fishing a tournament or not, you have killed a fish.

Also, conservation doesnt have to mean preservation.

[Southern Grin]

my two cents: tournament fishing for money is " commercial fishing"

[uno]

Let me preface this by saying, I don't care what you do within the confines of the law, and these tournaments are within the confines of the law, so they are therefore OK legally. You can debate all day and night the killing of huge fish, how many are killed, how many are released, etc. I don't care if you kill 20 40 inchers a year, if you do it legally. Hell, there are some on this board, you included that kill a ridiculous amount of smaller fish a year, but preach saving the small % of 40"ers caught per year. Killing the small breeding stock which has many more years to spawn, could be argued as worse than killling a 40" fish that may not live another year, or spawn again. But that is not what this is about.

I'll throw the BS flag on this one. This whole economic impact BS is what people who can't come up with another good reason to support something say because they don't think anyone is intellingent enough to disprove it. Show me the economic study that shows a great economic impact for having these tournaments? I'll tell you that I did my thesis on the bringing a sports team to a city, which generates a helluva lot more $$ than a stupid 3 day fishing tournament. Most economists have proven that the impact of bringing a new sports team to a city generates a negligible economic impact over time. So that being said, a fishing tournament, where 600 boats fish it, can't generate hardly any economic impact. Do you really believe that these 600 boats come from out of town, stay in hotels, buy all kinds of new tackle, spend nights out drinking, spend all of their hard earned out of town money for this tournament? The definition of positive economic impact would be bringing in new money from one economy to another. That being said, I'd bet very little of this money is new. I'd be willing to bet that 97% of boats are local. They don't go spend nights in hotels. They stay at their house becuase they spent a ridiciuous amount of money to enter the tournament and the calcuttas for a chance to win the big bucks. They have already been fishing the trophy season for 2-3 weeks, so they already have their tackle. Therefore they are not going out and buying all kinds of new tackle for this tournament. So even the small tackle shop, which I firmly support and back, sees very little if any benefit of these tournaments.

I'd bet if you did the real analysis it would be less than a .000000000000000000001% impact to our $275 Billion GSP (and I'm probably being generous). Who makes money off the MSSA tournament, MSSA (and a few lucky people who win)

annnnnnnyyyyywaaaaaayyyy, I don't care, fish your tournaments, but stop talking about the economic impact of fishing tournaments, or anything with such a menial impact

GIVE THAT MAN A CIGAR. Most intelligent post I've read on here for years.

[B-Faithful]

Comparing a pro sports team with a full season of events is a poor comparison at best. A tournament is one event in the grand scheme of recreational fishing. A more fair comparison would be the economic impact of one event with a tournament or all of recreational fishing with the Baltimore Orioles. Yes, the Orioles have a larger economic impact. However the impact of recreational fishing is still significant and an important part of our economy. Tournaments are one event in the grand scheme of things that create more participation (hense why some here dont like them), which is main thing that drives the economic engine of recreational fishing.

BTW, the hotel in Solomons was sold out last weekend...

(And I only kept 2 of the 6 fish we caught.. if I wasnt fishing the tournament more would have gone in the box)

[B-Faithful]

Given that tournament participants fish within the dnr regulations, i dont see how reducing or eliminating tournaments would have a significant impact on a fishery. If reductions are necessary, they should come via creel, season length, or size limits adjustments. Of course given the current demand and needs for the fish within our state, I believe it should come from the commercial side first (which currently makes up nearly half of our states entire take)

[B-Faithful]

Recreational fishing industries are nearly soley dependent upon rockfish and a healthy population and maximized access. Guides, charter capts, tackle shops, marinas, etc. There are at least 10x the amount of jobs dependent upon rec fishing than commercial rockfishing. Reductions on the commercial side would only stand to potentially drive up the value of the fish on the commercial side whereas reductions on the recreational side stand to directly reduce economic activity.

some species are far more valuable to society as game than a food source. Rockfish is one of them.

[uno]

Makes sense. Does anyone know what cuts, if any, were made to the commercial sector during the 80s moratorium? I've never seen anything written.
It was a MORATORIUM Jim. The entire fishery was shut down - not just the recreational portion.
As a side note - I went to dinner at the Suicide Bridge Restaurant in Secretary Friday night - one of the items on the buffet was broiled rockfish filets. They had a hard time keeping the tray full - everybody was eating them! Without a commercial element in the fishery, those people would have been denied the opportunity to enjoy that entree'.

[B-Faithful]

Uno, It is ashame they didnt have wild white tailed deer or duck on the menu. I am sure it would have gone even more quickly (well maybe not the duck).

Even if we didnt have a commercial harvest here in MD, striped or hybrid bass are available through aquaculture. Anyhow, I dont think there will be an end to the commercial harvest of rockfish in MD anytime soon. However I do think harvest reductions through an appropriate reallocation to better meet the needs and demand of the state maybe coming though. Therefore wild rockfish will be available for a good time to come. One may just have to pay more for it.

[uno]

Uno, It is ashame they didnt have wild white tailed deer or duck on the menu. I am sure it would have gone even more quickly (well maybe not the duck).

Even if we didnt have a commercial harvest here in MD, striped or hybrid bass are available through aquaculture. Anyhow, I dont think there will be an end to the commercial harvest of rockfish in MD anytime soon. However I do think harvest reductions through an appropriate reallocation to better meet the needs and demand of the state maybe coming though. Therefore wild rockfish will be available for a good time to come. One may just have to pay more for it.



Would you mind explaining your continuing statement of " reallocation to better meet the needs and demand of the state". What "demands of the state"? I personally haven't seen "The State" making ANY demands. All I see is YOU trying to push YOUR agenda. Would you like to list the "demands" the State is making along with references, please?

[B-Faithful]

My use of the word demand was in terms of economic and social demands. For a definition of demand in the economic supply and demand sense, please see here: http://www.investorwords.com/1396/demand.html

We all have an agenda and a view point that we push. Most of it is derived from our persepective. I am sure there is a certain agenda in your posts too. Heck, that is one thing an internet forum good for.. being able to discuss our thoughts and putting them out there for debate. Anyhow, I am just one person so individually my perspective means no more or less than anyone elses. So take my posts for what they are worth. :))

[Southerly]

i have a question regarding the moratorium - i thought any targeting of rockfish was outlawed during that period, ie no targeting for catch and release, but maybe i misunderstood? i read another post awhile back that made me wonder.

and i more or less distinctly remember rockfish at the grocery store during the moratorium? probably brought up from VA after their ban ended?

re commercil arguments of providing restaurants - didn't the pre-moratorium excess harvesting show that the supply could not meet demand, and that argument cannot be relied on to set limits. if true, then the problem is allocating the sustainable harvest. assuming public has some right to enjoy benefit of the resource, right to 'catch a fish' trumps right to 'buy a fish'.

imagine dnr at the restaurant telling people 'if you want one, you'll have to catch one. commercial fishing is banned.' vs standing on the shore telling dad and son 'if you want one, you'll have to go buy one. these fish are for harvest by commercial watermen.'.

fortunately it's not that bad and if fishery management needs to make change, it seems like they should be able to make adjustment without shutting anybody down. hopefully, their decisions will reflect good conservation 'science', but assuming there's a possibility they don't think of those good decisions on their own, or doesn't understand what people want, it looks like this is the time when conservation suggestions are made?

[Southerly]

as regards everyone having an agenda. i feel like i'm just trying to understand but one thing i haven't fully understood is the fish consumption advisory more or less provided to fishermen.

maybe i'm wrong, but historically dnr did testing and our fish were safe. the interstate advisory board did not do testing, they used test results done by various other entities, including our dnr's. the various test methods didn't match up - there were different sampling methods, actual test methods (direct vs inferential), etc..

using the same results dnr had relied on (those test results are available somewhere out on the www), their conclusion was advisory was needed. i think reasoning is you don't really know where your fish has been. it may have enjoyed warm pcb water at some out-of-state powerplantfor example before swimming into your fishing hole. i can follow that reasoning i guess. but then restaurants, seafood stores don't provide the advisory with assumption that people get their rockfish from many different restaurants? but their first argument is not fish in general, it's risk of getting that 'bad one'.

i thought further research or clarifications had been promised for this year but haven't seen them.

but anyway - if i understand the rules; my conservation suggestion is to post the fish consumption advisory wherever the fish is sold. on the window at the seafood store, or on the menu.

[Capt.Nick]

This should be interesting...... Very

[fly flinger]

Is there any reason why the tournament couldn't be a catch & release event using serialized digital cameras to prove the catch? I wonder how many under size fish die due to the expediency of getting back to fishing for a larger catch?

JOHN ATHERTON
YOUTH
Chapter 1
On speaking softly and carrying a long rod.

“One of the great qualities of the sport is that it is noncompetitive. Americans, in particular, seem to me well enough supplied with competition not to include fishing as well. The least flavor of the competitive destroys its most charming qualities, lending it an atmosphere of sly haste, pervading its associations with petty jealousies, envy, and resentments. The angler who is determined to catch the biggest fish or the most of them, by his own determination becomes a competitor and is self poisoned”.

From: “THE ARMCHAIR ANGLER” edited by: Terry Brykczynski and David Reuther. Published by: Charles Scribner’s Sons New York 1986

[B-Faithful]

I am sure the mortality rate is no lower than anyone going out catch and release fishing who is in a tournament or not. I actually would go further and say that the mortality rate could possibly be lower if anything as a Univ of Wisconsin study shows a decline in mortality rates during tournaments due to conservation efforts of participating anglers, improved handling skills, and the releasing of fish.

I also dont buy the emotionally driven dribble either. Almost Every fishermen is in search of the biggest or most fish during a trip. If they werent, you wouldnt have people running all over the place burning expensive fuel, looking for concentrations of fish under birds, buying the best electronics, using the latest and greatest equipment, coming to tidal fish to share and gain knowledge of fishing, etc. If anglers didnt want to catch the biggest or most they could stay home and sit around puddle with a rod in their hand and be happy. Fishing is a challenge. A tournament celebrates and shares those challenges amoungst a group of anglers. Call me poisoned but every trip out i am trying to catch the biggest and most fish I can. I am rarely successful but the opportunity and chance keeps drawing me back in.

(I bet the author of that quote knows his personal best fish and hopes to catch one bigger and also tries to catch many fish on a given trip too -whether one competes against other anglers or himself, he is competing... As a former all american in track I can say that not only did I compete with other runners, I always competed against myself and previous performances)