A Critique of Three “Economics” Arguments Commonly Used to Influence Fishery Allocations

Three familiar “economics” arguments commonly used by commercial fishermen and anglers to influence fishery allocations are specious in the context of fishery valuation. What I call the “market argument” and the “revenues argument” are based on incorrect notions of economic value and are focused on purely financial matters such as expenditures and revenues instead of on consumer and producer surpluses. In contrast, the “cumulative-value argument” sometimes addresses correct notions of economic value, but the values of commercial and sport fisheries are not properly compared. A conceptually correct benefit–cost analysis of allocation between the two fisheries is illustrated.