By John Considine
Last month, Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) published a Socio-Economic Study of Recreational Angling in Ireland. The study produced a variety of numbers to illustrate the importance of angling to Ireland. Direct expenditure on recreational angling in 2012 amounted to €555m. The combined direct and indirect economic impact was €755m. Recreational angling was estimated to support 10,000 jobs. And, it estimated that 7% of the Irish population aged 15+ participated in angling in the last year. These are pretty impressive figures.
The above paragraph reads like a press release. It presents the case in a good light. It is similar to what we do when we compose our CVs. We also tend to dress-up for an interview, a social event, or a Court appearance. Inland Fisheries Ireland (and Tourism Development International) has put together a good piece of work. They highlight the positive.
The report is also upfront about the assumptions made. While we can argue about some of the assumptions made, a good report does not obscure the assumptions from the reader willing to put in the effort to read more than the press release. IFI have done well in this regard.
What are the assumptions people might question?
The study states that “transport costs (both to Ireland and within the country) have been included in the expenditure information shown and account for 25% of total spending on the trip under review”. In other words, it would include the air fare of a German angler who took a British Airways flight to Ireland. Most economists would question whether such an air fare should be included.
The report is also upfront about the assumptions made. While we can argue about some of the assumptions made, a good report does not obscure the assumptions from the reader willing to put in the effort to read more than the press release. IFI have done well in this regard.
What are the assumptions people might question?
The study states that “transport costs (both to Ireland and within the country) have been included in the expenditure information shown and account for 25% of total spending on the trip under review”. In other words, it would include the air fare of a German angler who took a British Airways flight to Ireland. Most economists would question whether such an air fare should be included.
The study uses Failte Ireland estimates that €1 million of tourist spending supports 36 jobs. The study says that the €106m of expenditure by overseas anglers and the €15m of expenditure by Northern Ireland anglers “can legitimately be classified as tourist spending”. Why is the word “legitimately” used? Is it because the study then goes on to talk about “domestic tourists”?
The study describes domestic tourists as those Irish citizens who undertake overnight trips. Many economists might question whether these individuals should be classified as tourists. They might point out that this “domestic tourist” expenditure does not account for the substitution effect. In other words, an angler from Wexford may spend €100 in Galway to the benefit of the local Galway economy, but, it means that this angler is substituting expenditure in Galway for expenditure that was likely to take place in Wexford. Galway may gain but Wexford loses out. Ireland does not gain by €100.
One other point about this interesting study is worth noting. Inland Fisheries Ireland must be complemented on not excluding sea fishing. While the inclusion increases the overall value of angling it does tend to show freshwater fishing is a relatively poor light. This is especially so when one considers that for “Anglers on Overnight Fishing Trips” the largest demand is for (a) Sea Fish (excluding bass) and (b) Sea Trout or Salmon. Both categories accounted for 22,000 trips.
It might seem ironic that an Inland Fisheries authority would highlight the demand for sea fishing. This could be a function of the disposition of those associated with fishing. The recreational anglers I know love sharing information. Even though they often go fishing alone but they love nothing better than sharing information that might help their colleagues.
The study describes domestic tourists as those Irish citizens who undertake overnight trips. Many economists might question whether these individuals should be classified as tourists. They might point out that this “domestic tourist” expenditure does not account for the substitution effect. In other words, an angler from Wexford may spend €100 in Galway to the benefit of the local Galway economy, but, it means that this angler is substituting expenditure in Galway for expenditure that was likely to take place in Wexford. Galway may gain but Wexford loses out. Ireland does not gain by €100.
One other point about this interesting study is worth noting. Inland Fisheries Ireland must be complemented on not excluding sea fishing. While the inclusion increases the overall value of angling it does tend to show freshwater fishing is a relatively poor light. This is especially so when one considers that for “Anglers on Overnight Fishing Trips” the largest demand is for (a) Sea Fish (excluding bass) and (b) Sea Trout or Salmon. Both categories accounted for 22,000 trips.
It might seem ironic that an Inland Fisheries authority would highlight the demand for sea fishing. This could be a function of the disposition of those associated with fishing. The recreational anglers I know love sharing information. Even though they often go fishing alone but they love nothing better than sharing information that might help their colleagues.
RSS Feed