James, that was exactly my point. You’re making the exact same argument as the professional sports teams make. The “ancillary activity” argument that estimates the indirect spending related to the activity and then adds that to the bottom line when making the for/against argument for the economics.
As I said, how the numbers come out depends on what you choose to count. You’re adding all that “other” economic activity to the equation.
My point is that simple math produces simple results that are often not taking into account a bigger picture or goal. Just looking at direct revenue minus direct expenses doesn’t paint the whole picture for fishing or for football stadiums or for much else for that matter.
Not everything can or should be decided solely on the basis of a simplistic calculation of if it makes or loses money.
Grouse