Nice try, but another failed analogy. Your bulldozer shovel analogy would only work if the sports fishermen were attempting to supply food by hook and line versus the commercial guys with nets. But that is not the sports fisher economy at all. It is not food based. Again, it's a tough argument to quantify because no one owns the ocean but we all depend on it and we depend on it because our economy is dependent on it in many ways -- food being only a small part of that though. The sports fish economy is about jobs in hotels and restaurants and in real estate and in the recreation boat industry at all levels. Coastal environs with recreation as a main driver are thriving and clean and bustling and create jobs and opportunity on many more fronts than commercial fishing does. Now that's no problem until one industry threatens the viability of another.
That argument strikes me as being not too far removed from the arguments of the New London case. The state can take your land if it will get them more revenue giving it to someone else, and they can do the same with your livlihood.