Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Economics rules!

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Economics rules!

    Perhaps the allocation issue can be settled by economics instead of management: http://www.adn.com/alaska-news/econo...and-elsewhere/

    Unless there was gross miss-management or some other factors, can the demise of other outfits be far behind as farmed fish and the decreased demand in come into the economic picture?

    The issue of economics aside, this looks like great news for the sport and personal use fishermen!
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  2. #2
    Member hoose35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Soldotna, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    2,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Perhaps the allocation issue can be settled by economics instead of management: http://www.adn.com/alaska-news/econo...and-elsewhere/

    Unless there was gross miss-management or some other factors, can the demise of other outfits be far behind as farmed fish and the decreased demand in come into the economic picture?

    The issue of economics aside, this looks like great news for the sport and personal use fishermen!
    Businesses of all kinds are mismanaged all the time. How many oil companies have filed for bankruptcy? How about sporting goods stores? Etc etc. Sea food companies are generally much bigger than salmon from cook inlet

    Sent from my HTC One A9 using Tapatalk
    Responsible Conservation > Political Allocation

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    The issue of economics aside, this looks like great news for the sport and personal use fishermen!
    I don't follow. Please explain why this is good news for someone who sport or PU fishes?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default because...

    The less profitable the salmon - or any other fish - are to the commercial fishermen the less demand for those fish. With less demand, more fish are generally available for sport and PU fishermen and to provide marine derived nutrients for the eco system. Again - I'm ignoring any economic impact of the bankruptcy.

    Since the large fish processors I've looked up are all privately owned - an interesting fact in itself - the main indication most of us see of their profitability is when one of them goes bankrupt.

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    I don't follow. Please explain why this is good news for someone who sport or PU fishes?
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    The less profitable the salmon - or any other fish - are to the commercial fishermen the less demand for those fish. With less demand, more fish are generally available for sport and PU fishermen and to provide marine derived nutrients for the eco system. Again - I'm ignoring any economic impact of the bankruptcy.

    Since the large fish processors I've looked up are all privately owned - an interesting fact in itself - the main indication most of us see of their profitability is when one of them goes bankrupt.
    Each day across America 10's of 100's of businesses-companies fail and close every month is it really something you can speak about reasonably, cause, effect and what will happen next? Too bad for them but who among the average joe in southcentral Alaska is really going to be able to feel the effects 60-70 employees sure important but someone will be in line to do what they did. Sports Authority is going out of business nationwide I don't really give a hoot someone else will be in line.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default really don't know..

    Without knowing the finances of the business we don't know why they folded - that is why I acknowledged that fact and used the word "perhaps".

    We do know that farmed fish is capturing a significant part of the market, the commercial fishermen cry that they can't afford to pay any higher taxes, the processors won't hire American worker (they would rather hire cheaper aliens), and the demand for seafood in Japan is dropping as they eat more red meat like the western world.

    We can only speculate and can watch and see what happens next.


    Quote Originally Posted by kidfromgarcia View Post
    Each day across America 10's of 100's of businesses-companies fail and close every month is it really something you can speak about reasonably, cause, effect and what will happen next? Too bad for them but who among the average joe in southcentral Alaska is really going to be able to feel the effects 60-70 employees sure important but someone will be in line to do what they did. Sports Authority is going out of business nationwide I don't really give a hoot someone else will be in line.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,208

    Default

    I'm not seeing the connection between this article and recreational/PU anglers. If one fish processor fails, another will handle the demand. I don't see how one failed fish processor means more salmon for anyone.

    Now, if the demand for wild salmon falls to the point where the cost of catching/processing those fish exceed the market price, commercial fishing might decrease because it will no longer be economical. But that has little or nothing to do with the article.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    The less profitable the salmon - or any other fish - are to the commercial fishermen the less demand for those fish. With less demand, more fish are generally available for sport and PU fishermen and to provide marine derived nutrients for the eco system. Again - I'm ignoring any economic impact of the bankruptcy.

    Since the large fish processors I've looked up are all privately owned - an interesting fact in itself - the main indication most of us see of their profitability is when one of them goes bankrupt.
    Ok, right. I get it now. It makes sense - because there is so little sport/PU opportunity right now, such limited options, and such horrible sport/PU success rates across south central all summer long, we should hope for bankruptcies and losses in other businesses and user groups so more dead fish can go unused and rot in the river or your freezer. What a load of crap. Go find a bridge to sell.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default wasted?

    Fish that rot in the river are "unused" or wasted?

    Perhaps you should read up on the life cycle of the salmon, and how the marine derived nutrients are important to the whole eco system that support salmon.

    With that lack of under standing it is easy to see why so many commercial fish stocks are overfished. Apparently that "any fish that doesn't get caught and sold is wasted" seems to be motto of commercial fishing.


    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    Ok, right. I get it now. It makes sense - because there is so little sport/PU opportunity right now, such limited options, and such horrible sport/PU success rates across south central all summer long, we should hope for bankruptcies and losses in other businesses and user groups so more dead fish can go unused and rot in the river or your freezer. What a load of crap. Go find a bridge to sell.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Fish that rot in the river are "unused" or wasted?

    Perhaps you should read up on the life cycle of the salmon, and how the marine derived nutrients are important to the whole eco system that support salmon.

    With that lack of under standing it is easy to see why so many commercial fish stocks are overfished. Apparently that "any fish that doesn't get caught and sold is wasted" seems to be motto of commercial fishing.
    I must comment on this. Tvfinak you do not know what the hell you are talking about. I saw in another post where you said you lived close to a university. Too bad you did not go to the university and learn to research subjects with critical thinking as opposed to posting cliche sayings.


    Management of salmon is very complicated and trying to turn a wasted comment (which referred to use by humans) into a biological rant on marine nutrients and ecosystems shows a complete lack of understanding.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Fish that rot in the river are "unused" or wasted?

    Perhaps you should read up on the life cycle of the salmon, and how the marine derived nutrients are important to the whole eco system that support salmon.

    With that lack of under standing it is easy to see why so many commercial fish stocks are overfished. Apparently that "any fish that doesn't get caught and sold is wasted" seems to be motto of commercial fishing.
    "Unused" and "wasted" are different words with different meanings. I did not use the work "wasted".

    I am well aware of the roll MDN play in our watersheds, and am familiar with the life cycle of salmon.

    There is no reasonable science or data to suggest that the lives of sport or P.U. fisherman would be any better if there were no Cook Inlet gillnet fishery. If you'd like to sell the theory that the millions of unharvested, UNUSED salmon would be a net gain for everyone if left to rot and add more MDN into an already fertile watershed, then you should sell us the bridge you're living under while you're at it.

    Lots of opportunity to go fishing right now. Lots of fish to catch too, with more coming. Just takes a little motivation.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    "Unused" and "wasted" are different words with different meanings. I did not use the work "wasted".

    I am well aware of the roll MDN play in our watersheds, and am familiar with the life cycle of salmon.

    There is no reasonable science or data to suggest that the lives of sport or P.U. fisherman would be any better if there were no Cook Inlet gillnet fishery. If you'd like to sell the theory that the millions of unharvested, UNUSED salmon would be a net gain for everyone if left to rot and add more MDN into an already fertile watershed, then you should sell us the bridge you're living under while you're at it.

    Lots of opportunity to go fishing right now. Lots of fish to catch too, with more coming. Just takes a little motivation.
    tbsmith - I do not think you meant to say lives of sport and pu fisherman would not be better if there was no gillnet fishery. Of course it would be better as a group. For example, if the whole sockeye return went into the river and one is still managing for goals what would a manager do - first raise bag limits, increase time open to fishing, allow non-residents to PU fish, increase the guide component and market it as a top notch sport fishery, allow snagging, and more - so one could argue this would be better for the group as a whole. Not for the river or some individuals but increased harvest would have to take place.

  13. #13
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    tbsmith - I do not think you meant to say lives of sport and pu fisherman would not be better if there was no gillnet fishery. Of course it would be better as a group. For example, if the whole sockeye return went into the river and one is still managing for goals what would a manager do - first raise bag limits, increase time open to fishing, allow non-residents to PU fish, increase the guide component and market it as a top notch sport fishery, allow snagging, and more - so one could argue this would be better for the group as a whole. Not for the river or some individuals but increased harvest would have to take place.
    Hopefully the first thing managers would do in such a scenario is cease enhancement operations, which would benefit the watershed as a whole....whereas simply increasing inriver fishing would undoubtedly damage it....
    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    tbsmith - I do not think you meant to say lives of sport and pu fisherman would not be better if there was no gillnet fishery. Of course it would be better as a group. For example, if the whole sockeye return went into the river and one is still managing for goals what would a manager do - first raise bag limits, increase time open to fishing, allow non-residents to PU fish, increase the guide component and market it as a top notch sport fishery, allow snagging, and more - so one could argue this would be better for the group as a whole. Not for the river or some individuals but increased harvest would have to take place.
    I know and meant what I said. None of those things would improve the lives of sport/PU fishermen for the long term. We've got it pretty good right now. Lots of fish to catch. Damaged habitat, less data, and possibly less predictable runs does not sound good to me. Nor does a 24 hour a day powerboat circus or unlimited dip nets on the river. You are entitled to your opinion though.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #15

    Default

    And then there's the economic argument, which TV immediately dismissed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default actually..

    I actually did go to the university and graduated with a BS in Electrical Engineering at the time when they flunked out 3/4 of the beginning engineering students. Then I went back while working full time as an engineer and completed all the course work for a MSEE. I lack one math course having enough credits for a math major. After that I've worked for over 45 years as a successful engineer for a number of major and minor companies. So critical thinking, research, and problem solving - I'll match up with you any day my friend!

    Yes, fish management is very complicated - more unknowns than the equations to solve it. It is quite obvious that we haven't scratched the surface of what we should know and don't begin to comprehend. Again - I'll compare it to medicine - how many times have proven knowledge proven to be wrong? Remember how many years we were told to eat margarine because butter was bad for you for example.

    Common sense tells me the salmon and eco-system evolved to take advantage of the vast numbers of fish that swam up the rivers and died each year. Good old mother nature wastes nothing! In time we'll find out how we are screwing things up by removing all those fish that used to be "wasted". But right now commercial fishing and their allies does not want to know. I just hope we find out what is going on before it is too late.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    I must comment on this. Tvfinak you do not know what the hell you are talking about. I saw in another post where you said you lived close to a university. Too bad you did not go to the university and learn to research subjects with critical thinking as opposed to posting cliche sayings.


    Management of salmon is very complicated and trying to turn a wasted comment (which referred to use by humans) into a biological rant on marine nutrients and ecosystems shows a complete lack of understanding.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithtb View Post
    I know and meant what I said. None of those things would improve the lives of sport/PU fishermen for the long term. We've got it pretty good right now. Lots of fish to catch. Damaged habitat, less data, and possibly less predictable runs does not sound good to me. Nor does a 24 hour a day powerboat circus or unlimited dip nets on the river. You are entitled to your opinion though.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    tbsmith. We do not need a commercial fishery as sport fisherman. Your examples of damage may or may not happen. But we know that high density fisheries can happen in a number of rivers without the issues you raised. The Russian River is a good example. The PU fishery at Kenai River mouth is actually fairly clean. Regulations would be needed but it is possible.

    I would agee that it is unlikey that the in river harvest could meet goals in a number of years. That would lead to lost yield but sport fisheries can be very successful at lower and more variable returns. Finally the most damage from no commercial fisheries is loss of a sense of community. A much stronger position.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    tbsmith. We do not need a commercial fishery as sport fisherman. Your examples of damage may or may not happen. But we know that high density fisheries can happen in a number of rivers without the issues you raised. The Russian River is a good example. The PU fishery at Kenai River mouth is actually fairly clean. Regulations would be needed but it is possible.

    I would agee that it is unlikey that the in river harvest could meet goals in a number of years. That would lead to lost yield but sport fisheries can be very successful at lower and more variable returns. Finally the most damage from no commercial fisheries is loss of a sense of community. A much stronger position.
    Good grief I did not suggest sport fishermen need a local commercial fishery, only that the average sport fishermen's life would not be better off without a local commercial fishery - for a number of reasons. Hope my point is understood.

    Just because it might be theoretically possible to move more nets, people, and pressure out of the inlet and into the river without killing the entire ecosystem does not mean 1. It makes any sense, or 2. It would make our lives any better.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    Remember how many years we were told to eat margarine because butter was bad for you for example.
    Butter is bad for you.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •