Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 66

Thread: Super important read

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    690

    Exclamation Super important read

    We only have a short time before proposals are due for suggested reg changes: this just in - the economic survey of the $ spent by anglers (not commercials) and the $ generated AND the jobs created by sport fishers, both res and non res:

    http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/state...007Summary.pdf

    There has not been one of these done (to the best of my knowledge) since the early 80's or so. 20+ years is too long for the surveys to be done with economic and infrastructure changes...
    "He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit is better than he who takes a city." ~ Proverbs 16:32

  2. #2
    Member chriso's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    810

    Default Great information.... thanks!

    How does this stack up against the economics of the commercial fishing industry? In particular, I'd be interested to know more about the comparison if you factored out the "southcentral" portion of the sportfishing econimics and compared it to the southcentral commercial fishing economics...

  3. #3

    Default

    This certainly puts new light into the importance of sport fishing. In SC 11,500 jobs is astounding. I wonder what commercial fishing is responsible for? In the whole state it is 38,000 jobs including the supporting industries. Tourism supports about 40,000 jobs in the state.

    Armed with these new figures that 50-50 split that I mentioned for the halibut catch split between the commercial guys and the recreational guys is looking more about right all the time.

    You can check out the numbers yourself at http://www.alaskadispatch.com/tundra...s-economy.html

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    This is a great read! It does seem that the sportfishing industry is a big part of the picture. I really wonder how much comfish adds to the pot. If you took out crab fishing in the bearing sea (sport fishermen dont go there) I wonder how the salmon and halibut would be split up if it were to be split on how much money was generted by each.

  5. #5

    Thumbs up I hear ya

    Great read. In 2001 there was a 170 page report published titled: National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and wild-life associated recreation - National in scope it still tells a good story of the impact this industry has on local commerce.

    It’s the very point I've been telling people since I started researching for the TV show in 97'. In 2004 the numbers were staggering. Something like 1.2 million tourists were coming to Alaska the majority of them to fish, hunt, view wildlife and fill up our teeny little lodges scattered throughout Alaska – to buy our goods and services yet Alaska falls almost last compared to other states in promoting tourism w/a mere budget of $10Million.

    It was challenging last year in conveying this information to potential sponsors as to how big the sport fishing – hunting genre is to locals and outsiders requiring services and information. Ya – this is a very important industry to the state of Alaska.

    I'd attach the report but it says its too big up upload. 1.10 megs. PM me if you want the report.


    Fishing and Hunting


    In 2001, 38 million U.S. residents 16
    years old and older went fishing and/or
    hunting. This includes 34.1 million who
    fished and 13 million who hunted. The
    overage is accounted for by those who
    both fished and hunted, 9.3 million.
    In 2001, expenditures by sportspersons
    totaled $70.0 billion. Trip-related
    expenditures, including those for food,
    lodging, and transportation, were almost
    $20.0 billion—28 percent of all fishing and
    hunting expenditures. Total equipment
    expenditures amounted to nearly $41.0
    billion, 59 percent of the total. Other
    expenditures—magazines, membership
    dues, contributions, land leasing and
    ownership, and licenses, stamps, tags, and
    permits—accounted for $9.1 billion or 13
    percent of all sportspersons’ expenditures.


    Alaska Outdoors Television ~ Outdoor Channel

  6. #6

    Default

    There is a report done by NOAA that provides economic data for commercial (and marine recreational) fishing in Alaska:

    http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publ...mmunities.html

    raccy

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    I could be wrong and I am sure some one will point it out it I am but I believe Cook Inlet is responsible for around 5% of the commercial fish caught in Alaska.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    I could be wrong and I am sure some one will point it out it I am but I believe Cook Inlet is responsible for around 5% of the commercial fish caught in Alaska.
    Commercial salmon harvests and exvessel value are at:

    http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/genin...t/08exvesl.php

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Thanks Raccy, good stuff. I think the 5% number can from the total statewide catch of all species, biomass wise. Again I could be wrong. I will see if I can find some time to look it up.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Want to change things? Here is your chance to do so. http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/b...s/propform.php
    Only by acting can you have any chance of being heard. Here we preach to the choir, but with the ADFG it could resound across the state. Mad Dog

  11. #11
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,355

    Default

    http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/genin...t/08exvesl.php

    Thanks for the link, Raccy. According to this, you're right Yukon. For salmon. If you add the Chignik and Cook Inlet number of salmon caught, it is exactly 5% of the salmon caught commercially statewide.

    The newly released statewide economic survey made it very clear: over half the money that sportfishing generates in this state is generated in Cook Inlet. INot only for tourists, but about half the money coming from residents was also spent in Cook Inlet. This is truly the people's fishery. In terms of importance to our state's economy, which industry in Cook Inlet has a bigger impact? Yet which industry receives the mega allocation of fish?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Thanks for doing the math for me WFFF. I didn't have time to crunch the numbers. I guess the real questions is economics and management and how those intermix, if they do. To me it is pretty obvious that sportfishing nets some great economic results for the SC communities. Commercial fishing is also a valuable industry (but not as high as most lead you to believe), overall it is a small part of the economy in the area. At 5% Cook Inlet commercial fishermen are hardly "feeding the world" but on the surface it looks as if the sportfish industry impact is significant locally. There are lots of arguements I can think of on all sides of the issue but overall sportfishing is great for our local communities.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default "managed primarily for commerical harvest"

    I haven't read throught the report yet - is it broken down by species or runs etc?

    The second run of red in the Kenai is certainly the most popular for residents yet it continues to be managed for commerical harvest with sport and personal use fishermen getting a small take of the fish over the required escapement in lean years like the last two.

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Thanks for doing the math for me WFFF. I didn't have time to crunch the numbers. I guess the real questions is economics and management and how those intermix, if they do. To me it is pretty obvious that sportfishing nets some great economic results for the SC communities. Commercial fishing is also a valuable industry (but not as high as most lead you to believe), overall it is a small part of the economy in the area. At 5% Cook Inlet commercial fishermen are hardly "feeding the world" but on the surface it looks as if the sportfish industry impact is significant locally. There are lots of arguements I can think of on all sides of the issue but overall sportfishing is great for our local communities.
    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

  14. #14
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Perspective is the key...

    Before this discussion turns into an heated argument fueled by emotion/opinion, I think it might behoove all the participants to read the following document.

    This should help us to come to a common and better understanding of economic impacts vs economic values, and how these concepts are viewed by economists and policymakers.

    http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/iser/...omparisons.pdf
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  15. #15

    Default

    As you pointed out it is difficult to measure the impact that recreational fishing has on the economy. However, there is little point in arguing that fishing and tourism are performing an intricate dance with one another and it is relatively pointless in separating one from the other.

    With that said, I see the economic impact and value of recreational fishing being HUGE - especially in some areas. Before the tourists came up here in their masses Seward was a very quiet little town that was pretty tough to do business in. It is far from that now.

    And, of course, the commercial fishing industry has lots of examples where they are the only show in town too. Many towns rely on commercial fishing. There is no arguing that.

    The real question is whether it is fair to reduce sport caught limits (not on the table yet) in and around town like Seward, Homer, Deep Creek, Kenai, and Valdez where the economic impact and economic value BOTH seemingly far outweigh the commercial fishing impact and value.

    It seems like common sense that the biggest contributor to the local economy would be the one that gets the priority in the local area. In places where commercial fishing drives everything, leave it as it is. In areas where tourism and recreational fishing drive most everything, commercial fishing needs to play second fiddle.

    Without a doubt, times have changed a lot in South Central and South East Alaska. But, one thing that hasn't very much is how we allocate the fish. While I don't necessarily think we need to change the allocation, we do need to review from time to time to make sure that we are doing the right thing for the majority of Alaskans. Are we doing that?

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Before this discussion turns into an heated argument fueled by emotion/opinion, I think it might behoove all the participants to read the following document.

    This should help us to come to a common and better understanding of economic impacts vs economic values, and how these concepts are viewed by economists and policymakers.

    http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/iser/...omparisons.pdf

  16. #16
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    Thanks Doc, fishNphysician
    I read your link from knapp(?) and it does make sense. I believe a special fishing are should be designated on the Kenai/Kasilof and Mat-su areas. Start a buyback program for commercial permits and then let the commercials start co-ops to make it more economically feasable. As of now, we make it possible for the commercials to fish the most expensive way, for their profit. Bring back the fish traps but with limited use and areas and with quota's. Then give more allocation to sport/personal use for red Salmon, in that special area only. Why do you think only half of the permits in upper cook inlet are fished every year. It's too expensive.

    I believe the number is 3%(commercial take) for salmon, in upper cook inlet, statewide overall, in 2007. With the access of the Kenai/mat-su road system in place, over half the state population has available it's resources. With the latest study, I think it is time for a change.

  17. #17
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    The Board of Fisheries call for proposals (due April 10) is for western Alaska, Bristol Bay, and the Alaska Peninsula...and statewide finfish regulations. Proposals strictly looking at southcentral allocation issues won't make the cut...you have another year before that comes back into play. Here's the link to the call for proposals again:

    http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/f...info/fcall.php

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Hard to put a dollar figure on

    Its not included in the report and probably impossible to put a dollar figure on the value of fishing in attracting and retaining skilled people into Southcentral Alaska. Alaska has a recognized problem in attracting and retaining skilled people like doctors, health care professionals, math and science teachers, engineers, designers etc. A significant number of these type people I've talked see the opportunity to fish is an important factor their decision to come to to Alaska and live. Take away the fishing and we will have to pay a bunch more money to bring these people up here and keep them here.

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    I believe the number is 3%(commercial take) for salmon, in upper cook inlet, statewide overall, in 2007. With the access of the Kenai/mat-su road system in place, over half the state population has available it's resources. With the latest study, I think it is time for a change.
    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

  19. #19
    Member DRIFTER_016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Yellowknife, NWT
    Posts
    3,318

    Default

    According to an arcticle in todays ADN it seems that the commercial and sport fishing industries bring in about the same $$$$. This is more evidence that the resource should be split more equally.

    http://community.adn.com/adn/node/13...ents_Container

  20. #20

    Smile That great for all of Alaska, how about only Cook Inlet?

    To me the article relates to all commercal fishing in Alaska. Take a look at commercial Fishing V sports fishing solely in Cook Inlet. There is no race in Cook Inlet between sports and commercial fishing,and sports fishing does it with a lot fewer fish. Cook inlet needs more detailed studies to what is the best use of salmon in Cook Inlet and more studies to dertermine genetics of all five species of salmon stocks. So migration routes of salmon transiting Cook Inlet, can be identified to reduce intercept of Northern District stocks that are currently suffering lower returns than the 20 year average and sports fishing for king salmon closed on Alexander Creek, with eight out of 14 streams below survey last year below their escapement goals. Commercial fishing openings for king salmon were increased by the Board of Fisheries at the last Cook Inlet meeting, last Febuary from three openings to five.


    Big Fisherman

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

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
  •