Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

Thread: Economic survey released, here it is.

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

    Exclamation Economic survey released, here it is.

    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 willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,368

    Default finally

    Its about time! There is a meeting tonite (thursday) at the wasilla LIO, located on Railroad Avenue, from 6-8pm for Fish and Game to introduce it to the public and take public comment, questions, etc.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Wasilla, AK
    Posts
    147

    Default

    They need to allow the salmon to reach thier escapement goals and then open it to the commercial fishermen. Ensure the survival of the species for future generations. Seems like a win - win to me.

  4. #4
    Member .338-06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    So, according to the study over a billion dollars is generated by sportfishing in Southcentral.

    Hmmmmmm..........

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .338-06 View Post
    So, according to the study over a billion dollars is generated by sportfishing in Southcentral.

    Hmmmmmm..........
    That's what happens when we hire an outfit from Florida to tell us what the economics of Alaska is.


  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    694

    Default Same Same

    Ain't that business as usual

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    That's what happens when we hire an outfit from Florida to tell us what the economics of Alaska is.
    Terry

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Seems like people with commercial interests are, as usual, attacking the information gathered on the impact of sport fishing. Who would be acceptable to conduct such a survey? CIAA? UCIDA? UFA?

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVALANCHE View Post
    That's what happens when we hire an outfit from Florida to tell us what the economics of Alaska is.

    Who do you want to do the survey?????

    A nuetral party not affiliated with any particular user group sounds perfect to me, they have no vested interest.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Isn't the Department of Fish and Game a neutral party?? Isn't a contractor hired by the department unbiased??

  10. #10
    Member AKCAPT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seward
    Posts
    1,126

    Default value of the report

    Clearly this report has the commercial folks a little worked up.

    In my opinion, both sport and commercail fisheries are very important to the economy of Alaska. I think the reason this report has not exactly been welcome is because it could be used to make the argument that sportfishing is the highest and best use for a specific type of fish. In other areas of the US this report would be used to make the case to allow for allocation to favor sport fishermen. With things the way they are politically in this state, I seriously doubt that will happen. It seems to me that commercial interests have the political end of fisheries managment pretty much taken care of. Alaska is tough on sportfishermen.
    The report does give some idea how important sportfishing is to the States economy.

  11. #11
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Highest and best use?

    Quote Originally Posted by AKCAPT View Post
    The report does give some idea how important sportfishing is to the States economy.
    Moreover it underscores the regional impact to Southcentral AK in particular.... in other words we're principally talking about the major basins draining into Cook Inlet.

    The state's population center is where 72% of the economic impact of sportfishing is felt! DUH!

    I highly doubt the regional commercial impacts came down in the same geographic proportions.... there are MUCH bigger commercial fisheries in other regions of the state than Cook Inlet.

    It stands to reason that the disparity in economic impacts between commercial and recreational is certain to be most pronounced where the resource is most readily accessible to recreational users. I didn't read the whole report, but those would sure be some interesting numbers to compare.
    "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

  12. #12
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Errata

    OK... when I put up my last post I had only read the synopsis on the ADFG website.

    I just opened the PDF containing the actual report and the percentages are a little different than what I posted above.

    The "Southcentral" region includes Southwestern AK and Bristol Bay. At nearly a billion in economic impact, nearly 3 out of every 4 dollars generated by sportfishing statewide came from this "Southcentral" region.

    Within Southcentral, nearly 3 out of every 4 of those dollars was generated in Cook Inlet alone! That's a whopping $733 million sportfishing dollars right in the back yard of the states major population center. That amounts over half (53%) of the total statewide economic impact!
    "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

  13. #13
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default

    Doc you are right. 53% of the economic impact is generated within southcentral. At the meeting in Wasilla, it was quoted by fish and game that including bristol Bay, the numbers are @$ 989,000,000, that is contributed by sports/personal use. Bristol Bay is included because the Majority of money is spent in Southcentral before folks go fly to bristol to sportfish.
    Access through the road system to Mat Valley and the Kenai/Kasilof is where 3/4's of the state population has access. Yet, the Commercial take for Salmon in Cook Inlet is a whopping 3% of the total statewide take by commercials. Is this disproportionate? To Quote a friend, "You Betcha". Maybe the uppercook inlet task force is really on to something.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default do not make this error.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    OK...

    Within Southcentral, nearly 3 out of every 4 of those dollars was generated in Cook Inlet alone! That's a whopping $733 million sportfishing dollars right in the back yard of the states major population center. That amounts over half (53%) of the total statewide economic impact!
    I find the economic discussion between user groups to be missing the point. It is like my two grandkids comparing their arm muscles and saying mine is bigger than yours. Both serve a purpose, both provide a benifit to the indivudual and to their parents who want them to help with chores, both will grow with proper management, and both will not give a hoot about size when and if they mature into adults.

    The economic survey was an expenditure study. It was not a valued added study. There is a major difference. Doc made the mistake above to say 3 out of 4 dollars were generated in Cook Inlet. That is not technically correct. Money was spent but the amount of new money brought into Alaska was not studied.

    Also, the economic survey may have significant technical issues. Some of the reviewers have expressed concerns the models tend to overestimate the value. ADF&G was not going to release the reviewer comments but I understand they may now.

    The survey does help the ADF&G state what tax revenues are being generated and how the public should value sport fishing as an economic tax source in policy decisions that impact salmon production. It should not be used in any allocation battles.

    Here are some figures that may shock some of you. These are from the CFEC. In 2007 Kenai Peninsula commercial landings within the borough were 73 million for non borough residents and 50 million for borough residents. Of these 46 million and 24 million was for halibut for each group respectively. In addition, another 49 million was landed outside the Borough by Kenai peninsula resdients. This represents new money since the markets for these fish are outside of Alaska for the most part. This is also just the exvessel value with no multiplier for cycle in the economy.

    Now to compare apples to apples the sport fish survey looked at sport fishing for all species. A valid comparsion would be for the commercial fishery would be for all species. Second, the expenditure survey would need to be done for commercial fisheries but a more important and valuable approach would be to look at value added to the economy, not just expenditures.

    However, why do this? Does anyone think both fisheries are not valuable? Does anyone think that the precision of the data is such that allocation decisions can be made and of course one would have to look at the incremental impacts by adding fish to one group and taking fish from another group - it is not a linear relationship. This study did not do that.

    In summary the value of this survey is for both groups to say fish are important to the State and when policy trades fish off for mines, oil, gas, or forestry the policy maker should consider the value of these fisheries. Reducing this to a Cook Inlet allocation issue is a waste of eeryone's time.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default Great post Nerka

    Sports interests, especially commercial sports interests, always point to these studies to try to make the point that a sport caught fish is somehow more valuable than a commercial caught fish. But there are some major problems with their assumptions. First, there has never been an economic survey of the value of commercial caught fish done in the manner of the sport study. That is fine with the people trying to skew this information. They add everything under the sun to the value of a sport caught fish, but for some reason, when comparing they like to use the grounds price of a commercial caught fish and nothing more. It's a way to perpetrate the big lie that sport fishing is so valuable, that most if not all of certain fish should be allocated to sport fisheries. A commercial salmon's value to the state is no more a grounds price of say $1.50 per lb, than a sport caught fish is worth $0. (the actual amount someone pays to put that fish in their refrigerator)

    Ohhh! but you say, "A sport fisherman buys a license, gear, gas, boats, airplane tickets, etc etc etc. so that should be added in." Well buy a clue, so do commercial fishermen and the canneries they sell their product to. Do a study and add those values to a commercial caught fish. Then compare.

    Also, commercial fishermen get the fish to the general public,(Remember them? It's a public resource, right? It doesn't just belong to sport fishermen or commercial fishermen.) and they get the fish to them at a reasonable cost, without the cost of having to buy all the extras in order to fish. It's the most cost effective way for the public to eat fish.

    As Nerka pointed out, fish have a value to the State as a whole, for all users. With that in mind, it would behoove us all to try to work together for the good of the resource which in the end will benefit all user groups. Political battles are distractions from proper management of the resource.

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

    Default Hard to measure

    A very important factor that is hard to put a $ figure on is the value of sportfishing in attracting and retaining people with important skills and talent to southcentral Alaska. The opportunity for great fishing is an important factor in deciding to live in Alaska for a significant number of doctors, engineers, designers, teachers, skilled trades and other occupations that are vital to Alaska.

    In the engineering area -of which I am a part of -the salary differential between here and the lower 48 has signifcantly decreased and the oil and engineering companies have had a more difficult time in attracting skilled talent to Alaska. The fishing opportunities are something that the companies can offer and many of my co-workers take advantage of in the summer. Whether you are for or against the oil companies or just don't care oil revenue still funds Alaska - not commercial fishing! In state revenues, gross state revenue, or about anyway you want to figure it the contribution to the state from the Cook Inlet commercial fisheries is hardly significant compared to oil's contributions.
    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
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default most cost effective?

    The most cost effective way to get fish to the people is by farming fish - not catching wild salmon in Cook Inlet. The success of fish farms in providing fresh fish year round at a cost much less than wild fish is indisputable proof!

    Next time you are in the lower 48 around a major population center walk into a big grocery store and go to the sea food counter. Check the prices of farmed salmon to that of Alaska salmon if they even have any. Most of the time the farmed salmon is even cheaper than the fresh Alasakn salmon is sold in the stores here locally.

    As to the cost effeciveness of catching your own vs. buying it is hardly an issue to consider - most people look on fishing as recreation with the fish caught as a bonus. Same way with hunting - the cost of moose meat for most is much more that prime beef.

    Quote Originally Posted by twodux View Post
    Also, commercial fishermen get the fish to the general public,(Remember them? It's a public resource, right? It doesn't just belong to sport fishermen or commercial fishermen.) and they get the fish to them at a reasonable cost, without the cost of having to buy all the extras in order to fish. It's the most cost effective way for the public to eat fish.
    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

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default Come on now

    Because oil currently funds most of the State's operations and is it's biggest economic generator, you somehow find that as a way to denigrate commercial fishing? Well compared to oil, Cook Inlet sport fishing is hardly significant either. You think oil workers come up to Alaska because of the sport fishing opportunities, or because they can make a big paycheck on the slope?

    Now if you want to talk about why people live in Anchorage and the Mat Su, it isn't because of oil. The only reason Anchorage isn't a sleepy little village isn't because because of oil, it's because it's a transportation hub for all of Alaska except Southeast, an international transportation hub, and because of the military bases. You take away the airport, the ports of Anchorage and Whittier, the railroad and the military bases and the oil companies wouldn't give a hoot about Anchorage. They'd be running things out of corporate in Houston.

  19. #19

    Default Hopfully more funds for Cook Inlet Management from study

    The economic survey is extremely important to salmon management in Cook Inlet. At the meeting in Wasilla the department explained that the 733 million dollars was for only Cook Inlet. This is going to be an important tool for the verious goverment agencies and the legislature as they allocate funds. Cook Inlet should be at the top of the list for getting funding for additional salmon studies.


    Big Fisherman

    Allocation as per 5AAC


    e) The Board of Fisheries may allocate fishery resources among personal use, sport, guided sport, and commercial fisheries. The board shall adopt criteria for the allocation of fishery resources and shall use the criteria as appropriate to particular allocation decisions. The criteria may include factors such as
    (1) the history of each personal use, sport, guided sport, and commercial fishery;
    (2) the number of residents and nonresidents who have participated in each fishery in the past and the number of residents and nonresidents who can reasonably be expected to participate in the future;
    (3) the importance of each fishery for providing residents the opportunity to obtain fish for personal and family consumption;
    (4) the availability of alternative fisheries resources;
    (5) the importance of each fishery to the economy of the state;
    (6) the importance of each fishery to the economy of the region and local area in which the fishery is located;
    (7) the importance of each fishery in providing recreational opportunities for residents and nonresidents.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    The most cost effective way to get fish to the people is by farming fish - not catching wild salmon in Cook Inlet. The success of fish farms in providing fresh fish year round at a cost much less than wild fish is indisputable proof!
    First of all, farmed salmon was heavily subsidized when it first hit US markets to try to capture market share. So the price wasn't representative of what it really cost, even with the cheap labor in Chile. And the environmental costs are just becoming apparent. Second, farmed Atlantic salmon is an inferior fish to wild caught Alaskan salmon. Third, you must not have been in a large chain like Wal-Mart, Safeway, Costco, or Sam's club lately. Wild Alaska salmon is equal or lower in cost than the farmed fish except for the top of the line wild stuff like Copper River reds and Kings or Yukon Kings. Kind of like comparing filet mignon to hamburger.

    So basically, what you just said was, the fish buying public can eat farmed fish, the wild fish belong to sport fishermen. Maybe sport fishermen should go to the fish farms and fish in the pens. As an added bonus, there's no bag limit. (I'm being facetious here)

    Quote Originally Posted by tvfinak View Post
    As to the cost effeciveness of catching your own vs. buying it is hardly an issue to consider - most people look on fishing as recreation with the fish caught as a bonus. Same way with hunting - the cost of moose meat for most is much more that prime beef.
    Then it should hardly be an allocative issue as it really doesn't matter if you catch a fish or not. That is a bonus. Your words, not mine.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •