Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Super important read

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    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...

    Comment


    • #3
      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

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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

          Comment


          • #6
            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

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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
                    To bead or not to bead, that is the question... :confused:

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "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.

                          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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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
                            sigpic
                            The KeenEye MD

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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?

                              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

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X