Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Economic survey released, here it is.

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

  • #16
    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

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      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

      Comment


      • #18
        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.
        An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
        - Jef Mallett

        Comment


        • #19
          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.:rolleyes:


          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            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)

            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.
            An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
            - Jef Mallett

            Comment


            • #21
              Farmed fish

              What I stated was that farmed fish is the most economical way for the people to eat salmon. It doesn't matter if it is heavily substidized overseas or not - or what the real cost is - it that only makes it cheaper and more economical for the American citizen! You should note that all the farmed fish does not come out of Chile - Canada is a big player also and wages in Canada are about the same as the US.

              I didn't say who the fish belonged or who they should be allocated to - I simply addressed your statement of the economics. You are attempting to include things I never even mentioned!

              If you are looking at the quality of the fish you have to compare fish to fish - don't compare a frozen Alaskan wild pink or chum to a fresh farmed king - like it or lump it the market will buy the fresh farmed king. And remember I talked about the seafood dept. - not the frozen food dept. anyway.


              Originally posted by twodux View Post
              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)

              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.
              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


              • #22
                Look back at history

                If you were here in the mid-80s you would know the impact of oil on Anchorage and the surrounding areas. Oil is the still the leading economic force in Alaska- it provides the highest paying jobs that trickle down to the general population in supporting activities. Look at the tall buidings in Anchorage and check out who occupies them.

                Oil provides around 85% of the state's revenue and 100% of the dividend check you get and spend each year. The contribution from fisheries -both commercial and sport - is almost insignificant compared to oil.

                The "big paychecks" on the slope aren't so big anymore; as I mentioned the premium for working in Alaska including the North Slope isn't that significant anymore. Talk to the hiring managers for the oil and engineering companies - as I have- and they will tell you they have a hard time attracting and retaining scare technical talent in Alaska. Like many other technical people I live in Alaska because of the outdoor activities of which fishing is a big part. I am not alone. Incidently a significant number of north slope workers don't even live in Alaska.

                Oil companies have learned that trying to engineer projects out of Alaska doesn't work- that is why the bulk of engineering and technical services are done in Alaska. Been there - done that - I know and so do the oil companies!

                Originally posted by twodux View Post
                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.
                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


                • #23
                  Very good posts Nerka and twodux...lots of foresight

                  As I posted in another thread, one needs to consider the cost of this short-term economic sport fishing growth. What price can we put on pollution, habitat loss, bank erosion, trampled dunes, noise, crowding, user-group conflicts, management, recovery plans, rehabilitation projects, studies, enforcement, facilities, infrastructure, lost cultures, traditions, and ways of life, and so on. Is the economic news really that good, or is it a direct indication of the aftermath we've left behind. Nothing is free, and there has been a great long-term cost for this short-term economic gain.

                  Change and growth can be good. But are we going in the right direction here? Or have we over-looked what it's costing us to support this sportfishing-based economy. Who's really benefitting from this sportfishery boom...Alaska, Alaskans, the fishery, and the resource, or those who come here to use it?

                  tvfinak, I was here long before any sportfishing industry came along, and we were surviving just fine without it. In fact in most cases we were doing much better. Just food for thought.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Times do change, and change is constant.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I have to chuckle - people who oppose growth are fighting a losing battle. I too would like to see a return to the days when my dad and I got our moose road hunting, he even got a couple on the way to work over the years. When we were steeleheading on the Anchor with only two other people as far as we could see. A return to those days is not gonna happen.

                      The increase in sportfishing pressure has been a result of population growth. Its not going to decrease much even if the tourist visits really drop off. I would also guess that a lot of the money stays in the local area with B&B operators and guides and grocery stores, campgrounds and all the other businesses that cater to visitors......

                      To paraphrase Yukon - the only constant is change, we have to determine the best way to deal with it. Wishing for the return of the "good ol days" accomplishes nothing. Lets work to make THESE the good ol days for our kids and grandkids.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        no problem with that

                        Originally posted by gusdog44 View Post
                        I have to chuckle - people who oppose growth are fighting a losing battle. I too would like to see a return to the days when my dad and I got our moose road hunting, he even got a couple on the way to work over the years. When we were steeleheading on the Anchor with only two other people as far as we could see. A return to those days is not gonna happen.

                        The increase in sportfishing pressure has been a result of population growth. Its not going to decrease much even if the tourist visits really drop off. I would also guess that a lot of the money stays in the local area with B&B operators and guides and grocery stores, campgrounds and all the other businesses that cater to visitors......

                        To paraphrase Yukon - the only constant is change, we have to determine the best way to deal with it. Wishing for the return of the "good ol days" accomplishes nothing. Lets work to make THESE the good ol days for our kids and grandkids.
                        Gusdog you are correct that we need to live with change. However, we do not need to accept all the negatives of population growth or unlimited growth. Communities all over this country are looking at sustainable growth or sustainable communities and they are limiting the rate of growth and in some cases reversing the growth trend.

                        Unfortunately, Alaska is about 50 years behind the rest of the country with planning and therefore will make the same mistakes. Look at DNR and DEC inability to deal with hydrocarbons until they were a problem - we knew in 1991 of the issue. DEC is now refusing to deal with turbidity issues on the Kenai, ADF&G has a opportunity mandate in sport fishing, and the public does not want restrictiions on activities. So unless sustainable thoughts enter our collective heads growth is not good.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          yukon and gusdog44 missed my point....

                          I'm not opposing growth and change. As I said, "change and growth can be good". And I think everyone understands the good ole days are gone, and there's no sense living in the past.

                          But someone would have to be very narrow minded, shortsighted, and oblivious to not realize the long-term costs associated with this short-term economic sportfishing growth that everyone is so ecstatic about.

                          The communities, resource, environment, habitat, etc. have lost and sacrificed a great deal for this growth...growth that hasn't provided much back to those things in return. So what is the real value of this growth? And should it continue at the current rate? While it might look good for a commercial guide like yukon, is it going to look good to our future generations a century from now? Or are those folks going to wonder what happened, and dream for "the good ole days"?

                          Honestly I'm ashamed at what we've lost and sacrificed in the name of this economic growth....and it's only been about 35 years. Many of the rivers and systems that support this growth have since become over-staturated and unable to sustain the pressure. In the name of uncontrolled economic growth, we've actually skipped the mode of preservation and sustainability, and gone right to rehabilitation and restoration.

                          So while we need to live with change, we do not need to allow economic growth to dictate what direction that change goes. Economic growth is a good thing...until it steamrolls the exact thing that drove that economic change in the first place.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            the good ole days

                            Yea, I too, mourn the end of the good ole days. They took the fish traps!! Gee, they were the most cost effective way to catch salmon commercially. Now we give our commercial guys the most least cost effective way to catch fish. If the Seattle crowd wasn't so greedy back at the start of statehood, maybe fish traps would still be in use. Outlawing co-ops in south central without special legislation, etc. How about the 70's when I could take my 50 horse Merc and 18'riverboat and troll the river and not see another boat for an hour. Oh Boy, the good ole days. Now fast forward to 2009... Uhmmm.
                            If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip? ALASKADIPNETTING.NET

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I think the key, which Nerka touched on, is sustainable growth...a happy medium. Obviously many rivers and systems continue to sucumb to man's desire for economic growth.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                One quick not as i dont have much time. Much of the Kenai looks better than it did back in the days.....the days of building concrete walls and rock wing dams are long gone. We do have growth, some good, some bad, I think we can all agree with that, it is how we manage the entire ecosystem. I make money off the river, do I want to see that go away, heck no, I as many do have an economic interest, but my main concern is that we have a healthy Kenai to fish for another 100 year and more.

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X