Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Economic survey released, here it is.

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

  • 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
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      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.
      To bead or not to bead, that is the question... :confused:

      Comment


      • #4
        So, according to the study over a billion dollars is generated by sportfishing in Southcentral.

        Hmmmmmm..........
        I may be slow, but I get where I'm going!

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Same Same

            Ain't that business as usual

            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

            Comment


            • #7
              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?

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Isn't the Department of Fish and Game a neutral party?? Isn't a contractor hired by the department unbiased??

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.
                    www.graylightalaska.com
                    http://www.saltwatersportsman.com/ga...arter-captains
                    (800)566-3912

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Highest and best use?

                      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
                      sigpic
                      The KeenEye MD

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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
                        sigpic
                        The KeenEye MD

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.
                          If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip? ALASKADIPNETTING.NET

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            do not make this error.

                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.
                              An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
                              - Jef Mallett

                              Comment

                              Footer Adsense

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X