Originally Posted By: Smalma
Talk about trying to muddy the waters. Here is a link to the Radtake economic study the Owens referred to in his OP-Ed piece.

http://www.phillipspublishing.com/smbc/a...sheries%204.pdf

In that article Radtake refers to 3 major omissions in the TCW paper (remember the TCW was pretty narrowly defined comparing in State NT commercial and recreational fisheries).

The first omission was the failure to include the Tribal fishery piece.

The second omission was the failure to include "distant waters fisheries"; for example money spend to outfit various Alaskan fisheries - deep water trawls etc.

And the third omission was not including aquaculture; including clams and oysters.

Clearly this is an attempt to greatly inflate the commercial piece for an apple to orange discussion designed to confuse and miss-lead folks.

Curt


To reinforce Smalma's observations the TCW study was intended to evaluation the value recreational fisheries in WA State as well as the WA State NT commercial fisheries. The study's report also emphasized that it was NOT intended to be used to compare the two fisheries.

To add the values of commercial fisheries prosecuted outside the State but affecting the State's economy in any discussion regarding this bill is simply off target and irresponsible.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)