Originally Posted By: Keta
I doubt all the charter boats and fishing lodges in S.E. Ak,the west coast of Vancouver Island and Washington State would consider conservation in the open ocean a cheap investment in the future (and a slick P.R. move).

I was mostly referring to commercial fisheries, but you're right to include lodges and charters in the discussion, since they do catch a lot of fish.

You know of any fishing lodges in Washington State? Me niether. By the time the fisheries up north are done, there's rarely enough left to support the kind of fishing experience the elite demand near the mainland. It's like the entire salmon industry is a giant welfare program. I, for one, am tired of paying into that system and getting screwed by it.

The fish-buying public has proven they are willing to pay more for fresh salmon when supply is less, so the fishing industry can just jack up the price to absorb any losses incurred from lower quotas. That's how things should work when managing scarce or limited resources. As for the lodges, as long as their fisheries are still the most productive of their kind, the patrons will keep pouring in. I think it's safe to say that people willing to spend thousands of dollars for a few days' fishing and lodging aren't penciling out the value of a limit of every species to determine whether or not the trip is cost effective.

Maybe I overestimate how much people care about saving salmon, but I still think a major seafood processor making a public announcement that the future of salmon matters to them, so they're voluntarily reducing their impact would be a great PR move... not that I think anyone will make that move.