Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#1019323 - 12/26/19 01:58 PM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
Darth Baiter,

Thank you for that reference. OK, so the recreational Chinook catch in PS is more than a paltry few. I guess my point centers around whether enough is returned to the recreational creel to be worth the expenditure made. That value is elastic across people, so it comes down to how much one is willing to spend to create a recreationally caught Chinook. Or coho.

Top
#1019324 - 12/26/19 02:18 PM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
What people seem to miss is that the cost is more than just the license fee. To truly be effective for salmon, it is becoming more important then ever to own a boat. I figured with just gas for the boat & truck, launching fees, and other costs, I was in about $100 dollars by the time I started fishing (not including the cost of the boat or maintenance). Much more if I went to the Neah Bay or other destinations. Add in time spent, lodging and food if going a distance, and then add in the amount of times you don't catch anything and the fee per fish is very high. For people who need to catch fish to enjoy the experience, they usually can find better bargains for their entertainment dollar. Just driving the car down to the river and buying lures or bait can run me between $20 on the low end and $100 on the high end, without counting the cost of lost work income. I find myself going less and less, and making few long trips.

Top
#1019327 - 12/26/19 04:42 PM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
I really think that WDFW is making a huge error (only one??) in emphasizing boat-based fisheries. No way that somebody is going to start from zero if a boat is required.

On the other hand, if their measure of a fisheries desirability is the economic benefit then let's go for the Big Boat Opportunity.

Top
#1019328 - 12/26/19 08:12 PM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: Salmo g.]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Darth Baiter,

Thank you for that reference. OK, so the recreational Chinook catch in PS is more than a paltry few. I guess my point centers around whether enough is returned to the recreational creel to be worth the expenditure made. That value is elastic across people, so it comes down to how much one is willing to spend to create a recreationally caught Chinook. Or coho.


Whatever the number it probably is more than a paltry few. But let's take a look at the number for 2017 - 52,203 fish. But wait, there is that little footnote "a" to consider. In part it reveals that for the years 1989 to present the numbers have been adjusted by .685 due to estimates being 46% too high. Hmmm, then there is footnote "c" which indicates 2017 and 2018 numbers (actually none listed for 2018) are preliminary.

So, assuming that the 52,203 for 2017 is preliminary and not adjusted then using the prior adjustment figure the 2017 number would be 35,759. That number falls in line with numbers back to 1998. (Editorial: I would really like to see that recreational Chinook break-out by MA).

Add the NI commercial harvest of 12,065 and you get 47,824 for the State fishers. Treaty Indian harvest? 136,699 or 2.86 times the State harvest.

Anyone see the data differently so as to arrive at a significantly different Tribal/State harvest comparison?
_________________________
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)

Top
#1019329 - 12/26/19 08:46 PM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
It actually gets worse than your accounting, Larry. The shares were "supposed" to be accounted by adult equivalents for Chinook and coho. Younger fish were discounted by the survival factor. In actuality, with the NI fleet concentrating on immature fish (back in the 80s) the NI actually to a higher number of fish.

Now, though, with that kind of disparity, if its real, is even wider than the raw numbers indicate.

Top
#1019330 - 12/26/19 11:22 PM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: Carcassman]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
It actually gets worse than your accounting, Larry. The shares were "supposed" to be accounted by adult equivalents for Chinook and coho. Younger fish were discounted by the survival factor. In actuality, with the NI fleet concentrating on immature fish (back in the 80s) the NI actually to a higher number of fish.

Now, though, with that kind of disparity, if its real, is even wider than the raw numbers indicate.


That adult equivalent adjustment has been utilized in the past as you indicated. I suspect that it is still utilized at some point but whether these numbers include that factor is unspecified.

With the erosion of WDFW's support for the winter blackmouth fishery that methodology will become less and less important.

Another thing to ponder is the impact of pinniped predation on the survival to maturity graph. Bet it isn't pretty.


Edited by Larry B (12/26/19 11:22 PM)
_________________________
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)

Top
#1019331 - 12/27/19 06:49 AM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
I wonder how far the Co-Managers have strayed from the Boldt/Supremes Accounting methods. I recall that Parker had some speakers at a UW COF class who described management of WA salmon. One thing that stuck in my mind was that the inside tribes (say Muckleshoot) got 50% of the harvestable coming back to their U&A but the other 50% was taken in all the outside fisheries (marine mixed stock but included Indian troll.

Top
#1019334 - 12/27/19 08:31 AM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: Larry B]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
Originally Posted By: Larry B
Whatever the number it probably is more than a paltry few. But let's take a look at the number for 2017 - 52,203 fish. But wait, there is that little footnote "a" to consider. In part it reveals that for the years 1989 to present the numbers have been adjusted by .685 due to estimates being 46% too high. Hmmm, then there is footnote "c" which indicates 2017 and 2018 numbers (actually none listed for 2018) are preliminary.

So, assuming that the 52,203 for 2017 is preliminary and not adjusted then using the prior adjustment figure the 2017 number would be 35,759. That number falls in line with numbers back to 1998. (Editorial: I would really like to see that recreational Chinook break-out by MA).

I don't think you can assume that just because the number is preliminary that it hasn't already been adjusted. Typically the difference between something being reported as preliminary and final is that either some catches aren't available yet or the estimate has not been reviewed by whatever method that particular co-manager uses before declaring a data set final. I don't believe that the Pacific Council would use one methodology to come up with a preliminary catch estimate and then another methodology (e.g. adding the adjustment) for final estimates.

Nevertheless, the catch disparity is still significant, just closer to 2.1 times the state harvest rather than 2.8. Until the state fisheries move away from mixed stock fisheries that are restrained by weak stock management, this disparity will probably always exist.

Top
#1019336 - 12/27/19 09:00 AM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Based on how NOF seems to go, the Tribes are pushing (and the state supports) marine mixed stock fisheries and the further out the better. There seems to be a real effort to eliminate in-river and other terminal rec fisheries. This may be fine, so long as WDFW clearly explains why that choice is made.

Top
#1019363 - 12/29/19 12:57 PM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: OncyT]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: OncyT
Originally Posted By: Larry B
Whatever the number it probably is more than a paltry few. But let's take a look at the number for 2017 - 52,203 fish. But wait, there is that little footnote "a" to consider. In part it reveals that for the years 1989 to present the numbers have been adjusted by .685 due to estimates being 46% too high. Hmmm, then there is footnote "c" which indicates 2017 and 2018 numbers (actually none listed for 2018) are preliminary.

So, assuming that the 52,203 for 2017 is preliminary and not adjusted then using the prior adjustment figure the 2017 number would be 35,759. That number falls in line with numbers back to 1998. (Editorial: I would really like to see that recreational Chinook break-out by MA).

I don't think you can assume that just because the number is preliminary that it hasn't already been adjusted. Typically the difference between something being reported as preliminary and final is that either some catches aren't available yet or the estimate has not been reviewed by whatever method that particular co-manager uses before declaring a data set final. I don't believe that the Pacific Council would use one methodology to come up with a preliminary catch estimate and then another methodology (e.g. adding the adjustment) for final estimates.

Nevertheless, the catch disparity is still significant, just closer to 2.1 times the state harvest rather than 2.8. Until the state fisheries move away from mixed stock fisheries that are restrained by weak stock management, this disparity will probably always exist.



Absent a clear explanation with the data as presented I chose an interpretation which put the adjusted preliminary figure more in line with data from recent years albeit still higher. Maybe the Council needs to be provide better definitions.

Anyway, another approach is to look at the average for the prior ten years data as presented which is 34,266 and ask the whiff test question. If the 52,203 figure for 2017 is already adjusted and assumed to be pretty close and the prior ten year average is 34,266 did we recs really catch 52.3% more Chinook in Puget Sound in 2017 than the prior ten year average?

Moving past that little exercise we are in full agreement with the bigger picture as portrayed by the data - the disparity between tribal and State harvest of Chinook.
_________________________
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)

Top
#1019367 - 12/30/19 08:08 AM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
Government may operate differently than the Private Sector, but they're subject to the same economic stresses (inflation, e.g.) any business entity faces, which means as time goes on, it costs more money to provide the same level of service and much more to improve service in a meaningful way. From that perspective, we should be willing to pay small, occasional fee increases for a similar amount of opportunity over the years. That said, I think it's completely fair for us to refuse to pay increasing costs while the level of service provided continues to decline.

Like Salmo g., I'd gladly pay double what I do now for my license if it meant increased, meaningful opportunity. I'd gladly accept regular, nominal fee increases to cover the increasing cost of doing business as well, were it not for the fact we've no reason to expect our money to go to maintaining our fisheries.

Anyone concerned about paying too much for a license, now or ever should step back and look at how much it costs to go salmon or steelhead fishing, from the bank (no boat), just once. I did the math over the weekend (after yet another extremely disappointing day of steelhead fishing that should be on fire this time of year), and here's what it looks like for me:

1. Gas and vehicle wear - occasionally as little as $10, but as far as I usually have to drive to find fish anymore, usually closer to $30/day. This assumes gas mileage in the mid-20s per gallon. This amount, alone, for a single trip, is almost half the cost of the annual combo fishing license.

2. Tackle - On a good day (had what you needed to start with and didn't lose any tackle), this is close to zero, but an average day sees me lose at least 2 lures to snags/etc. I'd say $5/lure is about average cost, so let's call this $10 per trip.

3. Wader/boot wear - It's hard to quantify this, because waders and boots come in a wide variety of prices, but I tend to buy middle of the road waders ($300-$400; as much as I can afford) and high end boots (about $200/pair). Let's call it $550 for the outfit. Waders usually last less than 2 years, but I'll be generous and allow them that rate of longevity for argument's sake. I take about 50 trips a year, so I figure I get about 100 trips out of an outfit before it essentially becomes a wetsuit. That divides out to just over $5/trip in estimated wader wear.

I'm sure there are costs I'm forgetting, but we're looking at something just south of $50 per trip. That's more than the total annual cost for freshwater only and about $20 less than the combo license. Hook up a boat for the day and it probably exceeds the entire annual combo license cost. If I go conservative and estimate $40/trip, then divide my annual costs by my annual catch (harvested salmon and steelhead), I figure I pay over $200 per fish harvested. Not exactly a viable means of sustenance....

I think this shows 4 things:

1. Fishing is expensive.
2. Fisherfolk inject a lot of money into local economies every time we go fishing (the Legislature should appreciate this a lot more than they seem to).
3. License fees aren't where we get hurt, and it won't kill us to cough up more (with justification, of course).
4. (Pay attention WDFW) Even if it's not a ton of money in the grand scheme, people don't like spending more money to get less in return. That's bad business.

Top
#1019368 - 12/30/19 08:32 AM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
I agree with Flea; the cost of a license is rather minimal in the grand scheme of fishing or hunting. Heck, cut down on beer or smokes (a little) and the license is paid for.

But, again like Flea said, I will pay for "something". When you buy lures, or shells, or whatever you exchange money for something tangible.

Lot of folks here certainly go ape for razor clams. Besides being tasty, you have a pretty good idea that when you go you'll get some. The seasons, openings, and conditions are well publicized and known. Compare that to crab, salmon, or steelhead.

Top
#1019369 - 12/30/19 10:06 AM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Following is a link to WDFW's contracted study report entitled Economic Analysis of the Non-Treaty Commercial and Recreational Fisheries in WA State citing 2006 dollars and published in 2008:

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00464/wdfw00464.pdf.

On page 19 the following per day values were used to estimate the net economic value of sport fishing followed by the CPI adjusted value (June 2006 to June 2019):

Salmon - Marine Waters $58 $73
Other Fishing - Marine Waters $60 $76
Shellfish $43 $54
Trout $50 $63


These are per participant/day values which should provide some perspective on the contribution of our activities.
_________________________
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)

Top
#1019370 - 12/30/19 10:35 AM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
Not sure why this never occurred to me before, but I think (fear?) we're answering our oft-asked question of why WDFW seems to favor boat fisheries over bank fisheries, right here, in this very discussion:

Bringing the boat means you're injecting more money into those aforementioned local economies (in more markets, too) than bank walking. More money for the gubmint, too, cause you have to register your boat and trailer EVERY YEAR. I bet
that explains why they like their anglers in boats so much....

Top
#1019371 - 12/30/19 10:59 AM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
When I was first exposed to recreational fish management it was measured by total economic impact to the state. Fishing and hunting, at least in WA, are considered recreational (not subsistence) pursuits. The "ideal" opening is massive participation with minimal harvest.

As an extreme example, if you limited deer hunters to guns holding two rounds and iron sights you could probably extend the modern firearm season to months. More opportunity.

One other thing I was told early on was that, for WDG, hunting licenses were the prime income source in that hunters would pay "more" to hunt and most of the game was wild. For fish, you had to grow and plant them. Also, Opening Day was so big (and one-day licenses not allowed) in the hope that families would fish one or two days a year. Again, good cost-recovery.

Much as I gripe about "opportunity", if one has boat(s) WA offers some really good fishing. Ocean salmon, rockfish, albacore, halibut. The major river fisheries are now boat-based. Walleye, Tiger Musky, OD lakes, kokanee. All highly productive and put a lot into the economy.

Top
#1019373 - 12/30/19 01:40 PM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: FleaFlickr02]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Not sure why this never occurred to me before, but I think (fear?) we're answering our oft-asked question of why WDFW seems to favor boat fisheries over bank fisheries, right here, in this very discussion:

Bringing the boat means you're injecting more money into those aforementioned local economies (in more markets, too) than bank walking. More money for the gubmint, too, cause you have to register your boat and trailer EVERY YEAR. I bet
that explains why they like their anglers in boats so much....


That certainly is a logical factor but not the only one. Another key ingredient is access. Saltwater? Used to be seasons were open literally year around and there were small boats available for reasonable rent everywhere and fish were available to those small boat/motor fishers. With the loss of those boat houses, reduced numbers of publicly available ramps, and a myriad of openings/closings one needs to be mobile both as to launch point and speed on the water.

Rivers? Bank access is being restricted by owners to include WSDOT and the railroads and WDFW has not kept up on obtaining and/or maintaining launch sites so river boaters are pushed to bigger and faster sleds.

Lakes? More of the same although WDFW won't stock a lake that doesn't have public access of some sort.
_________________________
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)

Top
#1019376 - 12/30/19 08:40 PM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: Larry B]
Tug 3 Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 03/06/14
Posts: 260
Loc: Tumwater
Typical WDFW: listing dollars and cents rather than value.

Top
#1019377 - 12/30/19 08:45 PM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: Carcassman]
Tug 3 Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 03/06/14
Posts: 260
Loc: Tumwater
C-Man,

In regards to razor clams, you have to factor in breakfast/lunch/or dinner at the Green Lantern, plus a beer or maybe two, or the cost of hotdogs, buns, etc. roasted over a beach fire. Again, there certainly costs, but what is the value? Not arguing, but trying to be thought provoking on value or worth over costs.

Top
#1019380 - 12/31/19 06:49 AM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Razors are a great example of a "valuable" fishery when all those external costs like meals and beer are added in. And, it just came to me, that it is also one of the few "low user cost" fisheries that WDFW pushes. You don't need a special (boat, truck, gear). It is a family opportunity where the kids can rather easily get involved. Has lots going for it.

And WDFW/the State does (or did) invest quite a bit in monitoring and sampling.

Top
#1019381 - 12/31/19 08:39 AM Re: Money for nothing? [Re: large edward]
SpoonFed Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 01/29/19
Posts: 1519
I know this is off topic but, if any of you guys got a chance to dig last Thursday and Friday. Did any of you guys notice the size difference of clams on mocrocks beach?

Thursday on copalis, I was done in 10min and the clams were on the larger side.
Friday in mocrocks took me and the ol lady 2hrs to get limits and the clams on average were very small and few and far between.

Anybody experience the same?

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
CHUBS
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
0 registered (), 939 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13521
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645302 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |