Anyone seen this article? Sounds like a move in the right direction.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/fishing/2001786788_fish09.html

Quote:

"The $46 million buyout is a life-changing move for those who live by a struggling industry's changing tides. On the West Coast, owners of 92 boats will be paid an average of $497,000 to permanently remove their vessels from fishing, starting Dec. 5. The plan is aimed at cutting the West Coast trawler fleet by 50 percent. "


Hey, would someone be willing to pay me half a million to quit engineeing... The only projects we are engineering are things cause more pollution and hurt the environment anyway...

So are you saying this won't work or its not an equitable solution? I haven't many other solutions that are keeping both sides (commercials and non-commercials) happy.

Let me get this straight!

You buy a "license" to commercially fish, knowing full well that there are lots of "risk" to this trade, and then you think that it's OK for the "public" to by back whatever risk that you took when you "purchased" that license?

Maybe they should purchase back all "contractors" licenses next, because the contractors all thought that they could get "rich" building new houses, even though the housing market was on a down hill slide!
What is wrong with this picture????

Cowlitzfisherman

I think that buying out the commercials is the only sollution... it just seems that a half a million dollars is an awful lot for a dying business... (please reallize that I have no idea how much a fishing boat and net is worth maybe 500k is equitable?) I know of profitable businesses that aren't worth 500k....

I just hope they dont give the boats and nets to the indians so they can replace the market share that is lost....

I guess no one likes federal buy-outs, in the end its our money, but it seems like the thing to do. If you let the entire industry go broke (or half an industry) the impact and payout of $$ just take other forms--i.e., unemployment benefits, communities going non-viable, social bumps, etc. This way, there is both some relief and fisheries management.

Piper, you must have some expensive engineering tools. I doubt the boat-owners that actually own their boats got a half mill.

I think a half mill is fair to remove some toxic Lead pencils from the environment...

i hear that the other boats will be allowed to catch more though! will it be just welfare if the other boats have increased limits? seems like it wouldnt make a difference unless other boats are kept to the same limits

I would also hope there is some rule that is added to the books that these licenses will not be reissued again if the fish stocks come back...

I can just see a rebound in the ocean conditions and 10 years from now and reissueing all the licences that were just bought out.

Well

Does that mean that we should buy back all the people stocks, who bought bad stocks in the stock market too?

I am having a little problem with how this type of logic! may work!

What is it that people do not understand about RISK??????????????????????????????

Cowlitzfisherman

Piper - Let's add one more sentence to your quote...
also from the article of course.

"The $46 million buyout is a life-changing move for those who live by a struggling industry's changing tides. On the West Coast, owners of 92 boats will be paid an average of $497,000 to permanently remove their vessels from fishing, starting Dec. 5. The plan is aimed at cutting the West Coast trawler fleet by 50 percent. Now, those who stay in their fisheries could see their catch quotas double, starting next year."

How is that for a novel approach to saving the fish?

Me thinks the money will go to the banks for paying off their debt.

"For the fishermen who will leave their boats behind, it's a way to make a graceful exit, one "that wasn't available to them before," said Pete Leipzig, executive director of the Fisherman's Marketing Association, a West Coast trawler-industry group in Eureka, Calif. "This gives them an opportunity to sell their business with dignity and (keep) some part of their life savings intact.""

At least now there might be loan money available for other ventures that might contribute to the local residents welfare.

It's not entirely palatable when you look at it as someone getting a free ride. I look at it as its more beneficial to put the money into buying back boats and allowing stressed fish stocks to recover, then allowing small towns to go bust or bankrupt, with the fish losing out as well. And the fish would lose, because without a reduction in fleet-size, people will try to eeek out a living for as long as possible, scaping the bottom, until its a desert. And although I'm not an economist, I imagine there are some significant costs associated with industries going belly-up.

Maybe if all those who didn't sell their dot.bomb stocks by 2001 were congregated in the same towns, the Feds would have bailed them out, as well!

For once CFM and I are in complete agreement. I see NOTHING that says there will be any less fish caught. Only that those who stay will be able to catch more. I have seen similar buybacks in B.C. salmon licneses and what happend was the remaining guys bought bigger boats and caught more fish!

This stinks. If the fish are in trouble, it's primarily becasue these guys wiped out the stocks. Let them quit if the business is failing.

Next thing you know we will be giving oil companies tax breaks becasue they pumped all the oil out of their wells. Oh yeah, we already do that. How about buying out timber companies once they have logged all the trees.?

I think the buyout deal is a cop out but probably has to be done. Retire the licenses and no more are issued to take their place.

To me this is a paradox. The commercial fishermen are both arsonist and fireman. They create the crisis by overfishing and become sympathetic heroes for going broke after they have depleted the stocks so bad they can no longer make a living. So we let them start the fire then we give them a big reward for putting it out. Kind of a joke if you think about it.

Why not give WDFW some of the 49 million and let them close the seasons to all netting? They get the best of both worlds.

Maybe the government should be considering a "buy-back" from all sport fishermen in rivers and seas! Our investment is not as large as the "commercials", but neither is our profit!

Cowlitzfisherman

What a load pollock!.

First off what does fleet size have to do with anything when it's a quota based system?

50% of the fleet means what, Number of boats not capacity or ability.

It is common knowledge that the efficiency of the trawlers is the issue not the numbers of vessels. The numbers would only be an issue if there were no quotas and it was a open ended season.

Would they put a lock on the ability and the capacity of the remaining fleet to produce and then reduce the quota by 50%. My bet is they would keep everything the same and the remaining boats would contine to increase capacity and abilty and catch the same number of fish.


I wopuld like to know why it is a protected industry. Why do we bail out any business is counter to darwinian nature of capitalism.

the truth is the fish farms have taken all the profit out of raping the oceans for all but a few big players. This just makes it easier for them

If they have a "buy out", then anyone that only gillnets "parttime", should be the first ones bought out. Once bought out, then they should not be allowed to ever buy back in. This hasn't always been the case.....

Less gillnets is good for the resource, no gillnets would be even better!!!! Old ways die hard but die they should.

"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

There buying the boats NOT the licenses. So no change in the numbers of fish HARVESTED.

Well said!

Jerry, that gray beard is making you smarter than you think!


Cowlitzfisherman