Here's the letter that Senator Hatfield sent to the Commission:







Anyone live in the 19th Legislative District? If so, Hatfield is YOUR Senator.

Fish on...

Todd

The economic value of the LCR salmon gillnet fishery is real money, but it's really just a small part of the entire income for the fishers...most make no money at this fishery, and in fact lose money.

The entire LCR gillnet fisheries gross a total of a little less than $4M, and that includes salmon, sturgeon, smelt, and shad.

I was unable to find a cost breakdown of how much of that $4M comes from each of those fisheries, but even if half of the money comes from the very short spring Chinook fishery (I think allotting it half the income is very generous on my part), it accounts for less than $2M of the total $13M that those commercial netters make.

It's interesting that Hatfield refers to the SAFE analysis...when independent economists and scientists reviewed the self-serving SAFE analysis, they found that it was fraught with inaccuracies, and failed to account for all of the economic costs of the SAFE program.

*SAFE is the Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project Economic Analysis, an economic analysis of a put-and-take commercial fisheries hatchery/netting project in the LCR.

When the IEAB looked at the analysis, they pointed out that the many costs of the fisheries were not accounted for, nor were the losses to recreational fishing economic benefits, nor were recreational fishing economic benefits explored.

Fish on...

Todd

How frustrating. This is just one more reason that we as a group need a voice.

The real bummer is that there won't be a rebuttal letter from a Senator lobbying for the sporties

I have read about your conservation efforts with much interest over the last year. Washington state appears no different than California - it is government for sale. Per FishNPhysician's thread about economic impact of sporties in your state versus commercial, the only difference I see is that commercial lobbies government officials. I do not know about CCA, but maybe through "contributions" to state officials, sporties can buy back their rights. This is not a political party rant either, both sides take money (or are they really just the same side?). I still have hope for your state, ours was wasted almost a century ago, but hey, we have the largest irrigation system in the history of the world!

Happy trails, Mike

Thank you Todd for providing TRANSPARENCY on this. I dont want to hijack this thread but the commercial side is only part of the story. If this politician wants to ensure balanced treatment between commercials and recreational fishermen, he should offer both sides of the equation.

The 2006 National Survey by the US Fish & Wildlife Service cites more than

$867 Million in WA based recreational fishing.

The link is
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/nat_survey2006_state.pdf
and the WA data is on page 14.

The overview report is here:
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/2006_Survey.htm

Exactly John B

He's just another Doumit's Puppets .

Senator Hatfield supports those who support him. That is the game in Olympia. I would imagine the organized commercial interest funnel plenty of money into his campaign coffers and support him in other ways too.

This, in my opinon, is the power of organization and money. Without it, good luck at us sportfishers being able to gain enough clout to make real change.

Hmmm, They stay on the same talking points for sure.

Another thing about the lower river is there are no guides allowed to launch from the Washington shore below the Longview bridge. The bank access is limited. The only way the non-boat-owning public can get on the water is a couple of charter boats. Any wonder there is not more sportfish economic benifts for the area?

He took over Doumit's seat... is anyone really surprised by this action?

This A-hole and his letter was a topic at our Columbia county CCA meeting last night.

This is a prime example of why we must organize and stop the bickering between sport anglers. This guy was bought by the commercial fishermen, dont think for a minute he will even look at the sport value of these fish.

I would encourage everyone in his district to write him a letter and let him know that you vote, and that you vote for sport fishing first.

I was trying to avoid making comments on this thread but --- Todd is on the right track. When a politician writes a letter and cites numbers go to the source of the numbers. I don't think Senator Hatfield is a biometrician or a social economist, the numbers were handed to him, probably the entire letter. When economic impact numbers are quoted, sports fishermen or gillnet fisheries, they are only as valid as the assumptions and methodology used to derive them. I suspect Todd looked at the Northwest Power and Conservation Council web site, reports and papers, independent science libraries, IEAB, SAFE review 2007. I am not going to post the links because if you care you should do some work. I could not find the final report cited in the senators letter but I think document 2005-8 is a draft. I should warn you that there are almost 200 pages to download, tables, and explanations of different models used to derive the statistics. I spent a few hours looking through the reports and then went out for a couple of pints to think about what it all meant. I am not an economist but I think the sports argument can be strong.

I think the key is to differentiate between Regional Economic Impact (REI), cited in the letter, and Net Economic Value (NEV). REI is a measure of the direct value of the fishery, of the value of services and support, the cost of equipment, and the value to the local economy of visitors. NEV is the direct value of the fish caught minus the cost of fuel, etc. As best I could determine, of the total REI for lower Columbia River spring chinook, sports caught fish contributed about 22% and gillnet fisheries Contributed 20%. For the four models this was consistent so that in terms of REI both fisheries are equal. NEV is a different story, for the gill net fishery Todd's number of 2 million dollars may be close. NEV for the sports fishery is zero dollars, by definition sports caught fish are not sold. At first glance one might think that this would justify the gillnet fishery but you have to look at what it cost to produce the fish. The cost for the hatchery operations, management, and fishery monitoring is far more per adult return than the market value of a landed fish. That cost is paid by the BPA rate payers and taxpayers of the northwest. Effectively the spring chinook gillnet fishery is a welfare program to support a few fishermen at public expense. It appears that the REI impact is equal for sports and gillnet caught fish so it seems to me that the public who pay for the fish should have first priority in harvest allocation.

My disclaimer, I am not an economist so I might not fully understand the analysis that were in the documents. The IEAB is the Independent Economic Analysis Board, one of three scientific groups that advises the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. I think that an argument to the commission citing IEAB work would carry more weight than a politicians letter.

In a nutshell, isn't that what commercial fishing in Puget Sound really is?

The last Senator I remember being this one-sided (and stupid) regarding fish and allocation issues was Sen. Spanel, our beloved fish-hating Senator from the 40th District. Why do these ignorant politicians love commercial fishing so much? Why do they risk alienating all of the sporties in their District? It just might have something to do with the amount of $$ they are able to "contribute".

Ike

...or they're married to or have family involved in the commercial fishing industry....

John...you wrote:

I suspect Todd looked at the Northwest Power and Conservation Council web site, reports and papers, independent science libraries, IEAB, SAFE review 2007. I am not going to post the links because if you care you should do some work. I could not find the final report cited in the senators letter but I think document 2005-8 is a draft. I should warn you that there are almost 200 pages to download, tables, and explanations of different models used to derive the statistics. I spent a few hours looking through the reports and then went out for a couple of pints to think about what it all meant. I am not an economist but I think the sports argument can be strong.

*************

...and you must have spent the evening doing the exact same thing I did this morning...substitute a pot of coffee for the couple of pints, and I bet we duplicated efforts pretty nicely.

The NEV is the key component to the critics of the SAFE...the costs outweigh the benefits considerably, but the benefits are local, while the costs are borne by the public...a modern day tragedy of the commons.

The public pays for the fish, and then the commercial gillnetters go and catch them, and then sell them to the public...the public pays twice, and gets almost no return on their investment.

For the sporties, we spend so much more than the public invests that it's a no brainer as to what fishery makes the most economic sense...and also conspicuously left off of the SAFE report is this truth: much of the money we spend also has great REI benefits...we buy gas, bait, lodging, and tackle locally. I bet a marine supply store on the lower Columbia River sells more $$ in herring every day than they'd make if they sold a new motor every day...it adds up, big time.

Since the SAFE being cited was only used to prop up the gillnet fisheries, it purposely left those benefits off.

The REI is good for sporties, and the NEV is on the plus side...economically, it's a no brainer: all of us are subsidizing a few of them, and while doing so, we are denying millions of dollars of productivity to the local and statewide economies.

DO NOT let them tell you that they are doing it for the non-fishing public and for restaurants...the tribal fishery produces more than enough fish to feed the public and stock restaurants...it's just a BS rhetorical story they pull out every time it is pointed out that they provide no necessary service other than to the few of them who get the benefits.

Fish on...

Todd

Well I just wrote four letters to as many senators and reps. Hopefully more people will do this and show that we have a voice. It is really quite simple of a process. Just go type in a senator or district search in google and then you will be able to look up anyone you want to write.

WN & Todd,
I'm with you on this 'forgone opportunity tragedy of the commons' phenomenon.....so my next (perhaps logical?) series of questions to follow would be;

Why would other district's reps (this senator's peers) support him?

Is it simply a 'you scratch my back on this one' reciprocity thing?
Are they not aware of the prospective (REI) losses that they incur from potential decisions like this in their districts (from sources you cited; recreationally purchased gas, bait, lodging, food, and tackle both down the I-5 corridor & in neighboring districts)?

Additionally; The reference to 'gas, bait, lodging, food, and tackle' got me wondering if the sportsfishing community writ large could (with or without CCA-type broad-level advocacy) find ways to exert more voice through those (I would think)somewhat weighty interest groups who's opportunity cost is lost (perhaps without them knowing it.) e.g. What has & will the further decline & loss of sports $'s mean for the lodging, fuel, boat, food, & tackle stores? & how much more revenue could it create were more opportunities made available?

Just picking one of those; tackle stores - I would think that between Cabelas, sportsmans warehouse, sportco, etc, etc there could be some significant leverage exerted. I'm not a wal-mart fan & I know they don't have much of rec.fishing presence, but I know they've got clout, & aren't they in support of recreation angling as a rule?

Are these groups even aware of the (current & potential future) economic opportunities lost.

Perhaps it’s farfetched, but one would think that letters from some big boxes, fuel distributors, hotel chains, etc, (assuming they could be solicited) may carry a little more weight in Oly than most of us combined.

Awfully frustrating.....The fact that ANY non-tribal (non-selective/discriminatory) commercial fishery still remains in our state seems criminal at this point. It's 2008!

(feel free to critique me on this....as I could be way off here.....am not nearly as informed as many of you, besides, it's late & I haven't had any pints or coffee.)

Thanks for your efforts!

Symbiosis-

I really like your idea of getting the retailers behind the sporties cause. I set my ego aside, do my best to be objective, and realize that it is GOVERNMENT FOR SALE. If those retailers contribute letters of opposition and dollars to legislators' coffers, maybe the breeze will blow the other way. Facts are irrelevant to those on the dole. I can't emphasize this last thought enough. Good luck!

That's what the NSIA (Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association) is supposed to be, a unified voice for the businesses that depend on sportfishing.

They're definitely part of the process, and will be represented at the meetings.

Fish on...

Todd