I've been kicking around an idea for the past few weeks and I wanted some feedback on it. In brief, the idea stems from reading various comments on news articles regarding the possible gill net ban in the Daily Astorian and other news sources. Many of us here are well aware of numerous studies showing that the economic impact of recreational fishing outweighs the economic impact of commercial fishing. Many of us here understand that the economic impact is greater even though recreational fishing gets a small fraction of the available catch. However, when new regulations are put into place or when quotas are shifted from commercial fishing many news articles seem to focus on the loss of jobs in the commercial sector with little thought of the jobs in the recreational sector.

Worse yet, in some of the comments I've read on the Daily Astorian people in support of the gill netting ban were described as "wealthy elitist sport fishing friends" of Gov. Kitzhaber.
I know a lot of recreational fishers and very few are "wealthy elitist sport fishing" people. I also know a lot of guides, owners or sales people in the boat and tackle industry and small business owners in coastal and river towns and very few of those people are making a killing in the sports fishing industry. However, many, many of them depend on the industry to make a living or to make a substantial portion of their income.

From a newspaper's standpoint, it's easy to find a boat owner or deckhand in the commercial who is not making a lot of money and to talk to them about job loss when regulations change or when quota is shift from commercial to recreational fishing. That "put's a face" on the commercial size of things but we never see articles on the recreational side of things - the guides and charter operators who are out of business due to declining runs, the boat builders who are out of business as less people chose to fish, others who sell tackle, bait, gear who lose income as recreational fishing declines and the hotel and restaurant owners who also lose. So it's my sense that even with studies which show the economic impact of recreational fishing is greater than commercial fishing, the average politician and average "Joe" doesn't think of recreational fishing as an industry that supports a large number of middle income jobs. E.g. no one outside of the recreational fisherman and those in the industry sees the faces of those struggling to make a living in the recreational fishing industry.

So, the idea I'm kicking around is a web site where a guide, boat builder, hotel or restaurant owner would go online and do the following:
1) Upload an image of them or better yet, they and their family or them and their employees
2) Provide their name
3) The location of their business or list of the areas in which they fish (if a guide)
4) Write a brief (a paragraph or less) description of how they make a living from recreational fishing
5) Fill out a very short survey that collects data (and set up so a person can chose to not enter any data fields they wish to not disclose). The data to be collected would be:
a) Annual gross revenues (this would not be publicly displayed and would be anonymized so it's not associated with the contributor)
b) Percentage of (a) attributable to recreational fishing (and for restaurants, marinas and hotels - the percentage attributed to commercial fishing of their facility)
c) Number of employees
d) Contact information
e) Whether they would be willing to talk to media about the impact of fish regulations or declining fish runs on their ability to make a living.

This would be used to:
1) Construct a website that provides a display of faces in our state that depend recreational fishing to make a living - each image would be clickable and would lead the the paragraph and other data (not including gross revenues). What I'd hope is that we'd have some many faces that when we tile the images each one is tiny and that the user would have to zoom in a great deal. The point would be that there's a lot of VERY real people making a living or a fraction of their living from recreational fishing.
2) Provide information to media about the size of the recreational fishing industry.
3) Provide organizations like CCA and PSA with a power tool to lobby legislators and others by showing them directly who is benefiting from this industry.
4) If we can get a high enough participation rate from those in the recreational fishing industry, we could also use the page to show a relative scale of numbers of people in the recreational fishing industry vs. those in the commercial industry. E.g. the image tiles could have a cameo profile to represent those in the commercial industry. The point of this would be to show that the number of jobs that are completely or partially dependent on recreational fishing far outnumbers those in the commercial industry but to do it in a way that the faces can be seen. This will make it very clear to anyone who views, that this is not a group of people who cater to wealthy elitists but rather many, many small business owners who eek out a living in the recreational fishing industry.

Is this crazy? A waste of time? Redundant with information that's already publicly available?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Fish on...

Todd

I think this sounds like a good idea. Maybe see if these guys are interested (don't know anything about them, but might be up their alley): http://www.nsiafishing.org/

Sounds great, but I think it would be good if a lot of the "faces of sport fishing" were faces on kids, holding a catch or just hanging out with Dad, and grinning ear to ear regardless. For sure, economic arguments are our strong suit, but PR campaigns need an emotional hook, and we've got a great one in the tradition of taking kids fishing. There have been some great photos of kids with salmon and steelhead on this site....

That could be a separate site or a separate section of the same site. But for now I want to keep focused on the economic side of things.

My guess is that a lot of pertinent financial data is already out there waiting to be "discovered" and put to use. NSIA may well be able to point out the various sources - particularly Governmental - and may well have that info extracted and available for use.

Have you looked at the study and report accomplished for WDFW by TCW entitled "Economic Analysis of the Non-Treaty Commercial and Recreational Fisheries in Washington State" and dated 2008? See it at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00464. Note that the values are in 2006 dollars.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Many of my fishing buddies agree with the idea you have brought up. The sportfishing "industry" has a much larger economic impact on an area than does commercial fishing. Take into account, a boat, rods, reels, tackle, bait, waders, hats, sunglasses, GPS, fish finder, boots, jackets, hotels, camp grounds, lodges, resorts, RV's, trucks, trailers, fishing guides, charters, shuttle services, extra gasoline sport fisherman spend, food, booze, boat moorage, boat repair costs, license fees, boat registration, trailer tabs, etc etc etc.

Add all that up, all that $$$ makes its way into the local/regional economy, and if I didnt have the opportunity to fish, that money wouldnt be spent(id have alot more in the bank.. just ask my wife)

Sport fisherman in many cases create this sort of economic benefit soley to have the ability/opportunity to chase after and catch/release a wild steelhead, or fly fish on a great stream for trout(think montana). Each of these examples provide the economic benefit to the local/regional area but dont destroying the resource like commercial fishing does.


Needless to say I dont think many outside of fishing forums(including WDFW) realize the benefits sportfishing provides to our economy. If your idea can get off the ground i think it will help to sway the general publics opinion.

A report on the value of hunting and fishing in Washington

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/big_tent-outdoor_coalition_20feb2013.pdf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 20, 2013 Doug Levy 425-922-3999
Big Tent Outdoor Coalition points to new report showing outdoor recreation as big business in Washington—worth $22.5 billion

The Big Tent Outdoor Coalition, an alliance of more than two-dozen organizations, is pointing to a new study that shows outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse in Washington State and across the country.
The Outdoor Industry Association’s (OIA) recently released report provides both national and state-by-state figures – and its data show that Washington State has the sixth-highest number of outdoor recreation sector jobs in the nation. Over 63% of Washingtonians participate in outdoor recreation activities each year.

The overall data for Washington State is stunning. $22.5 billion is spent each year on outdoor recreation here, directly supporting 226,600 jobs and generating $1.6 billion in state and local tax revenue. Direct jobs include the design and development of outdoor gear and apparel; wholesaling and retailing those products; providing lodging and transportation services; serving as guides and outfitters; and more.
“Here in Washington, we’ve always believed that outdoor recreation opportunities and quality of life are inseparable from the economy,” said Kaleen Cottingham, Director, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. “Finally, we have current data that demonstrates that these activities are not only an important part of our culture—they’re big business for the state and our local communities.”

This is the first comprehensive update of the economic impact of outdoor recreation since the OIA released figures in 2006 and the new data show significant increases in consumer spending and jobs. It is important to note that this report does not include equestrian, sailing and diving activities—popular pursuits in Washington that likely push these numbers even higher.

“Protecting our natural areas and our legacy of outdoor recreation is the right thing to do – and it’s pretty clear from this data that it’s the economic thing to do as well,” said Martinique Grigg, Executive Director of The Mountaineers.

Peter Schrappen, Government Affairs Director for the Northwest Marine Trade Association, points out that Washington State’s history of investing in public access to the outdoors has helped build a thriving recreation industry. “Outdoors businesses are successful in Washington because our state has had the foresight to ensure access to public lands, waterways and trails. Those investments are not just smart from a quality of life standpoint but smart from a dollars and sense standpoint,” he said.

The Big Tent Coalition believes the OIA data bolsters and reinforces the need for Washington lawmakers to protect dedicated capital accounts for outdoor recreation activities, to provide general fund assistance for State Parks, and to support significant funding for programs such as Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program.

The national report as well as a one page fact sheet for each U.S. state is available on the OIA website at outdoorindustry.org/recreationeconomy

I've seen a number of reports and studies like that. Here's a recent one from British Columbia - http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/Files/0c425...2012Edition.pdf

In BC, recreational fishing is estimated to contribute $325.7M dollars out of an annual $667.4M total (including aquaculture). So about 50% of the total economic impact there is rec. Similar to us, rec. generates that proportion of economic impact with <15% of the catch (sometimes much less, depending on species). 85/15 = 5.6x the resource allocation to generate approximately the same economic impact. So for every pound of fish that gets move from commercial to recreational quotas can be argued to generate 5.6x the $'s that same pound of fish would have otherwise.

My goal is to put a face on this to show that the revenue generated goes to normal, middle class folks. My reason for focussing on the economics is that the commercial lobby likes to make the argument that shifts of quota are costing jobs "just" to generate entertainment for the recs. However, the reality is it costs jobs in one sector but creates jobs in another AND it generates entertainment for the recreational fisher. The economic argument is KEY since asking for changes in allocation is not simply the recreational sector being "greedy" for our recreation, it's about generating the greatest economic impact from a public resource. Putting a face on those who benefit from the economic impacts (e.g. the guides, hotel owners, marinas, boat builders, tackle shops etc) is intended to show that the economic impacts benefit real people with real jobs. E.g. it's not about me or you wanting to catch more fish, it's about keeping people like Mystical Legends Phil, Bob, Superfly, Todd, the people at Clackacraft, Willie, Lavro etc. gainfully employed. A side benefit of better management and more sensible allocations is the extra fun we and our kids get to have fishing.

So - guides and others on the site who earn a living (or partial living) from this industry, would you provide such info to a web site for this purpose? Also under who's auspices would you most trust such information - CCA, PSA, some other group?

On edit - I just realized that if I subtract out the economic impact of aquaculture in the BC example above, the rec industry generated $325.7M dollars of BC fishing related GDP while the commercial capture fishery generates only $102.3M or $102.3/325.7 = 0.314x the GDP generated by the recreational fishing. If you put that factor in, the recreational fishing industry generates about 18x as much GDP per pound of allocated fish as the commercial industry.

That's a powerful arguement.
Now......to get someone in power to listen to it......

Great idea!

but it would be much simpler to and more effective to raise a bunch of rec. money and put it into the right pockets... just saying

why else with every economic reason, every conservation reason and every other aspect of the issue pointing to the benefits and preference of recreational fishing over commercial fishing would politicians continue to back the comm's?? it's just money, man! They put it in politicians pockets, we don't.

SeaDNA -
It might be interesting to focus on just the relative value of the salmon fisheries. That info might be hard to tease out.

A 2006 economic study looking at the value of fishing in this State (available on WDFW's web site) stated that of the 65 million dollars that the commercial industry received at the dock only $9.5 million (or 15%) was from salmon. In terms of pounds landed groundfish was the biggie and in value it was shellfish.

In the same study the economic value to the State from the recreational fishery was pegged at $900 million. Of the total angler trips 23% were directed towards salmon.

Two key points jump out from the above -

1) even if non-treaty commercial salmon fishing was eliminate entirely the commercial industry would hardly be "gutted".

2) Prioritization of recreational salmon fisheries over commercial fisheries will maximize the return to the State's economy.

Curt

Smalma:

Great points! I had no idea that salmon made up such a small percentage of the commercial market. Also interesting is that shellfish account for a lot of the money. Aren't a majority of shellfish operations essentially aquaculture, wherein no commercial "fishing" is required? In other words, aren't most shellfish raised and harvested by "farmers?"

Geoducks

JG is correct geoducks are a huge economic fishery with much of the catch shipped to Asia. Ocean crab and ground fish trawl fisheries are also biggies.

The commercial industry makes a big thing about them catching local salmon and providing them to the general citizens of State. The Columbia River spring Chinook as individual fish are the most valuable salmon caught in nets. I would be very surprised if most of non-treaty commercial caught CR springs do end up being consumed out of State. To get top dollar many of those fish end up in high end restaurants across the US and even Canada.

Curt

Do they use an underwater dredge for geoducks? That seems like it could be a fun and lucrative job.

I've said it for years. In this country one thing that overrides all common sense and that's money. (Greed) Your idea is great. It's a shame that it has to come down to that. (Money) You would think that a species on the brink of extinction would be enough of a motivator. But again money talks so what you are doing is headed in the right direction. Getting people to realize how important this is isn't easy since a fish isn't a furry little seal or sea otter. It’s tough to get any sympathy. Not to mention a great many Americans oddly enough are not fish eaters. And, many people not only don’t eat fish they are repulsed by fish. It’s a hard mountain to climb but your efforts are appreciated.

Divers are used to harvest geoducks commercially. As I understand it, there are depth restrictions (min/max) for the leases. They use a water jet nozzle to push the geoduck out. Most of the geoducks are in China/Orient within a day or two of harvest.



http://www.geoduck.com/harvesting-your-geoduck

Bring it. Good luck,

SZ