Sporties economic impact ?

I keep hearing about the huge value of the sport fishing fleet as it effects the economy, does it really work that way ? I know when going sport fishing I will burn some gas in my truck, put a few miles on the tires, eat lunch, etc...but it doesn't matter what I do that day, those things are the same. If a guy has the extra cash to spend on some nice fishing equipment, but the season gets canceled, then he just spends that cash on some other hobby......................race car, ski boat, airplane, stereo, video fishing game, water bed, etc.

If I wasn't spending my "disposable income" on my fishing habit, I would not be able to justify spending the money at all, period. The money might go in the bank for that "reserve/emergency" fund I should have, or a trip elsewhere at a later date.

"video fishing game" ? ? ? ? put down the pipe and back away slowly. . . . .

So, the economy has swung about $~700 between the lot of you...?

Wow that's an amazing way to look at it.

Good seasons and opportunity have a huge impact on society as a whole.

We have been in a Deep Recession for years and the Epic Springer Run was most excellent for the industry. The Fall runs haven't been that bad either.

Some fair weather guys might spend the cash elsewhere but I wouldn't.

I might purchase more personal or hunting irons though.

Mike

I'll admit that it's obvious there exists a fringe element who would bury cash in coffee cans if it weren't for sportfishing...we were discussing a supposedly huge majority of the population of the N.W.

Unlike commercials, sportanglers economic impact isn't determined by success, just opportunity.

Well, you could always read the report:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00464

You know, by this logic, those commercial guys -- they have no economic impact either, because they could always get other jobs.

freespool, so then you agree that there doesn't really need to be very many fish in the river, just a season and a place to buy license and tackle.........?

Yes, but then there is that part about an untapped renewable natural resource.................think of it as an economic building block. You can only have so many people serving other people, there has to be some meat and potatoes to an economy. (pun)

Absolutely don't agree, when the CR has few catchable fish, the sport effort drops off sharply.

Oregonian,

Okay, so I just showed you report quantifying the economic impact of sportfishing. It's wildy larger than commercial for similar impacts on the resource.. Did you READ the report?

Then you tell me how the fish are an "untapped" resource? I'm telling you that "tapping" them with commercial fisherman is a vastly smaller economic proposition than letting the sporties go at 'em. So don't leave them untapped, let the sporties fish.

Your original argument -- that if recreational fishing $$$s aren't spent on fishing, they'll be spent elsewhere... That's a parallel argument to the one I made -- which was my point. Sporties could (and surely many would) spend their money elsewhere, including out of state. Commercial fishermen could (and surely many would) find jobs elsewhere, including out of state. The question is which keeps MORE jobs and MORE money in state -- in this case the clear answer is sportfishing.

And you're missing another angle -- this is a PUBLIC natural resource. and in a vibrant sportsfishery, the BENEFITS of the natural resource are spread across 100x to 1000x more state residents... It's not just that it's more economically valuable... It's also more equitable.

The effort drops off sharply because some people have better things to do than fish in empty rivers...right ? I submit that those guys are burning up their cash someplace else when not sitting in a boat. The other "die hard" fishermen are going to keep fishing as long as it's legal. So, if you base fish management strictly on economics, the fish lose... and the sporties lose.

It strikes me as odd when I hear guys beating their chest about this huge economy of sport fishermen.................who can't get anyone interested in their money.

IrishRouge, try to let the words sink in before you type...

IF you close down commercial fishing, then you have an untapped renewable natural resource. Sport fishing money is coming out of some other sector, not generating "meat and potatoes". I know a lot of tackle factories in China could be impacted by reduced sport fishing, but they'll think of something.

Saying that if comm. fishing is outlawed, then there will be unharvested fish is a load of B.S. Many hatcheries in N.W. Washington struggle to get their quota. Many seasons close very early due to commercial overfishing. The Skagit is a good example of this. I would put my life on the line to speculate that if commercial fishing was banned in the PNW then sporties would be more than glad to step in and harvest a few extra fish. The hunting and fishing industry is huge, just not very many politicians realize it. Before everyone from out-of-state didn't want to hunt elk in Idaho anymore, hunting and fishing was estimated at almost 1 billion bucks a year, just in Idaho. Compare that to other industries and see how things stack up.

Sounds like Oregonian caught wind of the crab allocation changes.

He can over simplify the economics if he wants. He can also piss into the wind. 900 million dollars creates a lot of tax revenue. The politicians in the State of Oregon dont know how private jobs are created, so they mandate gas station attendants and load the bars with strippers. Yet, at least one of the politicians did not care if GI Joes stayed in business.

What type of economic effect would their be on the state if a large group of sport fisherman did not buy a license in a given year? It seems like a logical strategy since reduced seasons, no season, severely depleted runs and then the word gets to you that commercial fisherman have scooped all of the chum in the sound..

so therefore you cannot even take a chum out of the water on the skagit.
Come on provide feedback..wouldn't a revolution/movement of this sort get lots of attention from media and state law makers oh and the bean counters?

I agree that doing something like not buying licenses would make a whole lot more sense than crying about this massive economic impact.

I understand that there is a bunch of money spent by sport fishermen, which drives a certain part of the economy, I also understand that if not spent on sport fishing most of that money would still be circulating in the economy...

The trouble with not buying licenses is that undoubtedly some bean counting spin doctor would see that there is no longer much interest in sport fishing, so might as well increase commercial harvest...simple enough to keep the State's revenue stream good by increasing fees on the commercial guys to offset the low sales of sport license.


AuntyM if you know about local tackle companies ("high end"), then surely you've also heard of seafood restaurants("high end") ?

The best economics is going to include both, amazingly similar to reality...the massive economic hammer that some people claim just isn't real.

Alaska, 1.4 billion of which 653 million came from non-resident spending. One might think that with better opportunity in Washington some of that money could have been spent here.
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/economics/

Florida, 6.1 billion of which over one billion came from non-resident spending. If you do a little digging on your own you can see the steady increase in sportfishing revenue after Florida curtailed their commercial fishing impacts.
http://myfwc.com/CONSERVATION/Conservation_ValueofConservation_Economic.htm

When it comes down to dollars and "common cents" Washington is misssing the boat...

Oregoian..........If you are a commercial fisherman, face the fact, YOU ARE NOT NEEDED, our native fishermen can supply all the needs of Washingtonians. Now turn us sporties loose on the other fifty percent and watch..........

Nice troll Oregonian:

Let me ask you a question. When there was no commercial harvest of Columbia River springers did those high end restaurants (of which few are in Washington or Oregon) go out of business? If in 2011 there is no commercial fishery on that resource what would happen to those restaurants? I suggest that they would simply modify their menus accordingly and their patrons would select another high end offering. In short, little impact to their overall revenues.

Making broad statements is an invitation for attack but I will risk it here. Where there is a limited resource that has both a commercial and sport activity the sport fishery has the greater value to the economy on a per pound basis. It is true on the Columbia River springer fishery, on halibut off the coast of Washington and Oregon, and on Dungeness crab in Puget Sound (and I am sure there are many others I have not mentioned).

As for outside money versus local money the best situation is a strong recreational fishery that retains as much local money as possible while providing a strong incentive for outside money to flow into the local economy.

There is undeniably a strong pent up demand for close-in recreational fisheries. One only needs to look at the recreational boats on the Columbia when there is a springer season or at Buoy 10 in the fall. Or 2009 when there was a strong run of pinks into Puget Sound, or when there is a Lake Washington fishery for reds. Pretty obvious reality!

So, what was your point?

One point was that it seems pretty ironic to hear a group complain that greedy and corrupt polititions are ruining them...and at the same time this group claims to hold incredible economic power ! So, which is it, can the sporties simply get mad and shut down the economy of the N.W. ? If sporties really bring the most money, then wouldn't the greedy polititions befriend them the most ?

Another point is that if fish are going to be managed strictly by economics, then the fish will surely lose.

Main point, sporties need a better argument.

Some people here are quick to point out the obvious...that a lot of economic gain comes from sportfishing..........................I'm not disputing that, in fact it seems pretty obvious. I mentioned that we are largely talking about a lot of people spending discretionary cash...and the point there is that they who have that discretionary cash are still going to be spending it even if there was no fishing season at all. That in no way implies that I want to see less sportfishing opportunities. When the sporties spend less, then a large percent of that cash will just enter a different sector...the same day !

Thank you.

What is the economic impact of a sport caught spring chinook? Good question, here are some very interesting points.
Sportfishing supports over 31,000 jobs in our region.
There were approximately 117,000 sport angler spring chinook trips on the CR in 2008, the average boat angler expenditure per trip was $175, on average it takes 8 angler trips per fish landed, that's $1400 per fish landed.

Another "Fine Point" on the discussion is where each (sports & commercials) spend thier cash. Sports Fishers typically spend that cash across a wider more diverse geographic area, espescially in non Metro areas. Again where it is most appreciated and valued. Cannot say the same for commercials (and I am excluding the Tribes here). As an example, prior to the Winds of Crabbing Change here in Washington, most of the Non Tribal Commercially caught crabs found their way into a very limited buyer, and the bulk of that was sold Out Of The Region, i.e., Japan, California, Gulf Coast (YES!!!! Crab Shack), and back east. That is how Larry and some of us traveling back there could have Dungeness at a Restuarant in Florida. And I agree with someone above regarding BC Trips & Licenses/Fees, if it does not improve here, I will continue to spend my CASH on the northern end of Vancouver Island. Then examine a WDFW program itself and how it is supported/funded, i.e., the Crab Program. Two Hundred Thousand Plus CRC's @ $3.00 a pop versus 150 Commercial Licenses @ $50 a pop, do the math, why should I in any way, shape, form, or fashion subsidized Commercial Crabbers in Washington when they demand more of the allocation each year from me a sports crabber? That is just plain stupid and very unfair.

Besides, there is more than an adequate and affordable supply of Dungeness in Safeways/Albertsons/Costco's with the Tribal Crabbers. They are in effect and by treaty the ONLY local game in the region for supply.

License sales have fallen in Wa since the economic report was written. Compare 824,000 to 714,000 in 2009. (a humpy year) in 2008 631,0000 and in 2007 651,000 total fishing licenses. Boycotting license sales wont do much for sporties. Its the long term advocacy that can often take a couple years to convince managers, its the right path.
Last year I saw a video of the history of sport fishing in Wa. They apparently sold more licenses in the 50's than they do today. The economy was not nearly as diverse. What has also been lost is the tourism aspect of a healthy sport fishery. There are millions of people who have never even seen the Pacific Ocean. There are businesses, tax revenues and jobs associated with fishing that are probably not included in the analysis. If you want to pick out a sportfisherman out of the traffic, just look for a truck with a trailer hitch. Compare the job multiplier in fishing and hunting compared to bowling, golf, hiking, tennis. Anyone own 20 bowling balls or 20 tennis rackets? Skiing is one of the few comparisons, but vacations are taken out of state. Its a 5 month sport at best unless you travel a lot. Anyone ever contact the washington department of skiing?

Overharvest of chum is better than an overharvest of kings or silvers. I dont like and it will probably become another allocation debate. If the cowboys are not making a living now, then the permits should be sold back to the state in order to split up the allocation between fewer permits. Its no different in the business world. Any product or service you like. The markets grow and decline. Its one of the reasons reels, cars and clothing keeps changing. Market saturation and offering something new enhances or protects market share.

So, I guess you guys are saying that the sporties could just buy out the entire commercial fishing industry if they wanted to. Just buy up the processing plants, the boats, the permits, all of it. Sounds great, now all you need is a non greedy, non corrupt leader to pass the hat.

Oregonian:

Do you truly believe that politicians are immune from the cash flow from commercial interests? Or that the interests of the local commercial fishers are not seen as the interests of the larger, more affluent commercial fishers (read that as the big guys help fund the little guys' battles as they perceive a loss here as a threat to other bigger, fisheries)?

That is why the citizens of Washington created the current Fish and Wildlife Commission to at least try and take management of our resources out of the hands of the politicians.

By the way, you failed to respond to my question about what would happen to those high end restaurants if CR springers were not to be available to them. Is your failure to respond an acknowledgment that I was correct???

And where are most of those discretionary dollars? I opine that they are in the more affluent communities. And, yes, some of those discretionary dollars, if not spent on fishing, will be spent on something else either the same day or on another day. But as JohnQ has suggested discretionary dollars potentially spent fishing in Ilwaco, Westport, Neah Bay or Sekiu simply don't get spent there in some form of alternate activity. So while the State may see that as a discretionary wash those depressed economy communities really do suffer.

You might want to check with Grays Harbor County's Chamber of Commerce as to the value of the fall and spring razor clam seasons that draw thousands to the beach. Or do you already know the answer to that too?

On one side of their mouth the sporties say the have economic might but they can't seem to focus that money at anyone with power...they're all too greedy and corrupt (sounds fishy). On the other side of their mouth the sporties just want what's right, you know what's best for the rivers and the fish...as nature intended. Hmmm, which is it ?

I really doubt the restaurants would notice an item or two missing from their menu. I know I would never buy salmon when bottom fish are on the same menu !

Still haven't answered my questions but prefer to simply rant.

O'K, Oregonian, time to officially come clean on where you fit into the issues. Do you own a commercial boat? Commercial license, and, if so, for what activity? Or do you own a fish processing plant or wholesale operation, or high end restaurant dependent up CR springers? Or do you work for one of those? Or used to? Confess, its good for the soul.

Oh, and you seem to have missed the recent decision by WDFW Commission to prioritize recreational interests over those of non-tribal commercial fishers in the Puget Sound Dungeness crab fishery.

I do not know that, in fact there is much that I don't know. I have mostly been asking a question, and pointing out holes in an often repeated story. Holes that some of the repeaters will never admit...ever.

AGAIN, if the sporties have such a huge economic advantage over the commercial, then why don't they get their way ? It's not like the sporties are wanting to exploit something beyond the point of no return and that the govt and commercials are ganging up on the sporties to keep them from ruining the World.

What is the objective ?

Are we looking for a ban on the sale of any Game fish...much like the ban on the sale of Game animals ?

Are there fish species that can be managed as a renewable resource and maintain the seafood industry ?

IF the commercial fleet loses their King and Coho market, are the sporties going to give up bottom fish and tuna ?

Why do sporties have to give up anything? There used to be commercial hunting; that was prohibited and the harvest given over to recreational.

WA has an effective commercial fleet with the treaty Indians. The way the treaties have been interpreted, if one side can't get it's share of the harvest the other side is allowed to. The markets can be supplied by them.

So then you're pretty happy with the status quo...if it wore a different label ?

It was a hypothetical question where two opposing sides negotiate toward a better end for both...

Phishing for info...

In many situations, and I think this is one of them, the two sides (non-Indian commercial and sport) are cumulatively too large to share the resource. There are not enough fish to go around. Maybe, if we put in about 50 years of restrictions on harvest, development, pollution, water diverions, and so on then we could recover the runs to a size large enough to support the two groups. If not, one needs to go away.

Well, there's a start, we're on common ground now.

I think conditions could be better for us sporties and still have a seafood industry. I don't think sporties would ever begin to tap the tuna resource, or the deep water bottom fish, for a couple examples. I think a lot of sport fishermen would be willing to make some tradeoffs to get some improvements too.

Whomever "takes" from the resource, it should not be exploited beyond it's capacity to renew, or even rebuild if there is a viable potential.

Can we consider this common ground too ?

You're dreaming..... It won't happen....

Keith

Is the internet not the perfect place for dreaming ?

Remember, I started out asking why this multi bazzillion dollar economic hammer never seems to swing...and I came to that question by reading about it on the internet.

Yah sure, what the hell. They dragged Puget Sound to death. Lets make some trade offs. Keep dreamin Dragger.

What are some of your ideas for improvements to the situation ? Do you propose shut down every commercial fishery and seafood market, and restaurant ? Do you only want to shut down commercial fishing on species that migrate into fresh water ? You must have an opinion on what would be better since you seem to be very unhappy with the current situation...I promise not to laugh as long as you put forth a little effort, that last remark was pretty weak.

And built a fricken metropolis right down to the edge of the water, built dams on the rivers, and in general reproduced like rabbits, etc, etc...

This topic pertains to where we are at right this second, and what might be a good path for tomorrow.

Ah yes, Aunty wants it to stop when she is on the spot...if you don't have any ideas you could just say so.

Sports catch 1% of the West coast albacore harvest.
So what were you considering trading?
End all LCR mainstem commercial harvest, shift the 2% mortality allocation to the sport fleet, commercial harvest from the SAFE Areas, sports maximize the economic potential.
No more allocation wars, abbreviated bag limit or seasons.

I don't have the answers, I was hoping to start an interesting conversation with some ideas hitting the table.

What would happen if there was no commercial market for King and Coho salmon ? Could there then be a practically endless sport season with very liberal limits ? Would the sporties then allow other renewable resources such as Pink and Chum salmon to become commercially managed ?

What about end all commercial fishing/crabbing in inside waters ?
Can the Native net fishermen be influenced to avoid endangered stocks/species in exchange for more fish in total ?

Who/What will fund the hatcheries ?

I know the tuna are largely managed by commercial fishing, same thing for black cod, and several other species... I think there are a lot of fish that can be harvested commercially and keep the seafood industry afloat. What about halibut ? With an endless salmon fishery could the sporties get used to getting their halibut at the restaurant/market ?

Bottom fish ?

Just putting some stuff on the table for discussion.

Im already laughing. Join in. We are suppose to give you ideas to benefit you? Who elected you negotiator? Restaurants and grocers are not guaranteed a supply of seafood at the expense of the diminished resource. You miss the dead end sign?

The restaurants and grocers can get them from the Tribes. Or, we can stop selling wild-caught fish as we have done with wild-caught ducks, geese, deer, etc.

With this massive economic hammer looming over the heads of policy makers, it would seem anything could be done...

I always hear complaining about mismanagement, I was just wondering if the complaining could somehow be converted into constructive criticism...

By your definition, a serious discussion is where you talk, and others nod ?

Oregonian:

You initiated this thread with a rather absurd statement and have added absolutely NOTHING of value to the discussion. Rather, you have merely kept sticking a hot poker into valuable and informed input from others.

And when this was gently and politely pointed out by AuntyM you responded with another post that provided no information but, rather, simply attacked the poster.

I just wanted to point out my perception of your inability to add anything meaningful to this discussion.

So what have you personally done to represent your interests and/or the interests of the resource with your politicians or ODFW? Hint: This thread does not qualify!!!

Oregonian's question is an important one, and I think the answer is that we sportfishers are too hung up on our personal agendas to find our common ground, pool our financial resources, and beat the commercials at their own game (lobbying, for those of you who missed the intent). The reason commercial interests have dominated regulations for so long is that they are organized and putting their money where their mouths are. Sporties are clearly pumping more money into the economy, but that money is not being spent in political circles, which is where the balance of power lies.

Is that the answer you were looking for, Oregonian?

I agree with FleaFlickr-
This whole thread (other than a few comment) has been a good one and full of thoughts and ideas. Oregonian has made some interesting statements, I never read into his statements anything other than trying to get people to open up. I don't care if he is a commercial or sports-fisherman or both, it really does not matter as long as ideas keep coming out and people get involved. Attacking each other is exactly what the "other" side wants! They stay focused and with one voice, as soon as we do the same, we will win.
There is no easy answer, but if we don't keep talking about it, nothing will happen that is good, that has been proven for the last 30 years!

FF since you registered only one year ago, you have missed quite a lot of the effort. Olympia gave us no chance of saving the commission. Advocy is stronger than you think.

FF couldn't possibly have any knowledge from any other source, or under any other screen name ? Hmmm, I thought he was making some sense.

Fringe element?

WTFYTA

Fringe element my ass!

You asked a question and I answered it.

I know for a fact that it effects the local economy.
Ask anybody in Astoria Oregon if there is a change when they close the fishery early.

The whole town looks deserted compared to when they leave it the fishery open and on schedule.

This is true in many areas with seasonal fisheries.

Local Guides make a living with far less impact on the resource than commercial.

Regards,

I never doubted the money showing up in Astoria when the fishing is good. Do you understand that I get that ?

My point is that when the money doesn't show up in Astoria, it shows up someplace else. You must know someone who has went to a game or a race, or fishing in a lake when fishing was either closed or sucked so bad that it was a joke. The State sees just as much of that money even if it shows up in another "economy". The State is making the rules, and they seem to think the sporties economic power is a joke.

Rather than digest that pill, perhaps you could find a grammer error in my post........

Nope. No alter egos, outside sources of information, etc. For better or for worse, what I wrote was my personal opinion.

That kind of thinking is what puts Oregon at the bottom of the heap.

Except of course in the case of homelessness and hungryness we are tops there.

OK!

I guess they will just spend the money elsewhere.
The jobs will be formed someplace regardless if I have one.

I think what we are really discussing is Freedom.

Given the right to fish and recreate in a meaningful manner will help local and regional economies. Restrictions to the sport fishery will only continue to hurt us.

Deep breath KZ, count to ten, reread my posts on this thread without trying to find some hidden agenda (paranoia).

Is it "that kind of thinking" that upsets you, or is it the fact that it's true ?

The larger question is : what are some policy changes that you can think of that might enhance the sportfishing experience ?

I only mentioned the economic power of the sporties being a joke because it seems that many sporties are unimpressed with the status quo. IF the sporties have some economic weight, then let's throw it around and get something done, and if we don't have the weight, then let's stop talking about it like a broken record.

Oregonian, the problem is that it has taken this long and FF's insight to maybe determine what you have been trying to discuss - if this can even be described as a discussion.

I can't speak for Oregon but I do know there has been an ongoing battle over MPAs in Oregon and that various sportfishing groups and individuals have been very active in that issue.

As for Washington, we (sport interests) established the current Commission via referendum with the goal of removing critical resource management issues from the (direct) political process.

We also have responded to legislative efforts during at least the last two legislative sessions to eliminate the Commission. Those efforts were initiated and pushed by commercial fishing interests among other commercial activities unhappy with decisions made by the Commission.

Within the last month the Commission has agreed to change its policy and prioritize recreational Dungeness crabbing in Puget Sound over non-tribal commercial harvesters. At the same time the Commission agreed to changes in seasonal rules that for the 2011 season will increase recreational seasons. INCREASE SEASONS!! This was accomplished through the combined efforts of several groups and many individuals who testified before the Commission. That testimony by the way, included facts as to the relative value of crab in the recreational fishery versus the commercial fishery. Had this not occurred the recreational fishery in Puget Sound would have been held to a rigid quota and due to increased participation there would have been further reductions in seasons and daily catch limits to ensure that the recreational catch stayed within that quota.

The crab issue is only one of those dealt with successfully in the last year or two and is probably the most important as it resulted in a change in policy regarding the relationship between sport and commercial harvesters.

So, in closing, your spoutings imply that there has been nothing tried and nothing accomplished. Obviously I disagree. I do acknowledge that more needs to be done and I fully anticipate that further changes will occur as sports groups become better organized and (for your benefit) politically savvy.

Wow. You must be under a lot of stress or something...

I asked a couple of questions...if I implied anything it was right there on the page, nothing that required your great perceptive skills.

I think it's great that you got the crabbing regs changed, congrats. I think there is still a few fish missing from the river though...




This is one of the questions I asked, what exactly would you change if you had your way, and how would the changes be implemented. What do you think can be done to improve the situation ? I didn't say or imply that no one has ever tried anything.

I used the term fringe element to describe the people who would simply stay home and bury their money in coffee cans when sport fishing isn't available. I should go back and check, but I think I spelled it out almost word for word the first time...

Oregonian:

I will play this game a bit longer with you.

You said "IF the sporties have some economic weight, then let's throw it around and get something done, and if we don't have the weight, then let's stop talking about it like a broken record."

That clearly implies to me that you believe "sporties" haven't accomplished anything and need to get something done or simply shut up. No where do you acknowledge any of the efforts/accomplishments that have recently been on this BB.

And you have not answered the question I posed as to what YOU have done in support of recreational fisheries or the resource.

And, no, I don't think I want to share with you any of my ideas for future changes that are needed in Washington State. I hope you can figure out why not.

Oregonian --

To answer one of your questions, I'd be absolutely fine with reducing non-tribal commercial fishing in our state to ZERO. As already stated we have a treaty tribal fishery which can supply most/all of our local needs. Furthermore, we have interesting aqua-culture (including closed containment) technology locally that can and ought to be supported as a long term strategy for feeding people.

How would I transition this? I would be fine developing a model that takes the 10 year discounted profits from the existing commercial fleet and simply "acquiring" it for the sportfishermen. It'd be quite interesting to see that model, and figure out how to raise that money in fact.

And I do believe this action, buying out the non-tribal commercials, is a net positive for jobs and the economy in the region. And likely it is a SIGNIFICANT positive.

Orgonian,

You claimed that if fishermen don't spend their discretionary money on fishing opportunity in WA or OR, then they will spend it on something else, still in the local WA or OR economies. While that is likely true for some, the hard core fishermen who spend perhaps a disproportionately large amount of their money on fishing don't do that. They take that money and spend it on fishing in BC, AK, or other states.

If sport fishing opportunity deteriorates enough, then I will still spend money on fishing, but I will spend all of it in other states or countries, where it won't do anything for the local economy in WA.

Although it would be more economical for me to buy a commercially caught Columbia River spring chinook for $25 a pound at my local market, I've instead made the irrational decision to buy a boat suited to this fishery, a trolling motor that I otherwise didn't need, and a ton of salmon fishing tackle that I never needed since I'm primarily a fly fisherman. And then there are the hotels, campgrounds, restaurants, and gas stations in the LCR region that I wouldn't patronize with my business, but for salmon fishing.

As for why haven't sport fishing interests exerted greater influence in government and WDFW to give greater consideration to sport fishing, that's not so hard to figure out. Sport fishing, although declining, and with fewer participants, is still a significant economic activity. And the fishing is not so bad for so many as to motivate enough people to become political active through volunteering their time and donating their money. But that has been changing. More time and money is being channeled into sport fishing advocacy. However, the desired changes won't happen quickly. State law explicitly protects commercial fishing, and reallocating that non-treaty share to sport fishing will take more time, money, and work in order to be realized. Given enough of those resources, it will be; otherwise not.

Any other questions?

Sg

And to put a "Finer Point" on the above. The current demographic that actually has the "moxey" to understand, analyze, plan, and DO, is now retiring with a lot of time on our hands. I know, I did (retire) and put that time and experience to good Sports Crabbing Interests. And that retirement "Bulge" is growing larger by the day. We tend to be "Do'ers" with strong work ethics, and the experience to accomplish things, i.e., that is why we could afford to retire comfortably. That is what happened down in Olympia last year when some Old Style Politician (Jacobsen) unsuccessfully tried to turn the tide back to commercials by threatening OUR F & W Commission. There are more things than a large economic clout, and that is a Large Committment Clout by a lot of Individuals, scares the beejesus out of Old Style Politicians, i.e., now gone Jacobsen. Oh, did I point out that Jacobsen's Replacement signed the letter urging the F & W Commission to Change the Dungeness Crab Policies to our Sport Crabbing Interests???? It is not just ecomonics that are swinging, but folks that are committed to change. As a possible future example, please watch current State Senator Hargrove's Un-election next cycle (hint -- he is/was Very Ex-Senator (State) Jacobsen's Political Buddy).

i would change willipa bay back to a sept 16th opener for the commercial fisherman so sportfisherman could experience some decent fishing.

If you are talking about the gillnet test fishery that has days in Aug. that started this year and is going to run for many more years,---I agree.

Just thinking and typing out loud with what I read on previous threads and without researching further.

It appears that:

1) it would be the perfect place for selective gear to get their tests and research done and release the fish unharmed.
Now the problem with that might be funding.

2)by using gillnets it appears that they are being paid to help with research by keeping the fish instead of or in addition to some funding?

If that is the case they are being paid with sporties fish that was intended for us in Aug, and that should be totally unacceptable and could/should be dealt with by using the same tool the commercials use.

Going to court if negotiations failed to stop that nonsense.

Oregonian:

A word of advice, coming from a "chick" : You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!

Just so there aren't suspicions of any "hidden agendas" related to this post, let me clarify. It is easier to persuade people if you use polite arguments than if you are confrontational.

If you want people to really take you seriously, STOP SLINGING SH!T.

For example:
"Deep breath KZ, count to ten, reread my posts on this thread without trying to find some hidden agenda (paranoia)."
and
"Wow. You must be under a lot of stress or something..."

What are you really trying to accomplish with attacking statements like that. If it is showing your true colors, then congrats! Success!

Sink or swim-
BEST OF LUCK TO YA!

if the fish are going to be released unharmed like you say why do they have to do any research ?

Is that you Jenny ?
;-)

NOPE!

this is a clip from the page about the willipa fishery,

During all openings of this permit fishery less than 2000 hatchery Chinook, about 1300 hatchery coho and 500 wild coho will be harvested in order for WDFW to collect data that will inform future management. For further information, please contact Barbara McClellan 360-249-1213 or Charmane Ashbrook 360-249-1205.

looks like they kept wild coho durring the special openings, plus they got 2 other early openings, this isnt the best way to promote sportfishing