Saving saltwater fishing jobs

Pulled this off "The Fishing Wire" this afternoon. Something to keep in mind when talking to WDFW staff, Commissioners, and state and federal legislators when the issue of recreational saltwater fishing comes up......add in freshwater jobs and the numbers increase...


With 455,000 jobs at stake, a seasick meat-eater ought to support marine recreational fishing legislation

Recreational saltwater fishing ought to matter to every Member of Congress, even the ones that are allergic to seafood, live far from the ocean and reach for Dramamine at just the thought of getting onboard a boat.

That's because, when Congressmen and Senators vote on issues like red snapper reform and modernization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, nearly a half-million jobs are at stake.

Let that sink in for a moment: 455,000 American jobs depend on recreational saltwater fishing.

We say "jobs" nowadays -- but we ought to say "families." That's because when an individual loses a job, a whole family suffers.

Last week, we began a new feature series of articles that will introduce you to some of those jobs. At King Plastic of North Port, Florida, 145 families depend on recreational fishing -- whether any of them ever go fishing or not (sadly, even in North Port, Florida, there are some who will never experience the excitement of a catch at sea).

These are good U.S. manufacturing jobs, in a safe, clean, well-run, family-owned facility. One worker, Jean Vales, had just celebrated his 20th year with the company.

Our Congressmen and Senators will be going home this week, and they need to know about those jobs.

You may run into your Representatives and Senators at the grocery store, church, or community event.

If you do, tell them that you fish, and you vote -- and then be sure to remind them of the nearly half-million American families whose livelihoods depend on recreational fishing.

###

Happy and Blessed Thanksgiving!

Jeff Angers
Center for Coastal Conservation

Saltwater anglers nationwide were a $103 billion industry in 2011. The break down was more than 11 million saltwater anglers took over 70 million fishing trips generating $56 billion in sales impacts, $29 billion in value-added impacts, $18 billion in income impacts according to NOAA.

That sure beats the multibillion-dollar welfare state over the years of US commercial fishing fleets. A 2009 study explains state and federal subsidies and government support to the U. S. fishing industry is upwards to $1.83 billion per year of which the salmon piece of the pie equates to $200.6 million of which approx.44% is fuel subsidies.

So, they chase salmon all over the ocean instead of waiting for the salmon to return back to their individual terminal areas, attributing to additional cost and environmental footprint. The salmon caught in the ocean are at a fraction of their terminal-area-size and weight while fishing over ESA listed stocks.

By now, Congress must be aware that there is a LOT more economic benifit to sport fishibg vs. Commercial. I think the problem is twofold: first, that the jobs and livelihoods argument works both ways, and second, that congessional campaigns benefit more from commercial lobbying than recreational. The economic value of commercial fishing may be a lot less, but it's far from insignificant. I think it's safe to say that both are examples of industries that are "too big to fail." If we sporties really want to gain ground in this deal, we're going to have to start out-contributing the commercials. That sounds difficult, but the reality is that we could easily do it if we could get organized in support of the same agenda. Oops. I guess that's a third problem....

Politicians don't really care about jobs they just pretend to care. What they truly care about is money. If 1 "job" paid more to their coffer than 1,000,000 "jobs" you can bet your as.s they'd be yelling about how they just created another job.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO true. Old guy sport fisherman

Through hard work by many in organizations at the federal level, just ignoring state for the time being, congress has passed many laws for the benefit of not just the commercials but recreational sport fishing industry as well.

It is an arena where commercials reigned and the tide is changing.

In the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, the act itself is to provide for the conservation and management of the fisheries while calling for the best scientific information available to manage U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries. NOAA tasked by Congress to prevent overfishing and promote management strategies just to name a few, is why so much information pertaining to fish data (A-Z) is available on the NOAA web site regarding both industries.

Recent case law and CFR’s have begun to refer to sport anglers as an industry and rightly so considering the 100’s of billions of dollars generated each year by salt and fresh water anglers in the United States.

NOAA seems to be in a difficult situation with the ESA listed salmon in the PNW. When NOAA puts a particular salmon stock on an ESA listing, they are required to create a management plan to restore that stock.

It is easy to understand the need for the viability of commercial fisheries, especially the ground fisheries among others supplying food for world consumption but the extra level of an ocean commercial salmon fishery just is not necessary. The Washington coast fleet is a mere fraction of what it used to be because of less salmon enacting government subsidies--buyouts. The same salmon caught in the ocean would be caught at their individual terminal area anyway still going to market as usual. The end result would be larger salmon than ocean caught feeding salmon equaling less waste and more bang for the buck from hatchery salmon $$, less fuel, and less fishing over the ESA mixed stocks in the ocean for better management.

I don't think your numbers are correct but maybe I misinterpreted what I read: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2013/03/07_noaa_report_finds_commercial_and_recreational.html

Jason,

I have seen a handful of NOAA reports including the one you supplied that bounce around impacts and job numbers for the very same year.

The $103 Billion that I quoted came from the Angler Expenditures and Economic Impact Assessments from NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-134 September 2013

“Marine recreational fishing in the United States generated $56 billion in output (sales impacts), $29 billion to the nation’s gross domestic product, and $18 billion in income.”

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/econo...ates%202011.pdf

Louie, when they say angler does that include commercials?

If you have some time, a suggestion would be to click on the link and read the abstract and/or introduction for your answer if the direct quote supplied earlier wasn’t any help. Keep on reading and hopefully it should answer any other questions you might have.