Is inland Commercial fishing a Livelihood?

I've heard a lot of talk lately about NT Commercial inland fishing, like in Puget Sound and the Columbia River. I was actually at a Commission meeting where there were guys giving testimony that any reductions in commercial fishing was going to be the ruin of many commercial fishermen because they depend on it as a livelihood.

I'm just curious if anyone has any idea how many Commercial Fishermen actually use fishing as a main source of income? It seems to me that it would be a pretty speculative career given the current state of the fisheries. Sort of like being a buggy whip manufacturer after the invention of the automobile.

Just curious....

Why does a commercial fisherman in PS, or the Columbia, have to "make their livelihood" there? It can very we'll be part of the whole. AK, Fraser sockeye, PS all added together may add up to a full livelihood.

Even if we go back to when school teachers fished in the summer why is somehow wrong for them to fish to add to a year's earnings?

Lots of guides, both fishing and hunting, work in multiple states. It may take all those areas to make a single living.

Whoa! No ones saying they are doing anything wrong! I was just curious if most commercial guys do it as a primary means of income.

Few commercials earn their living fishing in WA. I know of a couple but they also fish AK. Actual income for a commercial is not known as that is between them and the IRS. The bulk number is known but that is all. Now a days is much different then the past and frankly after Boldt the effort moved North. They just get our fish there now.

I was probably splitting hairs in the my answer. I doubt that few in PS could make commercial salmon fishing in PS as the main source of income. It is a piece. It's almost like the Farmworkers who travel from crop to crop. While picking apples (for example) does not make their living, cumulatively with all the other commodities it does.

And, post-Boldt having lots fewer fish and now having even fewer due to (all of the above) it is probably a difficult way to earn a living.

One PS gill netter I knew also fished the Big C and many of the other fisheries in PS like flatfish. A little here, a little there.

Interesting subject. More than twenty years ago when I was in Fisheries Patrol, and monitoring Fish Receiving tickets (required to be filled out on sales/landings) I wondered about the taxes paid by fishermen to the state for B&O taxes. There was confusion about fresh fish being landed in Washington from outside the state, especially Alaska that weren't being taxed Complex issue. But that is another story. What I came across with the help of investigators from our Department of Revenue was that lots of our state's commercial fisherman's reported income on their B&O didn't matchup with their landings records. Under reporting of income was fairly common. (Got an award for that one)

I doubt many NT fishermen exist whose sole income is only from salmon fishing in WA if they don't already have another source of income. The "working class" commercials use fishing in WA as one of many ways to supplement their household income, but it's still income and still important.

However, when the discussions about the worthiness or value of their fishing-derived incomes come up, those who state that their income is some measly amount of money are unknowingly doing pro bono PR work for big oil, big coal, and developers. Do you have an income from natural resources? If so, it's a lot harder for someone else to do something that may affect your income than if no one would could be affected; e.g. petroleum products spills and the billions in cash payouts and settlements stemming from Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon spills.

Is it really any surprise that big oil with stakes in the Gulf of Mexico played a big part in helping form CCA with millions of dollars in early contribution? Get rid of the incomes off of the resource you affect (i.e. gulf commercials) and it becomes a whole lot easier to drill, spill, ship, and generally ruin the environment as needed. Instead of trying to limit the other guys, doesn't it ever occur to you that we're all much more powerful together?

I strongly doubt any PS or CR commercial fisherman makes their entire living from fishing in either one of those locations. I knew a PS purse seiner who made a good living seining in SE AK (mostly pink salmon) in the summer and in PS (mostly chum) in the fall. This was in the 70s and 80s. The PS part no longer adds up to 1/2 of a "living wage." I met a CR gillnetter who also fished Bristol Bay AK and made a good living between the two, with the CR part being more of a "hobby" fishery, since he made good money in AK.

The only way a fisherman makes their entire living in WA is by fishing multiple areas and species - salmon, bottomfish, rockfish, crab, shrimp, etc.

These days, with almost all WA wild Chinook being ESA listed, there is no viable commercial Chinook fishing (for non-treaty) absent the presence of hatchery Chinook. Since hatchery Chinook are produced with funding mainly from three sources - mitigation, Mitchell Act, and WA state GF - it's become my contention that WA taxpayers are being fleeced to produce hatchery Chinook that mainly contribute to Canadian harvest, treaty harvest, and non-treaty harvest, and a paltry few to WA recreational harvest. Why are we throwing money down this rat hole to subsidize fisheries that we get next to nothing out of? But I digress . . .

I agree with Salmo that the recs, through their licenses, are throwing good money down a rathole. Mitchell Act is for mitigation and since it is US finds, feeding AK could be seen as part of that. Sort of the same with PUD mitigation in that the money is to mitigate lost catch and Canada and AK were catching them.

I also think that, while the recs are being screwed by paying of AK, BC, Treaty catch that the rest of the State, and Leg, sees that in a more positive light. "We the fishermen" and "we the citizens of WA" are probably two different entities with two different agendas.

A friend of mine is a NT tribal commercial fishermen, he is currently the largest gill net permit holder in the state of Washington. He can no longer make a yearly living with the seasons and days given to him to fish, even if he fishes (lease) every permit he has on a boat. He has sold many of his personal boats to the tribes and those boats are still fishing. He also holds a AK Bristol Bay and is currently fishing right now.