Anyone seen this article? Sounds like a move in the right direction.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/fishing/2001786788_fish09.html

Quote:

"The $46 million buyout is a life-changing move for those who live by a struggling industry's changing tides. On the West Coast, owners of 92 boats will be paid an average of $497,000 to permanently remove their vessels from fishing, starting Dec. 5. The plan is aimed at cutting the West Coast trawler fleet by 50 percent. "


Hey, would someone be willing to pay me half a million to quit engineeing... The only projects we are engineering are things cause more pollution and hurt the environment anyway...

So are you saying this won't work or its not an equitable solution? I haven't many other solutions that are keeping both sides (commercials and non-commercials) happy.

Let me get this straight!

You buy a "license" to commercially fish, knowing full well that there are lots of "risk" to this trade, and then you think that it's OK for the "public" to by back whatever risk that you took when you "purchased" that license?

Maybe they should purchase back all "contractors" licenses next, because the contractors all thought that they could get "rich" building new houses, even though the housing market was on a down hill slide!
What is wrong with this picture????

Cowlitzfisherman

I think that buying out the commercials is the only sollution... it just seems that a half a million dollars is an awful lot for a dying business... (please reallize that I have no idea how much a fishing boat and net is worth maybe 500k is equitable?) I know of profitable businesses that aren't worth 500k....

I just hope they dont give the boats and nets to the indians so they can replace the market share that is lost....

I guess no one likes federal buy-outs, in the end its our money, but it seems like the thing to do. If you let the entire industry go broke (or half an industry) the impact and payout of $$ just take other forms--i.e., unemployment benefits, communities going non-viable, social bumps, etc. This way, there is both some relief and fisheries management.

Piper, you must have some expensive engineering tools. I doubt the boat-owners that actually own their boats got a half mill.

I think a half mill is fair to remove some toxic Lead pencils from the environment...

i hear that the other boats will be allowed to catch more though! will it be just welfare if the other boats have increased limits? seems like it wouldnt make a difference unless other boats are kept to the same limits

I would also hope there is some rule that is added to the books that these licenses will not be reissued again if the fish stocks come back...

I can just see a rebound in the ocean conditions and 10 years from now and reissueing all the licences that were just bought out.

Well

Does that mean that we should buy back all the people stocks, who bought bad stocks in the stock market too?

I am having a little problem with how this type of logic! may work!

What is it that people do not understand about RISK??????????????????????????????

Cowlitzfisherman

Piper - Let's add one more sentence to your quote...
also from the article of course.

"The $46 million buyout is a life-changing move for those who live by a struggling industry's changing tides. On the West Coast, owners of 92 boats will be paid an average of $497,000 to permanently remove their vessels from fishing, starting Dec. 5. The plan is aimed at cutting the West Coast trawler fleet by 50 percent. Now, those who stay in their fisheries could see their catch quotas double, starting next year."

How is that for a novel approach to saving the fish?

Me thinks the money will go to the banks for paying off their debt.

"For the fishermen who will leave their boats behind, it's a way to make a graceful exit, one "that wasn't available to them before," said Pete Leipzig, executive director of the Fisherman's Marketing Association, a West Coast trawler-industry group in Eureka, Calif. "This gives them an opportunity to sell their business with dignity and (keep) some part of their life savings intact.""

At least now there might be loan money available for other ventures that might contribute to the local residents welfare.

It's not entirely palatable when you look at it as someone getting a free ride. I look at it as its more beneficial to put the money into buying back boats and allowing stressed fish stocks to recover, then allowing small towns to go bust or bankrupt, with the fish losing out as well. And the fish would lose, because without a reduction in fleet-size, people will try to eeek out a living for as long as possible, scaping the bottom, until its a desert. And although I'm not an economist, I imagine there are some significant costs associated with industries going belly-up.

Maybe if all those who didn't sell their dot.bomb stocks by 2001 were congregated in the same towns, the Feds would have bailed them out, as well!

Obsessed

Have you ever heard of the saying…..dead man walking?


Cowlitzfisherman

For once CFM and I are in complete agreement. I see NOTHING that says there will be any less fish caught. Only that those who stay will be able to catch more. I have seen similar buybacks in B.C. salmon licneses and what happend was the remaining guys bought bigger boats and caught more fish!

This stinks. If the fish are in trouble, it's primarily becasue these guys wiped out the stocks. Let them quit if the business is failing.

Next thing you know we will be giving oil companies tax breaks becasue they pumped all the oil out of their wells. Oh yeah, we already do that. How about buying out timber companies once they have logged all the trees.?

I think the buyout deal is a cop out but probably has to be done. Retire the licenses and no more are issued to take their place.

To me this is a paradox. The commercial fishermen are both arsonist and fireman. They create the crisis by overfishing and become sympathetic heroes for going broke after they have depleted the stocks so bad they can no longer make a living. So we let them start the fire then we give them a big reward for putting it out. Kind of a joke if you think about it.

Why not give WDFW some of the 49 million and let them close the seasons to all netting? They get the best of both worlds.

Maybe the government should be considering a "buy-back" from all sport fishermen in rivers and seas! Our investment is not as large as the "commercials", but neither is our profit!

Cowlitzfisherman

What a load pollock!.

First off what does fleet size have to do with anything when it's a quota based system?

50% of the fleet means what, Number of boats not capacity or ability.

It is common knowledge that the efficiency of the trawlers is the issue not the numbers of vessels. The numbers would only be an issue if there were no quotas and it was a open ended season.

Would they put a lock on the ability and the capacity of the remaining fleet to produce and then reduce the quota by 50%. My bet is they would keep everything the same and the remaining boats would contine to increase capacity and abilty and catch the same number of fish.


I wopuld like to know why it is a protected industry. Why do we bail out any business is counter to darwinian nature of capitalism.

the truth is the fish farms have taken all the profit out of raping the oceans for all but a few big players. This just makes it easier for them

If they have a "buy out", then anyone that only gillnets "parttime", should be the first ones bought out. Once bought out, then they should not be allowed to ever buy back in. This hasn't always been the case.....

Less gillnets is good for the resource, no gillnets would be even better!!!! Old ways die hard but die they should.

"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

There buying the boats NOT the licenses. So no change in the numbers of fish HARVESTED.

Well said!

Jerry, that gray beard is making you smarter than you think!


Cowlitzfisherman

I'm sure you guys will correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that they are retiring a certain number of licenses as well as boats.

Although I don't have facts sitting in front of me, its my understanding that fish stocks in Canada have benefitted from buyouts in the commercial industry.

Finally, I've come to the conclusion that the commercials have much more political clout than we sport fisherman and they have been significantly more effective at getting their way so to speak. So even if the price is seems high, taking some number of commercials out of the picture (voluntarily) is still better than doing nothing.

LF, i think they bought back ALL the commerical stuff up north, thats why the fish did better,this plan means fewwer boats to catch the same amount of fish as before.

havenfun:

Sorry to burst your bubble but they sure as heck didn't but back all the commercial boats or licenses up north. They did buy back a few purse seiners that were promptly replaced by fewer but larger boats. One man owns the vast majority of the B.C. commercial purse seine fleet. He owns B.C. packers Overweita foods and a ton of other stuff apparently including politicians.

The B.C. gov. did limit coho interception on the west side of Vancouver Island and chinook fisheries in other areas. In part due to the success of recent Canada.U.S. salmon treaty negotiations.

The moneys these guys are recieving will barely get them out from under there boats and buisnesses.I am not going to break the costs down but overhead is high,you don't even want to hear an insurance quote.

Who sets the quotas??????The comercial fishermen???No,the goverment.So ultimately who is responsible for the decline??The people that follow the rules or the people who make the rules??

ltlCLEO

You claim to be a carpenter, so if your business goes tits up, does that mean that the government should buy back your truck, lumber racks, skill saws, nail guns, levels, hammers, screw gun, air compress, and tool belt?

What's the difference?

Where these poor commercial fishermen forced to take up fishing for a living? I also fished commercially when I was in California for 15 years, and when I was done fishing I had to sell my own boat and commercial gear for whatever it was worth! Why should these guys be any different?

Cowlitzfisherman

No where in that post do I say that I agree or disagree,just letting you what i do know as an ex-deckhand.

I will say that when I got out I got offered the chance through the state to use your tax dollars to be retrained in something else.I turned it down because it is not how I was raised.

I do not claim to be a carpenter I am.

So you would rather see these guys out there scratching the bottom,catching nothing marketable,but killing the rest of the food chain trying?That is what this buy out is about more than anything else.

How come you do not address the reel question of whos fault it is in the long run.The comercial fishermen can only operate under the rules set buy our gov bios and politicians.true or false?Maybe the fishing industry should sue the gov for mismanagement?Now that would be expensive.

You are also missing the fact that the fleet is paying the gov. back and this is a loan of our tax dollars not a hand out.

ltlCLEO


Oh really, what are those rules that you are referring to? Is it the bios, or is the commercials who are sitting in at the North of Falcon meeting that are dividing up the pie?

It's amazes me how people can read the same article and come up with 2 completely different readings on what the article said! Apparently you do not believe that it's not a hand out, because the guys that have decided to stay and continue to fish will be paying the government back…maybe!

I see… we buy 92 boats back at an average $497,000 each to "permanently remove" these vessels from fishing, and then we transfer the quotas of those 92 boats to the remaining 171 Commercial holders that are left. They in turn, if successful, will pay 2/3 of that back to the goverment….if they can make enough profit from the ttransfer of their quotas.

The article says;
Then it states;
When I went to school, they taught us that $36 million subtracted from $46 million left $10 million! Anyway you spin it ltlCLEO, someone getting $10 million free!


Apparently, some people just can't get it!


Cowlitzfisherman

Whatever cw,you tire me.This is why I do not usually even read your long winded posts.I am back to not even reading your bulshiat

It kind of hurts when you proven to be wrong doesn't it

Cowlitzfisherman

Oh no ….now it’s the three Musketeers!

I'm doomed now

Cowlitzfisherman

So CF, I'm curious.....What do you propose as a solution?

It seems to me there are no perfect solutions, only partial, imperfect solutions that are small steps in the right direction. Hopefully, over a long period of time these small steps will add up to something.

Little fish

I guess you could pass legislation declaring salmon a sport fish! That way, salmon would have to be managed for sport instead of being managed as a "food fish" I have never heard anyone make any such proposal on this board before, so maybe that could be a step in the right direction.

It would certainly change the way that salmon can be harvested at the very least! As far as paying off the commercials, they knew the risks when they bought that commercial fishing license and they certainly didn't share any of their profits with us when the times were really good, so who owes them a damn thing now?

Cowlitzfisherman

I remember when Chrysler got a nice fat Govt. bailout of billions of dollars. Did they pay it back??

Not too long after when I worked for Eastern Airlines, we could've used a nice bailout but didn't get it. We all showed up Monday morning to locked gates. I seem to be doing ok without the bailout.

Yep, no failing business should expect or receive any government bailout. That would almost seem socialistic.

I was also offered money to retrain, but didn't take it. I know many who did.

Seems to me if they take out those boats, their quota amount should also be taken out or else you do nothing to lower the total catch. Like taking away five dogs but giving the other five twice as much food thinking you will save money or food.