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...