Hi Guys,

Andy said this board's a joke, so I thought I would post something you will consider relavent and that might rattle your cage. Steelheadman asked about why different numbers of hatchery summer-run smolts are released in different rivers, and it got me to thinking (often a dangerous thing!). I read here and elsewhere about how our license fees and taxes pay for the hatchery smolts that are stocked. Have you ever wondered whether you are getting good value for your money?

Just how much is that hatchery steelhead you caught worth? I've read that a sport caught steelhead is worth about $400 to the state's economy. And a six pound brat taken in a gillnet at $0.65 per pound adds a whopping almost $4.00 to the economy. But have you considered how much it costs to return that hatchery brat to the river so it can end up in your creel or a gillnetter's boat?

Well, consider hatchery rearing costs that range from $3 to $6 per pound of fish raised (not all hatcheries have the same costs or efficiencies). At 6 smolts per pound that's $0.50 to $1.00 per smolt! And at some of today's average smolt to adult survival rates of 2.5%, these fish cost $20 to $40 each to return to the river! [Bleeeeep!]! I didn't know they were that expensive to produce; did you? Now, what about some of the really poor return rates that occur, like 0.3% to the Cowlitz last winter? That's $236 (Cowlitz = ~ $0.71/smolt) for each brat that returned to the river.

Chew that one over, guys. Are these fish worth it? I like to catch steelhead as much as anyone, and I have particularly enjoyed the hatchery summer-runs over the many, many years. But I honestly didn't have a clue what is was costing to make them available. I think this is especially a thought provoking issue in areas where hatchery fish may pose threats to wild fish populations. That is, how much are you willing to spend, considering what you're getting in return, and considering the effect the hatchery smolts may have on other fish?

I'm not ready to say no hatchery steelhead, but this does cause me to think about how can I justify having my fellow state taxpayers support the steelhead hatchery program so I can get my kicks at this price. How about you?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

One thing to remember in this is that the hatcherys were supposed to replace fish lost due to habitat distruction by dams, logging, agriculture ect. The high cost of fish production is a hidden cost of these activities and a subsidy for industry. The bad part is that the cure for habitat distruction, fish hatcheries, may be doing more harm than good in the long run. I know this is all being debated,I hope it gets sorted out before it is to late.
A few issues back there was an article in the fishletter www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/ that pegged the price of those Columbia River spring hatchery chinook at over $400 each. The lattest issue has an article on the productivity of hatcheries and their effect on wild salmon.

Here is a link to the above mentioned article www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/fishltr102.html#5

[This message has been edited by Neanderthal (edited 06-29-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Neanderthal (edited 06-29-2000).]

To hear that it cost us $400 dollars per Col. springer that we paid, it makes me even angryer that the Col. Tribes got to net them, along with some ESA springer nates, and we didn't get to fish the mainstem for them at all.- RT

Am I missing something, or is economic breakeven on hatchery fish the $400 each one caught adds to the state economy? As long as hatchery fish are reserved for the people who place the highest value on them (i.e, spend the most money catching them), namely the sportsfishermen, then it may make sense to use taxpayer money to fund hatcheries.

I guess the mathematics and economics gets more daunting if half the hatchery run is netted by one party or another, making the survivors available to sportsmen $500 fish. If you can't stop the netting of the hatchery fish, then maybe you're right and there's little economic justification for summer run-bred hatcheries. Boy, that's depressing.

Salmo,

I read a report from the ODFW that estimated their salmon production costs at about $40 per fish. What wasn't made clear in the report, however, was how their costs were calculated. Was it derived from the total operating expense of the ODFW (production, enforcement,management etc), or were these strictly production costs. From the numbers, I'm guessing that it was the previous. Wasn't it stated that the Reiter Ponds facility could be funded for 150K/year? If that's the case, then I think their cost estimates per fish might be exaggerated.

In any case, that just illustrates how ludicrous the commercial net harvest of these fish is. Paying 10 bucks for a fish that cost $40 to produce? They must have missed their ECON 101 course at school. I feel our elected reps have an obligation to maximize the revenue generated by the use of this state's resources. They shouldn't sell an acre of land for $5,000 if there's a willing buyer at $10,000. And they shouldn't allow the harvest of fish that cost $40 to produce, if more than $40 can't be generated.

I could go on further about fixed and variable costs and how that should be calculated in the per fish price, but that's getting a little further in to this than I was looking for.

I'll just say this, as long as the Navy can spend $80 million each on an aircraft that has trouble landing on a carrier deck (where the hell else would the Navy land a plane?), then I don't feel bad about my tax dollars being spent to produce fish at a loss. It doesn't have to be that way, though. Can you say, "Nets out, lines in"? But until our lawmakers grow a spine and stand up against the commercial fishing lobby, that's not going to happen.


I guess that's about enough of that. Good topic, though, Salmo. Thanks......


Fish on.........

[This message has been edited by Dan S. (edited 06-29-2000).]

Boy, interesting thoughts!

I really have mixed emotions and try to live by common sense but this is thought provoking.

My absolute favorite fishery is summer steelhead fishing; has been for my 20 odd years in the sport and probably will be until I croak. So, to just say I can live without them because they are economically innefficient is hard if not impossible....selfish I guess. But on the other hand, there's a side of me that says if there is a more economic, biologically sound way to get returns, then, by all means, do it!

One approach I would like to see WDFW take is more experimentation with non-pond/natural conditions raising of fish; something that more closely mimics nature in the raising of fish. Has to be a better way than a concrete pond (a century of failure proves that) Doesn't it make sense to put the money out in the short term to upgrade and aggressively research better hatchery techniques for long term benefits of increased smolt-to-adult survival (thus, lower costs?) We can't really expect native broodstock programs like the Snyder creek project on the Sol Duc because most of our summer-run fisheries are from introduced Skamania stocks so a new hatchery approach seems more logical. I'm rambling about summer-runs but the concepts cover all our hatchery fish.

And, finally, Here is a thought I introduced on the board about a year ago:

Raising fish takes money. I'm not convinced we sportfishers are getting any sympathy from our legislature because they are tightening the noose on the dept. more and more annually. Why can't this state create a small sales tax on the sale of fishing gear that goes directly into hatchery funding and nothing else? This could include research into better techniques. I propose a 1$ fee each time you buy tackle/bait. Imagine the revnue that could be generated! Millions!Seems a pretty samll price to pay to have our funding blues cured for the forseeable future....I'd pay it without blinking. I threw this out to my local reps., the commission and a few others and got the usual no reply or "thanks, we'll consider it"

Food for thought.



[This message has been edited by EricW (edited 06-29-2000).]

I don't think this hatchery situation should be looked at in a strictly economic veiw. These hatcherys were supposed to mitigate known environmental degredation. It's like we have done the environmental damage and replaced the natural spawning runs with hatchery production (or at least tried to). So the damage was done and years latter we find the hatcheries aren't doing what was expected, the cost per fish doesn't make economic sense so just shut them down and forget about the salmon. If we make real progress in restoring some natural spawning runs and it is determined that hatcherys have no use in salmon recovery then we can take a hard look at production cost. I hope we don't decide that these fish cost too much and let them go the way of the passenger pigeon.

With most of the independently owned tackle shops either tits up or barely surviving, I am not sure the tackle industry would accept a tax on fishing goods with open arms. A tax like this would assuredly put another 15% of them out of business.
As far as myself, I would pay an extra(fishing) tax. But, only if the funds generated are not wasted on ineffecient hatcheries. Instead, put into means of restoring naturally occurring runs - Fish that are self-sustaining.

We already pay a 10% federal excise tax on all fishing gear. This is paid at the manufacturing level. Andy is a tackle producer and is subject to charge this tax in addition to all state taxes. This is a hidden tax that most fishermen never realize we pay. It is charged across the entire country and we get the money back to be used in habitat and enhancement efforts. I think it is called the Glass Stigel tax, but am not positive on its name. It would be interesting to see what we do with our states money.

------------------
Marty
Steelheader.net marty@steelheader.net

Tackler & Smiles:

Both good points but the "federal" tax we pay and get kickbacks from at the state level gets diluted and distributed to all branches of WDFW, not just the fish division.
I'm also not convinced my $1 tax would put small shops out of business. For example, Clifford Cityslicker hears Seiku got hot and he has to go!! So, he arrives up there and learns he brought the wrong gear so he goes in and buys $50-75 of hooks, leaders, weights, bait and other assorted goodies. You can't tell me the $1 tax inserted into his total is going to turn him away and ruin Seiku's little shop. He probably wouldn't even know the tax is there.

The beauty of my proposal (since it's just that...a proposal) is it would be earmarked for fish propagation ONLY. And I did mention in the above post that the money could go towards research of more biologically sound hatchery techniques as well.

The whole thing seems to me to be a relatively simple way to generate BADLY needed funds for the long term. You just have to get the legislature off their fat asses and make it a bill.

Interesting post Salmo g..

I too would hate to see a fishery become extinct. With the resources our state has lack of fish should NEVER be an issue. As you know our rivers are far too beautiful to flow with no fish.

So, I guess when I look at the costs you say it takes to revive or provide a recreation for fellow fisherpeople. It burns me no more than the money that is spent for $million social service buildings, that provide "free money, free food, low cost housing, and free condoms" to our less fortunate Washingtonians. Let alone the money spent to trail and house a child rapist in one of our "resort prisons" that have the settings of the Olympic Peninnsula.

Too bad for us fisherpeople-we will be the first on the totem pole or is it todem?

More tax on fishing gear? BPA is tossing around $180,000,000. for fish projects. Clinton is asking for $101,000,000. for salmon recovery. Is a tax on fishing gear going to make any difference? The general public is benefiting from the activities that have been so damaging to salmon runs, it is only right that the general public should foot the bill for recovery, not just the sportfisherman.
www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/fishltr102.html#3

Neanderthal:

I hear ya man! But, I am one of those "pro-active" people who goes nuts sitting around waiting for others to take positive action. I've been raised and live my life with the "If you want something done, you have to do it yourself" attitude and this issue is no different.

The numbers you talk about are mind boggling and it would seem us lowly sportfishers shouldn't have to be burdened with "another f#**!^% fee" But look at how beuracracy works, and has worked in the past. There may be money but the money you and I need for WDFW to do it's thing gets filtered out, bogged down in studies, indecision on how to proceed and just good old politics making a difficult situation worse.

You ask whether a measly $1 tax will make a difference compared to the numbers you present? It just might when you consider alot of your money gets gobbled up in salaries, studies, dam issues, studies, and finally more studies. I guess I am looking at this tax as a state tax that would circumvent all the federal red tape and that would be used predominantly to save and enhance fisheries that we have come to know and love. Fisheries that we are seeing be eliminated or sharply reduced(we all know a few) because WDFW cries "there are no funds available".

Again, it just seems like a realistic, relatively simple fix to their hatchery funding/research projects. I think it could work!

My .02 idea probably wouldn't be popular. I've always advocated higher fees for salmon & steelhead specific tags, seperate from the reg license fee, if the extra fees would be clearly earmarked for fish enhancement. I would pay a substantial amount. Perhaps on a sliding scale such that the cost for low harvest would be less than for a fisher with a high harvest. This could generate much needed funds for such as hacheries and habitat improvement for nates. For all we spend on fishing I don't see how an extra $35/year for a low harvest or $70/year for a high harvest tag should make guys gag. And it might promote more C&R along with more fish, thus more fishing opportunity. - RT

I'd be willing to pay a little more. I can't believe why they would underfund the fishery departments.

RT, I havn't been able to load ifish at all today. Having some server problems? Got to go and finish working on my wife's pond. Her family is coming up for the holiday. Lots of work around here.

Eric, I too have a hard time sitting around waiting for action. If I knew of way to get some dollars directly into producing results of healthy salmon/steelhead runs I would be first in line to write a check. I really don't think the cuts in hatchery funding are a shortage of money, it is based more in policy and politics. A few months ago when they were annoucing hatchery cuts I figured it was just a function of the policy of moving away from hatcherys to more natural spawning runs. Now I read all this arguing and disagreement going on between the biologists and fishery experts about hatcherys vs wild salmon, it's hard to figure what the heck is going to happen. I'm ready to throw my hands up and go fish for whatever is legal. I just hope the scientists and politicians get it sorted out in time. One thing for shure, I'm not voting for Slade Gorton, I don't care who runs against him.

Neander, Consider that if you cut out a sizeable chunck of the hatchery funding to ameliorate the wild fish situation then you have laid off, terminated , down sized the fisheries expert, biologist, hathery pool cleaners, etc. A lot of the debate is pretty basic job survival food on the table kind of stuff. It has a tendency to shroud the issue as in obfuscate. Those with a career in raising hatchery fish will for the most part resist change in wild salmonid policys and those who pass the budgets will pass what ever they think will get them the most votes in any given early November.

The problem I see with species-specific fees is that black hole our state calls the "general fund". All the state money goes into this hole and then our net-loving lawmakers decide who's going to get it. Remember how the Lotto was supposed to fund schools? Take a look at where the Lotto money goes, and what eventually makes it to the schools. Not exactly a direct line of funding, if you know what I mean.

Would I pay more. Sure, but only if the money wasn't funneled through the general fund first. Then every pork-barrel project gets a shot at the money, too, and I can't stand seeing more of my license/tackle money funding everything BUT fisheries.

Maybe someone should see if KOMO would be interested in this for one of their "You Paid for It" stories, but knowing our lawmakers, they'd use it as reasoning for closing more hatcheries and laying off more enforcement officers. Face it, our lawmakers never met a net they didn't like, and the voters of this state are easily swayed by "20,000 jobs lost, not one salmon saved" crap. And with the angling community busy arguing amongst ourselves over C&K/C&R, the gillnet lobby will likely continue to thwart our efforts to get the nets out.

I'm not sure I could offer up an easy solution to the mess we're facing, but I'm good enough at math to know you shouldn't sell a fish for 10 clams when you paid 40 for it. Must be that "new math"..........


Fish on.........

Dan.

I too have thought of our state's famous "black hole" effect regarding our general fund. That has been/is a contributer to our funding woes for sure but I want to stick to my guns on my $1 tackle tax idea. Here are some additional points to consider that I haven't previously mentioned:

1) If the tax was introduced as a bill in the legislature, it can be worded however the sponsor (my local rep.?) wants it to be. One would insert language clearly outlining that the money is to be channeled directly to WDFW for hatchery funding and research and does not go to the general fund.

2) If worded as such, it also obligates WDFW to use the money for that and only that so they also cannot dilute it into unrelated programs.

3) One can argue that it is "another tax" but I would think a politician would be frothing at the mouth over and idea like this because it would relieve them of constantly being hammered to come up with satisfactory funding.

4) The money would bring some stability and predictability to the hatchery program. It seems like year in and year out we are always wondering if this or that program will survive or be cut. Cripes! When was the last time the dept had stable funding over, say, a decade so they could establish and build a successful program instead of wondering themselves what and what not to pursue?

Again, this idea seems a small price to pay (not that we haven't paid enough) to gain some stability and enhancement for our sport fisheries.

Salmo G. You opened this can of worms......your thoughts?