According to the ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game) website, "...the total Exvessel value of commercial salmon harvest in Alaska waters was $272 million in 2004." Commercial fishing harvest amounts to about 98 percent of the total salmon harvest each year. I do not have access to figures that would tell us the wages and salaries generated, but it is clear that they would be something less than the total Exvessel value, due to high operating expenses for the fishing vessel and gear. Perhaps wages and salaries are on the order of 50 or 60 percent?
In contrast, according to the same website, different location, ..."sport fishing expenditures in Alaska were estimated to be $640 million in 2003, and this generated $259 million in wages and salaries. This spending ultimately circulated through the economy and generated an estimated $1.04 billion in total [sport] fishing-related spending in Alaska." Sports fishing harvest amounts to about 1 percent of the total salmon harvest each year, a far cry from the commercial harvest of about 98 percent. Subsistence fishing accounts for the remaining 1 percent of the total salmon harvest.
I believe these figures are about as good as we will get. If ADF&G can't get good numbers, we sports fishermen certainly are not going to improve on them. I am willing to accept their numbers at face value. Here is the salmon harvest data I acquired from ADF&G and summarized in chart form:
1. I'm not about to claim that there is anything "right" or "wrong" about the ratio of harvests, nor about the relative economic values they bring to Alaska's economy. These numbers are the result of political decisions. They reflect the relative influence of the many interest groups. They can be changed--if needed--through the political process; that is, they are not cast in stone. It just takes a change in political influence--which comes from a change in political involvement. It really boils down to a matter of desire and effort. If one group has more desire and puts more effort into achieving that desire, how can it be wrong? (I'll answer my own rehetorical question: It is only wrong in cases of corruption, of which we have no evidence.)
In the past commercial fishermen in Alaska had much more political clout than sports fishermen. The fishing regulations reflected this political superiority.
In one sense nothing has changed. Commercial fishermen still have more political clout than sports fishermen. If we look at these two groups today, we see exactly the same political inequality.
But in another very important sense the political horizon has improved for sportsmen in Alaska. This improvement is because there is another group--the sports fishing guides, lodges, and associated businesses--that have "sort of" united, and now have considerable political clout--clout that is directly aligned with the interests of sports fishermen.
If you look at the King and Sockeye salmon harvests on the Kenai River today, it is clear that the sports fishermen's interests are being considered much more by ADF&G and the politicians of Alaska. Sports fishermen are getting a large portion of the annual quotas. But it is not because of their clout; it is because of the clout of businesses that cater to sportsmen. This distinction as to the source of political power is not just interesting commentary; rather it is very important that sportsmen understand it so they can use it more effectively.
If sportsmen--a diverse set of individuals, unlikely to coalesce into a powerful political influence--want more political influence, then they have to acquire it though the more cohesive businesses that cater to them.
How do sportsmen get political power from these businesses? Simple. Encourage them to be even more politically active. How? When you are planning your fishing trips, ask the business--whether RV park, hotel, motel, guide, lodge, or sporting goods store--if they are politically active in the preservation of Alaska's sports fishing interests?
If they are not, tell them you only support businesses that have the long-term interests of the fishery at heart. If they ask why you care, tell them that you will not support any business that is "mining" the resource without putting any effort into its future preservation.
In short, when these businesses understand that their participation in the political process is important to most sportsmen, many of these businesses with become more politically active--either through direct participation, or through supporting influential business advocacy groups, such as the Alaska Sports Guide Federation.
2. Unfortunately, some fish seem not to be on the radar screen of the businesses that cater to sportsmen. Specifically, the Kenai River's Silver salmon fishery is not getting the same political attention as the King and Sockeye fisheries. This lack of attention is, I strongly suspect, because the sports fishery for Silver salmon is economically far less important to the sports fishing guides, lodges, and associated businesses; so they pay less attention to it when it comes to providing input to the annual decisionmaking process. To put it more bluntly, neither this important interest group nor sports fishermen are making political waves, so bad things continue as they are.
The Kenai River Silver salmon problem is, as I see it, that the commercial fishermen are taking advantage of the so-called bi-catch of Silvers during the commercial Sockeye season, and are thereby legally skirting the intent of the law. ADF&G and the politicians know it, but there is no pressure on them to fix the problem. Late in the Sockeye season the bi-catch of Silvers equals or exceeds the legal catch of Sockeye. When the bi-catch exceeds the legal catch, it seems clear, to me at least, that the commercial Sockeye harvest should cease--to protect the Silver salmon runs. If the Silver salmon run is restored to what it could be, a three fish sport limit would be reasonable on the Kenai River, which in turn would make this fishery more attractive to sportsmen.
3. Alaska is the last bastion of wild salmon stocks, not only in North America, but also in the world. ADF&G estimates that 92 percent of the wild stocks are healthy. This is, of course, wonderful, and very important. Not only are these stocks healthy, they are abundant. Alaska remains a fabulous place to fish.
4. If you read much about the salmon fisheries of the Pacific Northwest, you know that many wild stocks have been extirpated there, and many others are on the brink of extinction. To make matters worse, ill-conceived hatchery management introduced disease and competitive fish stocks, further weakening the wild stocks. Mis-management by the Federal government--National Marine Fisheries Service, Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Land Management--is largely to blame for the dire straits of several Columbia River salmon stocks.
5. Canada has done a better job of managing their hatchery salmon stocks, avoiding many of the mistakes made by Federal hatchery managers in the Pacific Northwest. But the Canadians allowed severe overharvest of their wild stocks. The Canadians have depleted their wild stocks, but they have not "screwed them up" like fisheries managers of the Pacific Northwest. Canadians probably will be able to restore many of their stocks if they maintain the political will. Restoration of wild stocks in the Pacific Northwest may be impossible.
6. Alaska will maintain its healthy wild stocks if all fishermen--commercial, subsistence, and sports--understand the importance of these wild stocks and maintain the political will to protect them. Specific attention of these groups should be paid to several issues:
a. Keep salt-water fish farming out of Alaska. It is currently illegal in Alaska, as it should be. Don't ever let this law be changed. Cudos to ADF&G for this policy.
b. Keep the current escapement policy of ADF&G in place. Don't ever let them be "watered down." These policies have proven themselves over time. They should not be changed lightly. Adequate escapement is analogous to saving enough "seed grain" to allow enough planting for a full harvest (from a field) the next year. Anything less is irresponsible. Cudos to ADF&G for this policy.
c. Keep hatcheries limited to places where natural spawning is inadequate. Don't let anyone put in hatcheries where healthy wild stocks prevail. This is current policy with ADF&G. Cudos to ADF&G for this policy.
d. If it comes down to a choice between adequate escapement or adequate subsistence fishing, choose adequate escapement. Under proper management the State should never come to this choice, because commercial harvests are so much greater than subsistence harvests. But if it does, "don't eat the seed grain". Above all, don't trust the Federal agencies to do the right thing. Their track record with respect to salmon management--everywhere--speaks for itself. Insofar as possible Alaskans need to manage their resource.
e. Keep a sharp watch on annual commercial harvests. When farmed salmon came on the world markets, the commercial price of wild salmon dropped. At first some sportsmen thought this would limit harvest of wild salmon. But they were dead wrong. In order for commercial fishermen to earn a decent income, they must catch more salmon now in order to make the same amount of money-- to feed their families. The political pressure is tremendous. If you looked at the commercial harvest charts above, it is apparent that total salmon harvests for the 27 year period of 1951-1977 were less than one third of the salmon harvests in the 27 years since (1978-2004). To say it the other way around, the harvest of the last 27 years is over three times greater than the 27 preceeding years. This is a tremendous escalation in commercial salmon catches for all species but King Salmon. ADF&G assures us, and so far it appears plausable, that the fisheries are supporting current levels of harvest. The troubling aspect of it is that we have no "independent" verification that such harvest levels are sustainable. I personally think they may be--given the recent emphasis on adequate spawning escapement--but I'd sure like an independent evaluation. All I'm saying now is two things: (1) Keep your eyes on the harvest data, and (2) urge your sportsmen's interest groups to acquire an independent evaluation.
7. Any commercial fishermen who might want to increase current fisheries harvests in Alaska should first fly to Newfoundland and take a close look at the now defunct cod fishery there. I have a friend who did this. He came back with a new viewpoint: There are always better options for those who make their livelihood fishing than "eating the seed grain"--so to speak--but this is the option most often chosen by government.
8. I think ADF&G is doing a better job with Alaska's salmon resources than the Federal agencies can or would. No, ADF&G is not perfect. No regulatory agency that serves such diverse interests ever is. If they please one group, they upset another. If they please the second group, they upset the first. So they have to compromise, which usually pleases no one. In doing this most difficult job ADF&G is a darned sight better than fish and wildlife agencies I have seen in any other state, and I've seen lots of others. My guess is that they are better than most because so many Alaskans truly care about their wildlife resources, and voice their concerns more than their counterparts in other states. In other words, it is the people's active participation that allows ADF&G to resist exploitive interests as much as they have. I know specific areas and fisheries where they need to do better; e.g.--Kenai River Silver Salmon, and Wolverine Creek Sockeye. But in comparison to the Pacific Northwest agencies, ADF&G exhibits better fisheries management practices.
|
|
| Ty's Guide Service 907-398-9827 PO Box 1164, Sterling, AK 99672 tystheguide@hotmail.com | |