CAPITOL IDEAS
A COMPELLING CASE FOR RECREATIONAL ANGLING
By Heath Heikkila CCA Pacific Northwest Fisheries Director C
CA CHAPTERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY have secured major fishery re - forms, often by highlight- ing the economic and con-
servation benefits of growing recre- ational fishing and curtailing harmful commercial fishing practices. In just a short time, CCA members in Oregon and Washington have successfully argued for adoption of a phased-in plan to remove non-tribal commercial gillnets from the Columbia River main- stem and championed decisions to bring more equity to the recreational allocation of shellfish harvests in Puget Sound. Northwest recreational anglers are now boldly arguing for the adop- tion of a recreational fishing priority in state fisheries, based not only the eco- nomic and conservation benefits of recre- ational fisheries, but also on the growing reliance on recreational fishing license fee revenue to fund the state departments of fish and wildlife (DFW).This is proving to be a powerful argument for cash- strapped state agencies and legislators seeking to balance tight state budgets. In Washington State, the Great
Recession took its toll on state revenue and agency budgets. A recent state Supreme Court decision is directing most new revenue towards K-12 public education and natural resource agen- cies have been especially hard hit. The state parks system has been nearly weaned off state general fund revenue and forced to shift to a user-fee funding model. General fund revenue to the state DFW has been cut by nearly half since 2009, forcing it to request legisla- tion to increase recreational fishing and hunting license fees to stave off pro- gram cuts and hatchery reductions, which were equally unappealing to recreational anglers. Following adoption of recent license
fee increases and new endorsement fees in Washington, revenue from
46
hunters and anglers has increased by 50 percent, largely offsetting recent general fund cuts. Recreational anglers now represent the largest single source of funding to the Washington DFW, providing more than $71 million in the current two-year budget cycle. In con- trast, all of the state’s non-tribal com- mercial fisheries generate $1.5 million to DFW’s budget and $7 million in tax and fee revenue to the general fund. A large majority of the commercial fish- ing revenue and corresponding eco- nomic activity is derived from com- mercial fisheries like coastal Dungeness crab, Pacific whiting, and shellfish farming, which are conducted offshore or have little impact on recreational fisheries.
While most North- west recreational
anglers are willing to pay more for
increased opportunity, they are unwilling
to pay more to main- tain the status quo or to subsidize the management of
wasteful commercial
fisheries that constrain recreational fisheries.
The primary conflicts arise with
non-tribal commercial salmon fish- eries, nearly all of which are non-selec- tive and directly compete with recre- ational fisheries for a limited resource. Remember that Native American tribes have treaty rights that entitle them to 50 percent of most returning salmon runs and most of that harvest goes directly into commercial channels. The state’s 50 percent share is then split between recreational and non-tribal commercial fishers. All too often these allocations have negatively impacted the economic best interests of the region and the license revenue needs of the very agen- cies making the determinations. The numbers are compelling. Wash - ington receives about $2.5 million in
www.joincca.org
total biannual fee and tax revenue from all non-tribal commercial salmon fish- eries, but much of that comes from chum salmon, a species with limited recreational demand. In Oregon, the state receives about $500,000 from Columbia River commercial salmon fisheries. The cost of managing these commercial fisheries far exceeds what the state receives in fee revenue and frequently exceeds their entire net eco- nomic value. For far too long, fish man- agers have run many fisheries more like entitlement programs, ignoring the imbalance in fee revenue and econom- ic studies documenting a massive dis- parity between the value of recreation- al and commercial fisheries. For exam- ple, a recent state review of salmon fisheries in Washington’s Willapa Bay found that recreational fisheries were generating three and a half times more economic value than commercial gill- net fisheries despite harvesting only 7 percent of the fish. It is against this backdrop that the
DFWs in Washington and Oregon are seeking additional license fee increases to balance their budgets. While most Northwest recreational anglers are willing to pay more for increased opportunity, they are unwilling to pay more to maintain the status quo or to subsidize the management of wasteful commercial fisheries that constrain recreational fisheries. CCA Washington is promoting changes in state law that will prioritize recreational fisheries by requiring the agency to optimize the economic value of key fisheries and con- sider who is paying the agency’s bills as part of any license fee increase. CCA Oregon is promoting similar policies and urging lawmakers to take action to actually grow recreational fishing opportunity through improvements and enhancements to hatchery programs. For some salmon fisheries, a recre-
ational priority would likely result in the end of marginal commercial fish- eries. This makes good conservation, economic and fiscal sense. For other fisheries, the agency would set seasons maximizing recreational fishing oppor- tunity within available harvests before determining commercial fishing oppor - tunity if those fisheries can be prose- cuted in a selective, responsible manner. Recreational fishing is already worth
billions of dollars to the North west economy. With reform it can be worth even more and help state administra- tors maintain and perhaps grow agency budgets — a powerful incentive to depart from antiquated policies.
TIDE
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64