Idaho fishing economics

[David Johnson]

Bert Bowler: Salmon recovery would be profitable for much of Idaho

Bert Bowler

The Idaho Statesman reported (Nov. 20) on the first Idaho Rural Summit
in
Coeur d Alene, where several participants emphasized the need to
educate
rural leaders on resource issues. Some also suggested the state needs
³to
sell the idea of rural development to folks who still hope the mill
will
reopen or the mine will start hiring again.²

I would submit that a large chunk of rural Idaho needs to look
carefully at
the economic benefits that sustained runs of salmon and steelhead
could
bring to the state each year. Unlike timber, which has a rotation time
of 80
to 150 years to reach maturity, salmon and steelhead can be caught in
three
to five years.

Studies by Boise economist Don Reading estimated the value of
recreational
salmon fishing to Idaho during 2001 was about $90 million. River
communities
such as Lewiston, Orofino, Kamiah, Kooskia, Whitebird and Riggins were
the
major beneficiaries of the salmon fishery, but off-river towns such as
Grangeville, McCall and Cascade also profited.

In Riggins, anglers spent $10.1 million, which represented 23 percent
of the
total sale of all goods in that town during 2001.

Likewise, a 1996 study by the same author showed that the 1992-93
steelhead
fishery in Idaho was responsible for more than $90 million in
expenditures.

Salmon and steelhead hatcheries currently are driving the fisheries
that are
supporting the state s economic boon. But wild fish recovery is a
major
component to allowing maximum flexibility in harvest for hatchery fish,
as
well as providing long-term assurances for viability of the hatchery
program.

Unfortunately, Idaho s wild salmon and steelhead runs aren t doing
all that
well. That doesn t bode well for fisheries in communities such as
Salmon,
Challis and Stanley that are not able to enjoy salmon fisheries on
hatchery
stocks largely because of low returns of wild fish to the upper Salmon
River.

Long-term sustained runs of wild fish to Idaho will require effective
recovery measures. The best available science supports removal of the
four
lower Snake River dams as the most effective restoration method.

Dam removal can offer other substantial economic benefits to Idahoans
by
eliminating the need for flow augmentation from the upper Snake River
and
Dworshak Reservoir.

The Bureau of Reclamation attempts to move 427,000 acre-feet of water
from
above Brownlee Dam toward the ocean annually.

Dworshak is drafted most every year by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to
supply nearly 1.5 million acre-feet of cool water to assist
seaward-migrating smolts.

Southern Idaho agriculture would welcome an end to the use of
irrigation
water for salmon recovery.

North Idaho businesses also would welcome the economic benefits of
keeping
Dworshak Reservoir full during the peak recreation season, rather than
facing an 80-foot drawdown each summer.

A University of Idaho study found that Dworshak drawdown can result in
$4.5
million a year in lost sales.

Sens. Mike Crapo and Larry Craig are working on securing $1 million
from the
Corps budget for Orofino and Clearwater County to mitigate drafting
Dworshak.

But rather than making a onetime appropriation to compensate for the
loss of
valued recreation in the Orofino area, Idaho s congressional
delegation
should promote a permanent fix to the summer drafts in Dworshak by
supporting lower Snake dam removal.

Rural Idahoans * including county commissioners, city leaders and
chamber
folks * should take a hard look at the economic opportunities
sustained
annual runs of salmon and steelhead could bring to their towns.

Also, the state of Idaho should lead the effort in promoting the
actions
that offer the best opportunity for recovering wild Snake River salmon
and
steelhead, and the economic opportunities they would bring.

Edition Date: 12-30-2003

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[ 01-05-2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: David Johnson ]

[Dragfreedrift]

Some big #'s there Dave. Its truly amazing the economic impact of a sport fisherman's dollar!


HC

[Mojo]

I've been preaching that since 1981. Maybe someday the 7 politicians that have successfully blocked every attempt to restore salmon and steelie runs in Idaho will start listening. The folks that own Sportsmane Warehouse, Jolley's State Street Sporting Goods, Howard's Tackle, The Riggins Hook, Line, and Sinker, Black Sheep Sporting Goods, Riverside Sports Shop, the Guide Shop in Orofino and countless other sporting good stores, restaurants, and hotels all hear what we are saying.

David, thanks for posting this article.

[David Johnson]

You are welcome Mojo.

Too bad more of the service oriented businesses don't catch the clue too.

And not just in your area but in all the area's that are supported by the fishing community.

[Silver Hilton]

I hate to be a nay-sayer, but I don't know that those numbers support a position for changing management priorities. If $180 million comes into the state in revenue due to salmon and steelhead fishing, that likely means about 25% of that in profit, or about 45 million bucks. That further means about 6 million in tax revenue (assuming a 15% state tax rate, which I just picked out of the sky). Does the state spend more or less than 6 million in supporting salmon? I don't know. But it is not clear on the face of things that salmon and steelhead fishing is an economic boom for the state.

Contrast these revenues to potatoes, or wheat, or timber, and you'll see real quick that sport fishing doesn't compare to agriculture or power production in revenue production, wealth creation, or tax revenues. And that, boys and girls, is why Idaho salmon are in trouble. It's all about the money.

[Ty]

Hope u all realize the phsuedo-economics fer keeping these damns in come from. These damns serve soley the purpose for barge naviagation control to keep Lewiston the largest inland port in the US. They only irrigate 130,000 acheres of farm land and there power generation is not sugnificant.

So, we as stewards to the environment need to deside what is mor importnant to us. The wheat and oil can be transported by truck and rail and is nor more or less cost effective in the long run.

We need to owe up to the fact that building many of these damns made no economic sence when you weight cost verse consecence. Many runs will be lost forever, however lu8ckily salmon and steelhead runs are renewable and should be managed as "self sustaining" vrs "hatchery maintaining".

Just my .02 cents worth.

[Mojo]

Ty, you are exactly right. One point is the farms that irrigate out of the lower Snake Dams will still have water rights, they will just have to move their pumps to where the "New" bank of the river is. You know, Lewiston was a railroad town, still has the tracks and silos, and could be a railroad town again.

Silver Hilton, All those store owners, hotel and resteraunt owners would disagree with you. They are in business for the recreationists, and fishing season tides them over for the 8 months that white water rafting is not feasable due to bad weather or cold water.

Keep in mind the farmers in eastern and central Idaho, where most of the agriculture is, who have to watch their reservoirs get drained each year to augment streamflows in the Lower Snake. Just because the 4 dams slow the water, warm it up, and confuse the poor little smolts. Take out the dams, no more spilling for flow augmentation, equals more water for the potatoes, beets, barley, and better crops in general. This is becoming a big issue here. One more drough year, and there are going to be a bunch of Snake River valley farmers on the warpath.

[Silver Hilton]

Mojo, I don't deny that the revenue is important to those residents at all. I agree perfectly. I just suspect that the agriculture and power interests have more money at play than the sports enterpreneurs. JR Simplot alone does well over a billion dollars of revenue, compared to the 180 million discussed above. If you are an Idaho senator, which revenue stream are you going to protect?

I'm not saying I agree with this. I simply try to understand it first, to see what can be done. I don't know what the underlying drivers are, or if there is even a revenue balancing case that can be made. I suspect it will come down to whose ox gets gored, farmers vs those who make a living off sportsfishing. I suspect there is more money lined up behind farming, timber and power.

[Mojo]

S.H., There is more to what you say than meets the eyes. The salmonids are protected by the Endangerd Species Act. The court ordered dam spills that occur on the Snake River reservoirs each year for flow augmentation (E.S.A. impacted smolt migrations flows) drain a lot of water from the upper Snake River irrigation reservoirs. Those farmers wouldn't have to watch their irrigation water flow away if the dams were gone, and their profits would go up. If J.R. Simplot had all the water he needed, instead of having his watering season cut short(ended the middle of August last summer) think of the increased profits the Simplot Corp. would see. Probably not billions, but surely millions more. The point I'm trying to make is (and I know you agree here) that a few well heeled lobbyests are directing the path of the state. I'm not sure, after you sort through all the repurcussions of keeping those dams, that it still makes sense.

"In Riggins, anglers spent $10.1 million, which represented 23 percent of the total sale of all goods in that town during 2001." If I lived there, I would consider sportsfishing a significant economic factor.

I fish Brownlee regularly. Almost every year it is drawn down at least 75 feet, in the spring(crappie and bass spawning season) to augment flows for smolt migration. That severly impacts the spawn. I've seen bass beds (huge flats full of them) high and dry, just a few days after they were covered by 3 feet of water. You know those eggs aren't gonna make it. If I was a guide on Brownlee (like ifisher Crappie Chaser) I would consider the annual draw-down a significant economic factor as well.

What I do not understand is how Timber interests benefit from the 4 lower Snake dams. The only thing I can think of is, that once the wild runs are gone, the E.S.A. doesn't protect the waterways with the same teeth it now carries. Once those fish are extinct, the timber companies have no reason to leave the riparian buffer zones. I may be paranoid, cynical for sure, but the logging companies don't lose much from these draw-downs.

[Silver Hilton]

Mojo, I didn't mean to imply that timber interests benefit from the dams. They may or may not, I don't know. I listed them more as an example of another economic interest that is often in conflict with needs for fishing, such as habitat maintenance, and that is typically more influential in legislative areas than sports fishermen.

[Mojo]

S.H., I know. I guess any time I get the chance to hop on the soap box, I can't hold back. I hope you don't think I was hammering on you. It is more frustration on the lack of vision some politicians have, and the "Well, we've done it this way for 50 years, why stop now" mentality.

[James in Idaho]

There is not a federal level politician in Idaho that is fish friendly. Not many at the state level either. A couple (Otter and Craig) would just as soon see the fish gone, period. Yet they keep getting re-elected. Oh well.

[Silver Hilton]

Mojo, I didn't get that at all. I hope you didn't either. Can we hug now?