We need your help

[QueenAnnesRevenge]

Low count

Somewhere around 300,000 fish.
But don't worry, most commercial fishermen won't fish this season because it isn't worth
It. Last year they averaged just over $550 per day, hardly worth gas and ice at that point. Also, plenty of fish will slip past us all and fill escapement goals.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[MienAce]

Low count

[QueenAnnesRevenge]

If it's up to me I say close the commercial season

Why?


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[MienAce]

If it's up to me I say close the commercial season

[QueenAnnesRevenge]

We need your help: please write to the Council and make a difference for our fishery. Use the email link to send a short message in support of alternative 1.

We have three alternatives that set the upper and lower boundaries of the possible outcomes of the upcoming salmon season. What we need to do is to let the PFMC know which of these (or combination of these) that we prefer and support. So here is our assessment of these alternatives. Use the following e-mail address to let the Council know of your preference: pfmc.comments@noaa.gov . Comment letters (e-mails) are due not later than close of business on Thursday March 30.

Most important is that we strenuously object to Alternative 3. Alternative 1 has the most open days and offers the greatest opportunity for fishermen – it is our best choice. Alternative 2, our second choice offers somewhat less opportunity, but is much better than Alternative 3. We must let the Council know that Alternative 3 is not acceptable.

Write you own letter, but some talking points that you can use in your comments follow:

1.California Recreational Alternative 1 achieves all of the conservation criteria while providing for the most opportunity and greatest economic value – from $16 to $54 million in direct sales in California alone. This is the alternative we support.

2.California Recreational Alternative 1 provides for 324 days of fishing in all zones except the Klamath, with 89,553 angler days. This is the alternative we support.

3.California Recreational Alternative 2 achieves all of the conservation criteria while providing for somewhat less opportunity and economic value than Alternative 1 – from $14 to $48 million in direct sales in California alone. While this is much better than Alternative 3, it is not as good as Alternative 1; we therefore support Alternative 1.

4.California Recreational Alternative 2 provides for 272 days of fishing in all zones except the Klamath, with 78,675 angler days. While this is much better than Alternative 3, it is not as good as Alternative 1; we therefore support Alternative 1.

5.California Recreational Alternative 3 provides for no real increases in protection for Klamath fall run Chinook sub-stocks (at most, only 4%), but results in large economic losses in forgone sales in California (from $10 to $40 million). We cannot accept Alternative 3.

6.California Recreational Alternative 3 fails to meet Magnuson Stevens standards of maximizing economic benefit while ensuring sustainable fisheries. We cannot accept Alternative 3.

7.Salt-water recreational direct sales create and support nearly 23,000 jobs in California alone.

8.Salmon fishing is a critical factor for the 1.1 million recreational salt-water anglers in California.

9.Salmon fishermen recognize the disastrous impacts the last several years of drought have had on our salmon fisheries, we have been making significant sacrifices for several years.

10.Recreational fishermen are willing to continue to do our part to ensure the health of our salmon fisheries, and we support conservative regulatory measures that balance opportunity with real and measureable protections for out salmon runs

Some facts follow that you can use if you choose. If you plan to attend the Council meeting on April 7 and speak to the Council, then you should have these data handy – you never know when you might get a question! ☺

The economic numbers are from a NMFS document published in 2014: From page 43 of FEUS 2014* each salt water angler day in CA provides for $604 in direct sales (2.657B$ from 4.4 million trips) – or more conservatively $178 if one excludes durable costs.

*National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2014. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-163, 237p. (https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/...4-FINAL-v5.pdf)

The number of days and effort are from the STT (Salmon Technical Team) Klamath Ocean Harvest Model (KOHM) runs for the three alternatives.

Alternative 1324 zone-days open, with 89,553 angler days

Klamath zone:CLOSED

Ft BraggApril 1 – May 31, August 15 – Nov 12, 20 inches
78 days open, with 5,242 angler days

San FranciscoApril 1 – 30, May 15 – Oct 31, 24 inches through April 30; 20 inches thereafter
140 days open, with 52,501 angler days

Monterey (North) April 1 – July 15, 24 inches, (South) April 1 – May 31, 24 inches
106 days open, with 31,810 angler days

This alternative provides for the most fishing days open and for the greatest effort while meeting the conservation objectives for all stocks – including the constraining Klamath River fall Chinook control rule impact rate of 8.1%. In direct trip related costs this alternative provides for $16 million in sales, and upwards of $54 million in total (including durable) direct sales.
It provides for the most fishing days in all areas, and for the greatest economic benefit in all areas. Clearly this is the alternative that we should support.

Alternative 2272 zone-days open, with 78,675 angler days

Klamath zone:CLOSED

Ft BraggApril 1 – May 31, July 1 – 12, Sept 1 – Nov 12, 20 inches
73 days open, with 5,970 angler days

San FranciscoApril 1 – 30, June 15 – Oct 31, 24 inches through April 30; 20 inches thereafter
108 days open, with 44,018 angler days

Monterey (North) April 1 – June 30, 24 inches, (South) April 1 – May 31, 24 inches
91 days open, with 28,687 angler days

Compared to Alternative 1, this alternative provides for somewhat fewer fishing days open and for somewhat less effort while meeting the conservation objectives for all stocks – including the constraining Klamath River fall Chinook control rule impact rate of 8.1%. In direct trip related costs this alternative provides for $14 million in sales, and upwards of $48 million in total (including durable) direct sales.

Compared to Alternative 1, this alternative provides for 10,878 fewer fishing trips, resulting in a loss of nearly $2 million in direct trip related sales ($6 million in total sales – including durable costs). While providing for significant opportunity and sales, it does not provide any additional protection for the critical Klamath River stocks. And without any improvement in protection there is no justification to forego the economic benefit provided in Alternative 1.

Alternative 390 zone-days open, with 22,867 angler days

Klamath zone:CLOSED

Ft BraggApril 1 – 30, 20 inches
30 days open, with 1,057 angler days

San FranciscoApril 1 – 30, 24 inches
30 days open, with 6,159 angler days

Monterey (North) April 1 –30, 24 inches, (South) April 1 – 30, 24 inches
30 days open, with 15,651 angler days

We are opposed to Alternative 3. It provides at most a minimal 5% increase in protection to Klamath fall run Chinook genetic substocks (87% risk with fishing/83% risk with NO fishing), but dramatically reduces our ability to pursue our target fish (Sacramento fall run Chinook). Compared to Alt 2 this is a reduction of 55,808 angler days (71% reduction), and a reduction of 66,678 angler days from Alt 1 (74% reduction).

Thus compared with Alt 1, this Alt (3) results in a net loss of $12 million in direct trip related expenses, and upwards to $40 million in total (including durable costs) direct sales. Similarly compared with Alt 2, Alt (3) results in a net loss of $10 million in direct trip related expenses, and upwards to $34 million in total (including durable costs) direct sales.

Considering the small marginal gain in protection to Klamath fall run Chinook sub-stocks, and the large losses in recreational angling expenditures, Alternative 3 fails to meet the MSA requirements of maximizing benefit to the nation while ensuring sustainable fisheries. It is un-necessary and too costly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk