Conservation News

---

Sport Fishing's Impact on the California State Economy
by Tom Steinstra, San Francisco Chronicle

(01-12) 19:22 PST - A single salmon caught in the Sacramento River is worth $140 to California's economy. On the Klamath River, a salmon is worth $200.
A new report released this past week finds that anglers in California spend more than $2 billion a year participating in their sport. This shows how healthy fish populations and their habitat provide economic strength to communities that rely on recreation and tourism.
The report is called "Value of Recreational Fishing in California - Direct Financial Impacts." It was compiled by Carolyn Alkire of Environmental Economics and Policy Consulting.
One of the findings is that successful recreational fishing creates jobs. On the Klamath River, for instance, every 1,000th fish caught by sport anglers generates four jobs in the area. In Southern California, increasing the number of steelhead caught in the Ventura River by only 2,000 fish would generate $600,000 more per year for local businesses.
The full report can be downloaded at www.caltrout.org.
A national report released last week also showed the economic implications of a healthy recreational fishing. It is called "Sportfishing in America: An Economic Engine and Conservation Powerhouse."
Among the findings:
Jobs: About 1 million jobs are supported in America because of sport fishing, three times the number of people who work for the United Parcel Service.
Taxes: The amount of tax money generated by angler spending is $8.9 billion per year, the equivalent of the entire budget of the Environmental Protection Agency.
This report was based on the findings in the recently-released 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, conducted every five years on behalf of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies by the Census Bureau and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It can be downloaded at www.asafishing.org.
"We knew that fishing was important to California's economy, but now we know just how important," said Brian Stranko of California Trout. "The findings of this report make it abundantly clear that people all over the state depend on the financial infusion caused by recreational fishing, and that this beneficial effect could be increased even further by better protecting and maintaining the streams and surrounding habitats that make fishing possible. Also, by encouraging young people to get involved in fishing, the people of California can maximize the long-term value of this healthy, sustainable activity."

The proposed Klamath Restoration Agreement released Jan. 15 is intended to be a blueprint for peace on the Klamath River. If successful, it would be the biggest river restoration effort in American history. But most significantly, it marks a symbolic end to one of the West's most complex and bitter water wars.
The proposal addresses the needs of both fish and farms. It provides a reliable adequate allocation of water to farms and wildlife refuges, and addresses the need for affordable power for Klamath Project irrigators. In return, more water will be made permanently available to the lower river for the benefit of fisheries and coastal communities.
We hope, after careful consideration, that the people of the Klamath Basin - as well as others who care about the river and its communities - will join us in support of this historic proposal.
But first let's clear up some confusion.
First, we understand that there will be a few detractors. Passions in the Klamath Basin run high. However, there can be no solution when uncompromising positions seize the driver's seat.
Second, it is important that the costs of the proposed agreement - close to $40 million per year over the next 10 years above what is currently being spent - be put into context.
A better question for taxpayers is what will be the cost of inaction?
In 2001, farmers in the upper basin received approximately $50 million in relief after irrigation water was shut off to protect fish. In 2006, salmon runs collapsed and coastal fisherman received $61 million in relief. Without comprehensive solutions, this "revolving crisis" will only be perpetuated at taxpayer expense.
Third, the proposed agreement included only commitments between the 26 parties not related to PacifiCorp and its facilities. A separate companion agreement with PacifiCorp is still in negotiation. There have been 16 separate meetings with the PacifiCorp's president or general counsel over the last two years centered solely on PacificCorp's Klamath River hydropower dams.
While some hydropower can provide "clean energy," the Klamath dams have been a source of toxic algae blooms, which is a major public health concern. They also block access to 300 miles of habitat for salmon and steelhead - some of which are threatened with extinction. Reports from federal and state agencies concluded that dam removal is cheaper for PacifiCorp than building fish ladders, and that energy from the dams can be cost-effectively replaced. In three other recent dam removal settlements in Oregon, Washington, and Utah, PacifiCorp chose dam removal to protect its shareholders and customers.
We have charted a course based on collaboration, not conflict, to bring about the biggest river restoration effort in American history. In the Klamath Basin, we want to see farmers farm, wildlife thrive, fisherman fish, native Tribes embrace their respective cultures and to restore a valuable national treasure. The best way to assure this bright future, and to protect PacifiCorp's customers, is for the Klamath Dams to come down.
Glen Spain is Northewest regional director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. Troy Fletcher is a Yurok tribal member and a policy analyst for the tribe.

A proposed agreement for restoration of the Klamath Basin - the result of two years of negotiations by a score of diverse representatives - has now been released and deserves the thoughtful consideration of all Oregonians.
Some have been quick to criticize the agreement because PacifiCorp, owner of the four Klamath dams the agreement proposes for removal, still needs to decide what its role will be. While we should push the utility to act, we should also recognize its legal responsibility to its shareholders.
But the more compelling story isn't whether the dams will come out - that's just a matter of time and negotiation. The breakthrough is about the courage of people overcoming their differences, facing down controversy and taking leadership to protect their communities, restore the environment and create economic opportunity for their families. The collaboration that went into this effort points to a paradigm shift in our society's approach to environmental conservation and economic development in the West.
Less than a decade ago, the community-based process behind this negotiation was unthinkable. In 2001, the shutoff of irrigation water to protect endangered fish made the Klamath Basin the poster child for environmental conflict in the West. The status quo was litigation and distrust, yielding few large improvements for fish and no greater security for agriculture.
Today, the proposed Klamath agreement reflects a new approach to the West's natural resources. Instead of attacks through lawyers or the press, people have worked toward mutual understanding. It has taken thousands of hours of meetings and technical work to design the proposed solutions. And unlike previous conditions imposed by government or the courts, this accord was forged from the ground up.
We should look carefully at the details of the agreement, improving it where necessary. But we should also understand it as a complex whole. To dismiss it risks saying that the blunt hammer of single-issue litigation is society's only tool for restoring the West's complex social, ecological and economic systems. That's been the status quo for the past several decades. That's not the West we want to live in.
Our national politicians should follow the example set by the people of the Klamath Basin, roll up their sleeves and work toward bipartisan solutions to the problems we face.
We also should make it easy for PacifiCorp to make the right decision. We should encourage it to be a good corporate citizen and remove the four Klamath dams - even if it means paying a bit more on our own power bills.
The negotiators in the Klamath Basin point to a new horizon and have created a path to get there. Now all of us - rural constituencies, urban corporations, citizens and representatives - face the same question: Do we join them on this path toward sustainability?
For the past two years, negotiators grappled with hard choices as they crafted this historic agreement. Now it's our turn to make a hard choice: Do we move forward into the territory ahead or perpetuate the status quo?
Martin Goebel is president of Sustainable Northwest, a Portland based nonprofit.

Back to Table of Contents