State seafood worth $5.8 billion
If Alaska were a country, its 2007 seafood catch would rank ninth in the world. The total value of the fishery: $5.8 billion, according to the Marine Conservation Alliance.
On top of that, anglers in Alaska reported spending nearly $1.4 billion, according to the Department of Fish and Game.
These are tidbits from three new studies this month from the state, the feds and private-sector economists on the economic impact of fishing in Alaska and the United States.
Since their methods differ, the numbers aren't all apples-to-apples, said Dave Benton, executive director of the Marine Conservation Alliance, whose new report covers every economic impact in Alaska his economists could dig up.
His group and two processors wanted to compile all the official data that's usually seen piecemeal: jobs, ex-vessel value, sales, and so forth. And they wanted it to be user-friendly.
But the numbers are probably broadly comparable, Benton said.
"It just gives you a picture of how big Alaska is in terms of a player on the global seafood market," he said.
In short: It's big.
Recreational fishing
Southeast was the only one of the three Alaska areas where nonresident anglers spent more money than residents in 2007: $175 million versus $99 million.
Anglers in Southeast spent $274 million, about 2.7 times that of Interior Alaska anglers and one-quarter that of Southcentral fishermen.
Recreational anglers in Alaska, resident or non, spent $1.4 billion on fishing trips, equipment and land maintenance in 2007, according to Fish and Game.
Fish and Game hasn't had this kind of information before. It spent $450,000 on the study, which Sport Fish Division assistant director Lisa Evans called "precedent-setting."
Fish and Game has two big reasons for the study, Evans said. First, the department wants to figure out how to get the most economic impact out of fishing in each region, if that's what the local areas also want.
Looking at this data, Evans said, it seems that Interior Alaska might be "underutilized."
The data is also supposed to help the department decide in the future how to allocate its funding, Evans said. But that can't be done until the department can see trends over time; this is just the first study.
The data has its limitations, however.
"You can't say, 'That salmon I caught on the Kenai is worth X-number of dollars.' And we didn't assess what people are willing to pay to fish in Alaska," Evans said.
Southeast charter fishermen fighting for more halibut, for instance, often say the fish their clients catch is worth more because their clients spend so much money here.
Evans noted that the Board of Fish uses economic impacts as one of eight criteria to decide allocations. But she backed away from the charter-versus-commercial allocation fights.
"This study could be used by user groups to petition the Board (of Fish) for allocation of the fisheries to speak to that criterion," she said. "But the department won't use it in that manner."
One reason: The department doesn't have comparable data for commercial fishing.
Evans is hoping that will change, though.
"Statewide, we collect this type of data for all industries," she said. "It's probably time we do it for the fish and wildlife resources."
• Contact reporter Kate Golden at 523-2276 or kate.golden@juneauempire.com.