How much do YOU value Puget Sound? (We need your input)

[fishaholictaz]

Hi, I am Tim's wife and I am working on an economics paper on the environment of Puget Sound. I am hoping to get a little information from you guys. See I am writing about the 150,000 tons of toxic waste that is dumped into the Sound EVERY DAY, and I am finding out that I need an approximate value for Sports Fishing in the area. Hypothetically, if you personally could pay an amount of money each year to preserve the health of local waters for Sports Fishing, how much would you be willing to pay? I know that it feels like it is a priceless thing, but we need to be able to put a monetary value under the heading FISH on our spreadsheet to make good economic choices. One way economists determine this kind of value is by asking people like you....

When I am done, Tim will post my paper for all those interested. Thanks, and by the way, the more replies I get to this, the more reliable my data will be.

Sarah

[Blackmouth]

Are you confusing the 150,000 tons of toxic waste with the treated sewage?

Just curious, but what is the subject/thesis of this paper?

[fishaholictaz]

No, I am referring to drainage from storm water and other runoff, which is diverted from local treatment plants and released directly into the Sound. Also, the 150,000 pounds of waste is how much waste is in the water, and does not include the weight of the water that is transporting the toxins.

Fact: Over the course of two years more oil is dumped in this manner than was spilled in the famous Exxon Valdez spill in Prince William Sound.

The thesis is that there are several industries like tourism, sports fishing, commercial shell fish, and more that depend on Puget Sound to be healthy and clean and in order for people to take the steps necessary to keep Puget Sound Clean we must be willing to equate ecosystems and their services with a monetary value so we can do an accurate cost benefit analysis to actions like not treating storm water.

Also of interest I found a great documentary you can watch online called Poisoned Waters that aired last week on PBS, it is focused on Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay... Really interesting even if you are not an economist or environmentalist.

By the way, even the treated sewage causes two problems, one is that it is not treated for pharmaceuticals which can severely affect the endocrine functions of fish and other wildlife, meaning that their hormones are disrupted and this can cause problems with breeding and other life cycles. The other problem is that not all treatment centers monitor the temperature of their discharges, and as I am sure you fishermen know, even a small change in temp can change an ecosystem!

[fishaholictaz]

PS thanks for the questions, it helps me think out what I am going to say in my paper when I know what is confusing about my thought process!

[AdsBot [Google]]

Hi, I am Tim's wife and I am working on an economics paper on the environment of Puget Sound. I am hoping to get a little information from you guys. See I am writing about the 150,000 tons of toxic waste that is dumped into the Sound EVERY DAY, and I am finding out that I need an approximate value for Sports Fishing in the area. Hypothetically, if you personally could pay an amount of money each year to preserve the health of local waters for Sports Fishing, how much would you be willing to pay? I know that it feels like it is a priceless thing, but we need to be able to put a monetary value under the heading FISH on our spreadsheet to make good economic choices. One way economists determine this kind of value is by asking people like you....

When I am done, Tim will post my paper for all those interested. Thanks, and by the way, the more replies I get to this, the more reliable my data will be.

Sarah

Wow, Sarah that is a tough one. Having a pristine, clean and well-balanced Sound is simply priceless. Knowing that part of my tax dollars are now being used to clean up toxic dumpsites throughout Puget Sound I would be willing to entertain an additional new tax that addresses education and enforcement. I think I’ll go out on a limb and say that I would accept a .025 cent increase in the sales tax.

[fishaholictaz]

Stampie,
I think it is great that you are thinking about it in this manner, but my teacher won't buy it. What I need is an idea of how much you would straight out pay, like in dollars per year maybe...

Think about this like someone is asking you, how much would you pay for a pair of tennis shoes, or how much would you pay for a house? That way I can say that on average, a Washington sportsman is has a willingness to pay of xxx dollars per year for a safe and healthy Puget Sound. Another way to think of this is, how much do you think that increase in taxes you suggested would add up to for you over the course of a year?

The cool part is this is hypothetical so you don't have to worry if you trust your government is going to allocate the funds correctly. The assumption is that if you are willing to pay for this, you will get it. If only the real world worked the way my econ class says is should....

[BentRod]

....See I am writing about the 150,000 tons of toxic waste that is dumped into the Sound EVERY DAY, and I am finding out that I need an approximate value for Sports Fishing in the area. Hypothetically, if you personally could pay an amount of money each year to preserve the health of local waters for Sports Fishing, how much would you be willing to pay? I know that it feels like it is a priceless thing, but we need to be able to put a monetary value under the heading FISH on our spreadsheet to make good economic choices. One way economists determine this kind of value is by asking people like you....
Sarah

This is a tough question, but I'm inclined to answer $23. The price of a saltwater recreational license with endorsement fee and nothing additional.
As stated, Puget sound is priceless. No matter how much money we dump into it, there will still be pollution. It might sound narrow minded, but I view this question as asking sports fishermen to pay to clean up the mess that has been created by others and still occurs. If the cost were to be spread throughout the community (what you might actually be asking and as implied by stampie) with the majority of the fees applied to those companies that contribute most to the problem, along with tighter regulation and penalties applied to violators, then I'd be more supportive of helping to clean up the mess that is already there. Based on salary and what I need to provide for my family, I'd be willing to put in $100 additional a year, but I'd really want to know that it was doing something and not just going into someone's pocket.
Before I get flamed by someone, I'll state that I do not feel Puget Sound should be left in or allowed to fall into a state of dispair. This is a difficult and many faceted topic that is best discussed over a beer, because there isn't an easy answer.

[AdsBot [Google]]

Stampie,
I think it is great that you are thinking about it in this manner, but my teacher won't buy it. What I need is an idea of how much you would straight out pay, like in dollars per year maybe...

At the .025 rate I think I would be willing to contribute $750.

[tommytitan08]

Sarah, growing up fishing in puget sound i would have to say keeping this ecosystem fishable for my family to enjoy is priceless. If i could afford it i would give millions, but i would have to be real and say i would give approx. 500 dollars per year extra for allocation of clean up of puget sound. If there were enough people that would pay this amount this would go a long way for clean up of our beautiful puget sound.

[AdsBot [Google]]

Stampie,
I think it is great that you are thinking about it in this manner, but my teacher won't buy it. What I need is an idea of how much you would straight out pay, like in dollars per year maybe...

At the .025 rate I think I would be willing to contribute $750.

I stand corrected. That's $75. instead of $750.

[The Quadfather]

The cool part is this is hypothetical so you don't have to worry if you trust your government is going to allocate the funds correctly. The assumption is that if you are willing to pay for this, you will get it. If only the real world worked the way my econ class says is should....

Since this is all hypothetical I suppose you could put me in for $250.00 a year. It is hard not to get all caught up in doubt over how this would be accomplished, but like you said, hypotheticaly.
Good luck with your paper, and please post it if poss.

[Blackmouth]

Hypothetically, if you personally could pay an amount of money each year to preserve the health of local waters for Sports Fishing, how much would you be willing to pay?

This is a very subjective question....What do you mean by preserve? Keep the Puget Sound in its current state? Return it to how it was a decade ago? A 100 years ago?

Willing to pay in terms of what? How much money if I had an unlimited amount or in realistic terms?

[Blackmouth]

The thesis is that there are several industries like tourism, sports fishing, commercial shell fish, and more that depend on Puget Sound to be healthy and clean and in order for people to take the steps necessary to keep Puget Sound Clean we must be willing to equate ecosystems and their services with a monetary value so we can do an accurate cost benefit analysis to actions like not treating storm water.

Like I said, a monetary value would be impossible to pinpoint or get anywhere relatively NEAR. Some people wouldn't give a dime to the Puget Sound is or if it gets worse; other people would give their life savings to see the Sound as it was when they were a young'n. What about looking at the Puget Sound from an intrinsic perspective instead of trying to place a monetary value on it?

How are you going to identify a dollar value?

I'd like to hear your complete argument because trying to identify a value with keeping Puget Sound clean for a cost benefit analysis seems almost impossible to pinpoint. A monetary value for who? For the entire Puget Sound population? Per person? Per the state of Washington?

Do you have an initial draft or thesis? I'm having trouble understanding this because of how broad and subjective it is.

[someguyseattle]

Seems there's a couple questions involved here. First, straight donation from people is not a workable concept I don't think. Second, if you raise the money from fishing licenses there is the problem of people not making or necessarily adding to the problem being forced to pay to fix it. Not good. Third, if the money is going to come from a tax add on, you'd have to get buy in from the entire state most likely, which would require showing the entire state that they are impacted by the health of Puget Sound. Alternatively, you'd need buy in from all the counties bordering on the Sound - probably a much easier sell but possibly tougher to coordinate and put into effect than a state-wide thing.

ANYHOW...

For actual dollars, for straight donation I'd probably be reluctant because I don't think enough could be raised to do much of anything. Same goes for fee tack ons to licenses - plus that would have the added problem of passing on the tab for somebody else's mess onto people that value and use the Sound with no impact at all on the mess makers.

For state or county tax increase, I'd go up to $25 per year - not necessarily a lot, but factor in the number of people who'd be kicking in and it makes for a relatively painless increase for people combined with a substantial net impact in dollars raised. I'd very much want to see no possible loopholes for the people making the problem - industries, cities allowing diversion and run off, etc. I would be very much opposed to paying anything if the wrong doers are allowed to skate and keep doing what they've been doing.

[fishaholictaz]

The thesis is that there are several industries like tourism, sports fishing, commercial shell fish, and more that depend on Puget Sound to be healthy and clean and in order for people to take the steps necessary to keep Puget Sound Clean we must be willing to equate ecosystems and their services with a monetary value so we can do an accurate cost benefit analysis to actions like not treating storm water.

What about looking at the Puget Sound from an intrinsic perspective instead of trying to place a monetary value on it?

How are you going to identify a dollar value?

I'd like to hear your complete argument because trying to identify a value with keeping Puget Sound clean for a cost benefit analysis seems almost impossible to pinpoint. A monetary value for who? For the entire Puget Sound population? Per person? Per the state of Washington?

Ok... This is a difficult question and is in fact exactly what I am trying to address. I am using a specific kind of economics called environmental economics. Environmental Economics is not necessarily geared from an environmentalist point of view, but rather seeks to put things that do not currently have a market value onto the spreadsheet, like the environment.

In this case, by giving a monetary value to things like how much people are willing to pay for activities like sports fishing and tourism then we can call those values benefits of Puget Sound. We can then weigh these benefits against costs, like trying to treat the storm water, or cleanup the sediment that is laden with historical toxins... and see if it is actually cost effective to do these things.

You are right that seems easier to simply look at things from "an intrinsic perspective" however, without giving monetary value to something that is deemed priceless, it is in fact the same as saying that it has no value and should not appear in cost benefit analysis. If these benefits don't appear in the analysis, it would be far to easier to say that in fact it is not cost effective to clean or protect Puget Sound.

It may seem a little silly to ask you what I am asking you, but in environmental economics one of the tools we use to help identify the value that people hold for their resources, that currently are considered priceless and have no market system to distribute them is by a poll asking for their "total willingness to pay." In Economics, if you are willing to pay for a good or service then we are able to say it has a value, and it should be considered, also it gives an idea as to how much people value the resource.

Ideas like worrying about how much other people would pay, how the money would be distributed and how effective it would be cannot really be considered in this equation because this is not a political question, it is not even going to affect the real world in that in the end no one will actually ask you to pay this amount. It is a simple question of how much of the money in your pocketbook would you be willing to take from allocation toward other resources and invest in this resource.... How much is this resource worth to you personally?

Tough I know. I will ask Tim how I can post the paper I have so far....
Sarah

[fishaholictaz]

Well I guess I can't get it posted sorry guys but if you are interested I can e-mail it to you just let me know. It is a good paper and an easy read...

[G-Man]

I wouldn't give any money to keep the Sound in it's current condition, as it's current condition is very poor. I prefer not to pay for low quality products. However, if the product was guaranteed to improve, put me in for $500.

That being said, throwing money at the problem isn't the only way to fix it. There are a few inexpensive/free ways to maintain or improve the Sound's water quality, but county governments don't seem to grasp the concepts. Halting development and deforestation and providing incentives to private property owners who wish to restore land to a natural state. Current demolition permit costs are outrageous and then you can't get your land rezoned so it is still taxed at a residential rate. I swear that King County officials won't be happy until every square foot of land is developed into a high tax rate commercial or private property.

[fishaholictaz]

Halting development and deforestation and providing incentives to private property owners who wish to restore land to a natural state. Current demolition permit costs are outrageous and then you can't get your land rezoned so it is still taxed at a residential rate. I swear that King County officials won't be happy until every square foot of land is developed into a high tax rate commercial or private property.

Based on what you said here I really recommend that you try watching the documentary, Poisoned Waters that I mentioned before, it has some great discussion about this. Thanks for your input!

[swedefish4life1]

Great Post Better information and thank you for sharing the truths your wife is a fastball!!!!

Fish ON!