-
Title
-
Fishing for Food: Exploring Kitsap County’s Subsistence Fishing Harvest
-
Date
-
2022 June
-
Creator
-
Dally, Robyn
-
Identifier
-
Thesis_MES_2022Sp_DallyR
-
extracted text
-
Fishing for Food:
Exploring Kitsap County’s Subsistence Fishing Harvest
by
Robyn Lea Dally
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2022
©2022 by Robyn Lea Dally. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Robyn Lea Dally
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
_______________________________
Shawn Hazboun, PhD.
Member of Faculty
_______________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
Fishing for Food:
Exploring Kitsap County’s Subsistence Harvest
Robyn Lea Dally
Non-indigenous subsistence fishing activities have received little attention in the United
States and most of the world, with the exception of the state of Alaska, which devoted a
division of government to studying and the management of subsistence activities of both
Indigenous Alaskans and Alaskan residents. The topic of non-indigenous subsistence fishing
has just begun to benefit from scholarly focus (Nieman et al., 2019). Even such, one would
think that among the robust literature on indigenous subsistence fishing that the question of
how to define it would have already been answered, but as Ebbin, Galligan, and Nieman have
pointed out, the definition still needs work (Ebbin, 2017; Galligan, 2021; Nieman et al.,
2021). In addition, there are non-indigenous peoples practicing many different methods of
subsistence fishing, and doing so for a variety of different reasons.
Following the studies of a group of researchers from Duke Universities Marine Lab who
have started to investigate the social and cultural aspects and values of subsistence fishers in
Carteret County, North Carolina, (Nieman et al., 2021), this thesis examines subsistence
fishing in Kitsap County, Washington. Kitsap County has a diverse collection of rural and
urban fishing locations to study spread over 15 different piers and other fishing sites. This
study aims to understand the characteristics and public infrastructure preferences of the
subsistence fishers in Kitsap County in order to better understand who the Kitsap County
subsistence fishers are, how they utilize the fishing infrastructures, and what they look for
when choosing infrastructure.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
Figures............................................................................................................................................ vi
Tables ........................................................................................................................................... viii
Positionality .................................................................................................................................... x
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Literature review ............................................................................................................................. 7
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7
The problem with subsistence fishing, or why hasn’t it been studied? ....................................... 8
How to define ‘subsistence’? .................................................................................................... 10
Fishing infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 13
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 17
Methods......................................................................................................................................... 18
Study area .................................................................................................................................. 18
Survey sampling & administration............................................................................................ 19
Survey measures ........................................................................................................................ 21
Analytical strategy..................................................................................................................... 21
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 22
Demographics............................................................................................................................ 23
Fishing structure ........................................................................................................................ 25
Fishing ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Consumption of fish .................................................................................................................. 27
Subsistence Fishing ................................................................................................................... 29
Site review .................................................................................................................................... 31
Harper Fishing Pier: .................................................................................................................. 32
Manchester Boat Dock: ............................................................................................................. 34
Waterman Point Pier ................................................................................................................. 35
Annapolis Dock ......................................................................................................................... 37
Port Orchard Marina.................................................................................................................. 38
Bremerton Marina Public Dock ................................................................................................ 39
iv
Coal Dock (Lion’s Community Park) ....................................................................................... 40
Illahee State Park Pier ............................................................................................................... 40
Illahee City Pier......................................................................................................................... 42
Brownsville Dock ...................................................................................................................... 42
Silverdale Pier ........................................................................................................................... 44
Indianola Pier ............................................................................................................................ 45
Suquamish Dock ....................................................................................................................... 46
Crystal Springs Public Fishing Pier .......................................................................................... 46
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 48
Fishing structures ...................................................................................................................... 48
Fishing ....................................................................................................................................... 49
Fish consumption ...................................................................................................................... 49
Subsistence Fishing ................................................................................................................... 49
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 51
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 59
v
List of Figures
Page 2:
Figure 1: Manchester Boat Dock at Sunrise. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 3:
Figure 2: Harper Pier from a distance. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 4:
Figure 3: Fisher at Waterman Point Pier. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 5:
Figure 4: Kitsap County (in green) from the Washington State Association of
Counties website
Page 6:
Figure 5: Port Orchard Marina Dock View from top of ramp. Photo by: Robyn
Dally
Page 7:
Figure 6: Sunrise at proposed fishing pier in Olalla, WA. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 8:
Figure 7: United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14. From The United
Nations SDG
Page 16:
Figure 8: Puget Sound's Last Remaining Boathouse Point Defiance Boathouse.
Tacoma, WA. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 20:
Figure 9: Kitsap County survey sites. Map by: Robyn Dally
Page 24:
Figure 10: Upper Left age of Survey Respondents. By: Robyn Dally
Page 24:
Figure 11: Upper Right Race/Ethnicity of Survey Respondents. By: Robyn Dally
Page 24:
Figure 12: Lower Left Sex of Survey Respondents. By: Robyn Dally
Page 24:
Figure 13: Lower Right Respondents from Kitsap County. By: Robyn Dally
Page 25:
Figure 14: Survey sites with respondent zip codes. Map by: Robyn Dally
Page 26:
Figure 15: Pier at which respondents were contacted at.
Page 30:
Figure 16: Responses for why respondents fish
Page 33:
Figure 17: Looking South at Harper Fishing Pier. Photo By: Robyn L. Dally
Page 34:
Figure 18: Fishing area of Harper Pier. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 35:
Figure 19: Manchester Boat Dock. Photo by: Robyn Dally
vi
Page 36:
Figure 20: Pomeroy Park as viewed from Manchester float dock. Photo by:
Robyn
Dally
Page 37:
Figure 21: Waterman Point Pier. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 38:
Figure 22: Annapolis Pier & Kitsap Fast Ferry Dock. Pre-Construction. January
2022. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 39:
Figure 23: Port Orchard Marina Map, Fishing is allowed on the outer side of this
breakwater. From: Portofbremerton.org.
Page 40:
Figure 24: Bremerton Marina Public Dock Map. Fishing is allowed on the outside
of the breakwater. From Portofbremerton.org
Page 41:
Figure 25: Disrepair of Coal Dock in Bremerton, WA. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 42:
Figure 26: Illahee State Park Pier with Boat Moorage. Photo By: Robyn Dally
Page 43:
Figure 27: View of Illahee City Pier, taken from the parking lot. Photo by: Robyn
Dally
Page 44:
Figure 28: A view down the breakwater of Brownsville Marina. Fishing is
allowed on the outside of the breakwater. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 45:
Figure 29: Silverdale Pier & Boat Ramp. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 46:
Figure 20:Indianola Fishing Pier. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 47:
Figure 31:Suquamish Dock. Photo by: Robyn Dally
Page 48:
Figure 32:Point White Pier. Photo by: Robyn Dally
vii
Tables
Page 21:
Table 1: Listing of Fishing sites with number of visits per site. By: Robyn Dally
viii
Acknowledgements
Throughout the writing of this I have received a great deal of support and feedback.
I would first like to thank my Advisor Shawn Hazboun. Her expertise and advisement in
formulating my research questions, methodology, and helping when I would run out of
inspiration. Your feedback helped me break through my blocks and improve the areas I knew
needed something else. Good luck to you and your family on your next adventures!
I’d like to thank Mike Ruth for helping me with some of the issues I encountered during my data
collection and ensuring that I was able to keep working even when things went wrong.
I would also like to thank the MES funding committee for their support in conducting this study.
The Point Defiance Marina and Tenants I would like to thank for listening to my ideas, problems
and helping me find the words to put to an issue that we all care about.
Finally, I would like to thank my family My husband Craig, daughter Artemis, and sister Caryn
for making trips with me to some of the far; reaches of Kitsap County so I didn’t have to sit
alone at some of the piers.
ix
Positionality
I have been a part of the fishing community for as long as I can remember. Some of my
first memories are catching minnows with my great-grandfather in the lake in their backyard in
Pymatuning, Pennsylvania. He taught me how to bait a hook with them in order to catch the
bigger fish with an old bamboo fishing pole. My parents kept up the lessons with a new
Snoopy fishing pole for my 4th birthday, along with a fishing net, flippers, and a mask-- one
could not be Jacques Cousteau without them. I have learned a great deal since coming to
Washington from New York; fishing is different, the fish are different. Subsistence is different.
I was taught by my parents growing up that you can take what you need, and if you have extra,
share it with those in your neighborhood who might need the boost. Here in Washington, I
have had the chance to work within the fishing community from the marina side, it is a
business that depends on fishers to frequent it to stay afloat, which is why my first instinct is to
not focus within the county that I am working, and only use Pierce County as a backup if I
need more data. The Kitsap County community knows me as a graduate student who wants to
help the fishing pier communities save fishing piers, rather than be developed into commercial
piers.
x
Introduction
This thesis examines the experiences of fishers participating in non-indigenous
subsistence fishing activities in Kitsap County, Washington. Kitsap County has the advantage of
being surrounded by water, as it is located on the western side of Puget Sound. Kitsap County
encompasses most of the Kitsap Peninsula, with a small portion of Pierce and Mason counties
making up the remainder. There are currently sixteen fishing infrastructures in Kitsap County,
listed on the Washington Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) website, as well as numerous water accesses,
boat ramps, state parks, and beaches, for fishers to access. This study is focused on the Kitsap
WDFW fishing
infrastructures.
This study is
motivated by the disrepair
and potential elimination
of two fishing piers in
Kitsap County (the latter
for possible construction
of Kitsap Fast Ferry
Maintenance Docks).
Figure 1: Manchester Boat Dock at Sunrise. Photo by: Robyn Dally
These fishing piers and the many like them in Washington State have not been properly studied
for their impacts for what their usage is for by fishers for subsistence fishing. Removing access
of these piers has the potential to create environmental injustices in areas where food expenses
are rising and the cost of housing is increasing(Cost of Living in Kitsap County, Washington,
1
n.d.). Additionally, decisionmakers do not know who or how many subsistence fishers use that
pier or what issues removal of that vital part of the physical fishing infrastructure may create for
those who depend on it for part of
their livelihood. Specifically, in
the beginning of 2022 at the time
of authoring this thesis, the Kitsap
Transit is considering converting
the Harper Fishing Pier to a
maintenance and docking facility
for the fast ferry fleet. This would
disrupt not only fin fishing and
Figure 2: Harper Pier from a distance. Photo by: Robyn Dally
squid jigging at Harper Pier, but also the scuba garden that has been cultivated for recreational
divers. Transformation of the pier would also affect the ability of the locals to launch their
kayaks and canoes from the float dock located there.
Why look at subsistence beyond the issues with pier removal? Subsistence, as defined by
the Cambridge English Dictionary has traditionally meant you have what you need to stay alive,
but no more. Fishing is the activity of catching fish either as food or as sport (Cambridge
Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus, n.d.). When we look at the
combination a traditional definition of subsistence fishing would be the act of catching fish to
support oneself at a minimum level. One would think with the vast literature repository that
comes up when searching for subsistence fishing that the question of how to define the term
beyond this basic definition would have already been answered, but as Ebbin, Galligan, and
Nieman have pointed out, the definition still needs work (Ebbin, 2017; Galligan, 2021; Nieman
2
et al., 2021). The traditional definition of subsistence no longer covers the modern need or use of
the word.
Historically, most literature and studies have been done on the subsistence fishing habits
and traditions of the indigenous peoples of the United States. Until recently little research has
been done on any other group or people who fishes or how they are using their catch and what
subsistence means to them. As recently as April 2021 researchers like Neiman et al.
acknowledged that the primary focus of studies on subsistence fishers and fisheries has been
indigenous communities (Nieman et al., 2019).
The State of Alaska has devoted a division of government to studying and the
management of subsistence activities of Indigenous Alaskans and Alaskan residents of more than
12 months (dfg.webmaster@alaska.gov, n.d.-a), but little focus has been on subsistence fishing
activities in the rest of the
United States and most of the
world, unless conducted by the
indigenous peoples of the area.
In Washington State, studies
have been done on indigenous
people’s subsistence fishing
habits and customs, but there is
no research on the nonindigenous people who
subsistence fish, what they do
with their catch, or who they
Figure 3: Fisher at Waterman Point Pier. Photo by: Robyn Dally
3
are. Despite this, the studies of subsistence fishing communities in the United States that have
been published have come to the same conclusion: determining what type of subsistence fishing
is occurring should take place before management decisions are made on how subsistence fishers
are managed.
A group of researchers from Duke Universities Marine Lab have started to investigate the
social and cultural aspects and values of subsistence fishers in Carteret County, North Carolina.
They began with a focus on the values that various characteristics of physical infrastructure
provide (Nieman et al., 2021). Their aim is to understand the most desirable facility for fishing
for food and what the fishers valued when choosing an infrastructure to fish at.
This thesis builds on the work of
Nieman et al. (2021) and focuses on
Kitsap County, WA. Kitsap County
is unique because it has a diverse
collection of rural and urban fishing
locations to study spread over 14
different sites. This study aims to understand the
characteristics, experiences, and needs of
the subsistence fishers in Kitsap County,
Figure 4: Kitsap County (in green) from the Washington State
Association of Counties website
including what they look for when choosing public infrastructure to fish at.
Through this thesis we will explore the current literature that has been published on
subsistence. This will include an analysis on why researchers have not been looking at
subsistence fishers at the same level as recreational or commercial fishers. How subsistence has
been defined by the current literature is the next item to be analyzed. Followed by a brief history
4
of fishing infrastructure within Puget Sound. Finally, the literature review will summarize the
discussion on the published materials.
The methodology used in this thesis is discussed in the next chapter. A discussion on the
study area begins the chapter. Next the sampling and administration aspects of the survey are
discussed. Rounding out the content for the methodology chapter is a section on the survey
measures and the analytical strategy used.
A look at the survey results is in the
next chapter. The survey results will LAY
OUT the data on how the survey questions
were answered based on diverse groups of
questions. First we will look at the
demographics of the survey respondents.
Next the survey responses for the question
on the fishing structure where the
respondent was contacted, where else they
fish, and what else they look for when
picking a location to fish. Following this a
look at the survey answers for general
Figure 5: Port Orchard Marina Dock View from top of ramp. Photo
by: Robyn Dally
fishing questions pertaining to how someone
learned to fish and if they have taught
anyone else to fish. Next we looked at the consumption of fish when or how the respondents
used their catches, as well as how many meals they ate of caught fish, and in which seasons they
ate more caught finfish or shellfish. Also, under the heading of consumption of fish we look at
5
the responses for cultural preparation/practices and the respondent’s favorite finfish &shellfish to
consume. Finally, to finish the results of the survey we look at the questions on subsistence
fishing, and the respondents understanding of the term.
Next a detailed review of each of the survey sites is included. This section discusses the
where to find each of the infrastructures, at least the best street address, local amenities if any
were found, and some history of why a pier or infrastructure was put in that location.
The discussion chapter is next. Contained here is an explanation of the results in
reference to some of the other works. The focus of this section has been directed at fishing
structures, fishing, fish consumption, and subsistence fishing.
Finally, the conclusion summarizes the project, discusses future research, provides a
critical look at what improvements could be made by future researchers, and offers a discussion
on how this study might affect fishers in research.
Figure 6: Sunrise at proposed fishing pier in Olalla, WA. Photo by: Robyn Dally
6
Literature review
Introduction
In 2021 non-indigenous subsistence fishing has become more than feeding the belly, it can
also be about feeding the mind, the soul, and the community. The modern subsistence fisher is
no longer one who simply fishes to exist, those that are fishing are doing it for a multitude of
reasons.
Subsistence fishing is at the confluence
of planning, environmental science, & policy
(Marjadi et al., 2021). This puts subsistence
fishing in a unique position as an
internationally recognized livelihood practice.
The United Nations has recognized
subsistence fishing as such (FAO, n.d.). The
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations has been charged with
helping to meet the Sustainable Development
Goal (SDG) number two which is to “End
Figure 7 United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14. From
The United Nations SDG
hunger, achieve food security and improve
nutrition and promote agriculture” (THE 17
GOALS | Sustainable Development, n.d.). The FAO has focused on how people are using
subsistence fishing to meet their food needs and what they can do to improve their success in
acquiring the nutrition they get from these activities.
7
Billions of people currently live in a survival subsistence economy worldwide where their
basic nutritional needs are not being met; this is due to lack of government support, few viable
employment options, and monetary troubles. These populations use subsistence to meet their
food or nutrition needs. Those living in food deserts who use subsistence fishing practices to
supplement their diets (Boucquey, 2017), and those in urban environments who live close to the
resource and supplement their diet by subsistence fishing (Quimby et al., 2020) are all included
in this group. The topic of non-indigenous subsistence fishing has been largely ignored due to the
existing literature viewing subsistence as a ‘monolith’ (Raghubanshi et al., 2021) as an activity
that has no variation. Viewing subsistence fishing as a monolith ignores the complex social
structures, processes and communities which function as part of the subsistence fishing system.
Though out the literature several themes surface repeatedly with regards to subsistence
fishing for non-indigenous populations. These themes include reasons it has not been studied
much, how to define ‘subsistence,’ and focus on the subsistence economy. This literature review
will first review these three themes and discuss findings of the existing studies, then will provide
an overview of fishing structures relevant to this thesis.
The problem with subsistence fishing, or why hasn’t it been studied?
Non-indigenous subsistence fishers are an ‘invisible’ population; there is no clear definition
of ‘subsistence fishing’ which can be applied broadly. In fact, the literature presents a distinct
lack of a clear definition, and this has created ambiguity among researchers (Berkes, 1988;
Macinko & Schumann, 2007; Marjadi et al., 2021; Nieman et al., 2021; Pitchon & Norman,
2012; Schumann & Macinko, 2007). When NOAA conducted a survey in the Pacific Islands on
subsistence fishing there was familiarity with the term among the survey respondents, but the
respondents assumed it was only applicable ‘to indigenous groups, federally recognized tribes, or
8
other groups with specific legal standing due to precedent in other states’ (Leong et al., 2020).
This can lead to confusing interpretations of the laws relating to subsistence fishing.
For one thing, the word ‘subsistence’ is typically associated with indigenous populations. For
example, the United States National Forest Service (USFS) looks specifically at commercial
fishing, recreational fishing, and subsistence fishing, and how they are integral components of
the USFS operations (Gillespie et al., 2018). However, there is a distinction between recreational
and subsistence, under USFS all subsistence activities only can occur if you are indigenous, and
part of an indigenous group that has obtain permissions to conduct subsistence activities within
the National Forest boundaries. While this in and of itself is problematic, it is not the problem
that we are discussing within the bounds of this paper. USFS does not recognize that the
recreational fishers are or could be conducting the same or similar subsistence activities as the
indigenous groups.
Another reason subsistence fishers are viewed as an “invisible” population and are not
studied at the same volume as commercial or recreational fishers is that they do not garner the
same income for the government or businesses. This means subsistence fishers are ignored in
management discussions in favor of commercial and recreational sport fishers. Billions
worldwide live in a subsistence market to meet their needs, but because they do not fit specific
characteristics, specifically ethnicity, income, reason for fishing, and others, the do not receive
the attention in studies that should be given to them (Macinko & Schumann, 2007; Nieman et al.,
2021).
Within the United States, Alaska is the first state to define a subsistence harvest for nonindigenous people with the subsistence provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA) (Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife). This piece of legislation
9
not only added 45 million acres to the National Parks, it also specifically provided for any person
who has been a resident of the state for longer than 12 months automatic subsistence rights to
that land. ANILCA provided the residence these accesses under the definition “the customary
and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or
family consumption as food, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of
handicrafts out of nonedible by-products of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or
family consumption, and for customary trade.” (ANILCA - Title 8, n.d.). Yet, Virginia D.
Nazarea (1999) states that they do not understand why when it came to the non-indigenous
cultures that subsistence was only a “social” existence, rather than the “cultural” existence
(Nazarea, 1999) that the ANILCA legislation laid out for the indigenous people of Alaska.
How to define ‘subsistence’?
As recently as 2021, there is disagreement about how to define the term subsistence fishing
for non-indigenous populations. This comes about mainly because of discrepancies of different
academic and professional disciplines using different views of the term. For example, an
economist’s view is different from an environmentalist’s view.
No longer is it acceptable to only use the rigid Merriam-Webster definition of subsistence
mentioned earlier, “the minimum necessary to support life.” We have move to a more broadly
diverse spectrum that encompasses not only this definition but many others, and allows for a
complex social and market economy to take place under the umbrella of ‘subsistence.’ This
concept was brought to the forefront of thinking first by Fikret Berkes in 1988 discussing
different concepts of subsistence fishing in Canada. Berkes saw that there were multiple terms
being used to describe the same activities being conducted within the Canadian local, noncommercial fisheries to meet food needs (Berkes, 1988). He took these terms, subsistence,
10
domestic, harvest, recreational, and food fishing, and explained how in Canada there is at least
under the various Canadian Provincial law reason enough to combine these to best describe the
activity as subsistence fishing. His paper also goes on to discuss why subsistence is the best
definition for these activities. Washington State looks at all fishers as personal use fishers (WAC
220-300-170:, n.d.). This definition from the Washington State Administrative Code refers to
only taking or fishing for food fish and shellfish to use as food or for other personal use, and not
for sale or barter. It runs into the issues that are seen in the Berkes (1988) paper discussing the
definitions on subsistence because the definition currently being used in Washington State
promotes the idea that community is not supported though subsistence fishing, it is to only feed
the individual.
Macinko & Schumann (2007) and Schumann & Macinko (2006) opened the research
community’s eyes to the spectrum on subsistence fishing. These papers were impactful in future
studies seeking to defining the term subsistence fishing. Macinko and Schumann created a way
to ensure that there was recognition for not only the consumption of a fishing catch but the social
aspects of a catch as well.
Following this, Pitchon & Norman (2012), Poe et al. (2015), Cooke et al. (2017), Ebbin
(2017), Marjadi et al. (2020), Quimby et al. (2020), Nieman et al. (2019), and Nieman et al.
(2020) expanded on these concepts and applied them to different case studies. Nieman et al.
(2020) defined six unique ways in which subsistence fishing occurs through using food
provisioning, economics, anthropological and sociological terms (Nieman et al., 2021)
Nieman et al. (2020) six definitions for subsistence fishing:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A dependence on fishing for survival
Having little to no other source of income
Living close to the resource
Using low technology gear (as part of traditional or cultural practice)
11
5. Harvesting fish to eat or sell in order to meet basic food requirements
6. Relying on the harvest to meet nutritional needs
These six descriptions help researchers start demonstrating how subsistence fishing is being
used in various parts of the United States. This will help define subsistence fishing for the
present case study within Kitsap County.
To help define these six methods further we will have to look outside of Nieman et al. for
more answers. They discuss much of the literature from South Africa on their website which is
where a number of these ideas and concepts come from, as well as ANILCA which has been
discussed previously in this paper.
Nieman et al’s idea that dependance on fishing to survival this concept is from the studies
completed in South Africa. It spawns from a group of fishers who self-identify as subsistence.
Subsistence has been legally recognized in South Africa since 1998 under the Marine Living
Resources Act (MLRA) (Hauck et al., 2002). These fishers only take as much as they need but
there is confusion on how the rules work surrounding the permit process.
Having little to no other source of income, this concept from Nieman et al.(2020) could be
said to have come from Cooke et al.(2018). This paper is about the importance of fishing not just
in a recreational sense for catch-and-release but also for the harvest component of consumption
by the individual.
Living close to the resource provides a fisher an easy access and easy meal, provides yet
another way to define subsistence. This definition was also found within the study from South
Africa that discussed the MLRA, as well as a study by Branch et al. (2010). Both of these studies
broadly defined subsistence as an access driven activity. Meaning that if an individual lived near
the resource, in this case waters that are good for fishing, they would use it to provide sustenance
for themselves and their family or community.
12
Turning to the use of low technological gear, this shows that the fisher does not have the
intention to overfish or take more than what they or their close community needs. Instead, this
highlights an intention to only harvest the fish of a specific species and size for consumption
purposes.
Each of these ways to define subsistence has also touches on the access of other food sources
that are available to the fisher indirectly, as they make the decision to fish. Many of them are in
areas where it is not convenient, or financial easy to go to the grocery store. Fishing provides an
alternative that is a nearby inexpensive food source that is abundant in many locations
(Boucquey, 2017). This makes it easy to see how the harvest of fish to eat or sell could be in
order to meet a basic food requirement.
How does a basic food need differ from a basic nutritional need? According to the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDG) just having food is not enough, it must be
nutritious food as well (UN SDGS, n.d.) This is the difference between a food need vs a
nutritional need. When there is a basic food need, there is no food (FAO, n.d.), and a fisher is
after fish to fill the table when there is nothing else. In the case of a basic nutritional need the
fisher is after the fish to cover the vitamins, minerals, and nutrients that are provided by the fish
to fill out the portion of the diet that is missing.
Fishing infrastructure
The type and accessibility of fishing infrastructure plays an important role in the ability of
subsistence fishers ability to be able to participate in the fishing community (Nieman et al.,
2021). The connections to the environment, and cultural connections that are made during the act
of fishing from an infrastructure provide entertainment and relaxation (Boucquey & Fly, 2021).
These connections demonstrate that these spaces provide more than base dependance on fishing
13
for survival. Subsistence fishing and fishing infrastructures are closely intertwined, and different
types of infrastructures can have different impacts on the quality of the experience (Pitchon &
Norman, 2012).
Fishing piers make up the vast majority of fishing infrastructures discussed in the literature,
while docks, bridges, and boat ramps make up the rest. Fishing piers are either fixed or floating
structures or a combination of these, that allow fishers to access water deeper water. Mixed use
piers follow the previously mentioned fixed, floating, or combination, then also have a boat
ramp, launches for human powered vessels such as kayaks or paddle boards. Some boat ramps
do not allow fishing from the tie up areas as it limits the access for boaters despite having
floating piers.
The current list of fishing piers on the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
is added by its managing partner, they reach out to their contact at WDFW, provide the
information required such as restrooms, lighting, ADA access, parking, hours, and other
amenities. In addition, the pier managers can add if the pier is good for squid fishing. Then
WDFW will add a map location with GPS coordinates for the pier location for fishers to find the
pier. This process is not easily found and only known from my personal experience in assisting
in the management of the listing for the Point Defiance Marina Fishing Pier listing. Fishing piers
make it easier for those who participate in urban subsistence fishing to access the resource
(Burger et al., 1999).
14
In Puget Sound, Ray Buckley and his colleagues at Washington Department of Fish &
Wildlife began looking at “a way to reintroduce the social aspect of fishing, where people could
gather, and when one person caught a fish everyone was happy.” (Williams, 2021). Buckley’s
group developed the idea of public fishing piers, and these first piers appeared in Edmonds and
Elliot Bay in late 1979 and early 1981, respectively. These piers not only provided an easy and
accessible fishing space, but also
had included design components
to attract a variety of fish. These
fishing piers began replacing the
disappearing boathouse culture
throughout Puget Sound; the
vanishing boathouses had left a
gap in where fishers could easily
access boat rentals, buy bait and
other fishing gear, and most
importantly gather to tell the story
of their trophy fish. Of the 140some boathouses (Williams, 2021)
that once lined the shores of Puget
Sound there are only a handful left
Figure 8: Puget Sound's Last Remaining Boathouse Point Defiance Boathouse.
Tacoma, WA. Photo by: Robyn Dally
(Williams, 2021). The only one of the well-known boathouses that is still in operation in a
traditional manner is Point Defiance Marina Boathouse in Tacoma, WA. here they still offer a
public fishing pier as well as boat rentals, bait & tackle, and a morning meeting of fishers for
15
coffee to discuss their latest catches, or upcoming seasons. These development of fishing
infrastructures/piers opened up public spaces to fish and thus opportunities to populations that
might not otherwise have access to fishing due to disability, financial, or other limiting reason.
These factors have been (and still are) considered in the new designs and re-designs of the
fishing piers within Puget Sound.
Design of fishing piers for those with disabilities falls under the United States Access Board
or more specifically the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) is responsible for the standards and
regulations related to accessibility for everyone on fishing piers and platforms. The United States
Access Board is the independent federal agency that has been placed at the forefront of
promoting equity for the those with disabilities by insuring that the Architectural Barriers Act
and the Americans with Disabilities Acts are followed (U.S. Access Board - About the U.S.
Access Board, n.d.). Both of these acts apply to fishing infrastructures, particularly fishing piers,
and platforms. Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) are designed
to provide the minimum acceptable accessibility requirements for new construction or redesigns
of old fishing piers or platforms. These guidelines include accessibly designs such as,
accessibility routes, gangways, railing requirements, and edge protection. They were developed
with input from a large number of public participants as well as groups and associations that
included the Disabled American Veterans, National Park Service, Paralyzed Veterans of
America States Organization for Boating Access, National Council on Independent Living, and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ABA Standards, 2014). The diversity that was invested in
developing these guidelines allowed for more unrestricted access and ease of use for some who
may have a harder time otherwise accessing a subsistence source for them or their community.
16
There are more than 60 fishing infrastructures listed on the Washington Fish and Wildlife
website (Public Fishing Piers, n.d.); 42 infrastructures say they are ADA accessible. As of the
writing of this thesis, Kitsap County has 16 public fishing infrastructures listed on the
Washington Fish and Wildlife website (Public Fishing Piers, n.d.). These infrastructures range
from boat launches, piers, and mixed-use piers. One of these piers is in accessible by most
subsistence fishers unless they have a boat as it is located on Blake Island.
Conclusion
The aim of this thesis is to discover the type of subsistence that is occurring within Kitsap
County by asking fishers how they are utilizing their catches and what their understanding of
subsistence is. Despite living in a state with vast aquatic resources, the type of non-indigenous
subsistence fishing that occurs has not been defined. The state codes have archaic definitions that
do not fully encompass the meaning or usage of a subsistence fisher.
This thesis conducts the first study of its kind in Kitsap County to bring a voice to the
invisible population of subsistence fishers. Additionally, this study will begin to define what type
of subsistence is occurring in Kitsap County. And finally, it will begin a review of the fishing
infrastructures or fishing piers that have been listed on the WDFW website as accessible for
fishers to fish from. Using definitions and parameters from this literature review will allow this
study to show how these elements link together for Kitsap County.
17
Methods
This quantitative study captures survey data related to subsistence fishing in Kitsap
County. I used an in-person survey at 14 fishing piers to analyze the needs and views of
subsistence fishers. As discussed in the previous chapter, subsistence fishers are an overlooked
group that receives much less attention than indigenous fishers, are not perceived to contribute
much financially to the recreational fishing industry, and also lacks definitional understanding.
Study area
Kitsap County is located in western Washington State on the eastern side of the Olympic
Peninsula. It has the largest Naval installation in Washington state. The poverty rate was 7.5% in
2019 and the per capita income in the county was $58,874, below that of Washington State’s
$64,758 in 2019. The Kitsap County unemployment rate for the same period was 7.5% (U.S.
Census Bureau QuickFacts, n.d.) These data suggest that subsistence fishing may be a lifeline
for some of the local residents. With a population of more than 270,000 people Kitsap County
and 250 miles of saltwater shoreline. Compared to Carteret County, North Carolina, where
researchers have performed initial studies of non-indigenous fishing along the 80 miles of
saltwater shoreline, Kitsap County has 3.8 times as many people and 250 miles of shoreline.
18
Survey sampling & administration
Figure 9: Kitsap County survey sites. Map by: Robyn Dally
The survey was conducted at 14 sites (shown in Figure 9) designated as Fishing Piers by
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife within Kitsap County. Participants of the survey
were recruited using a convenience sampling method based on their presence at the study sites
when the researcher visited in the months of February and March 2022. Oral consent was
obtained from each respondent prior to beginning the survey.
The survey was administered in person and data were collected on an iPad. Respondents
were asked to either self-report their answers on the iPad or if they preferred me to recording
19
their answers to allow them to continue fishing. Alternately paper copies of the survey were used
when weather was not conducive to having electronic equipment out, these answers were then
translated to the digital survey and the paper copies destroyed by shredding. In addition, survey
participants were provided with a card that had the author’s information for further questions and
a survey QR code on it to further expand the reach of the survey.
The survey was also submitted to interest groups and online groups to spread to their
membership to spread to a wider audience after a technical issue was discovered with the survey
that affected the number of responses that were coming back from certain locations from the QR
codes on the Survey cards.
Each of the fourteen sites were
visited a minimum of twice, as
noted in figure 2, on different
days of the week and various
times of day to try and capture a
variety of responses from
different fishers. Coal Dock at
Lion’s Community Park in
Bremerton, WA was the
exception to the 2 visits, as it
Kitsap County survey sites and number of visits
Site Name
Number of Visits
Harper Pier
2
Annapolis Dock (Restil Pier)1
2
Manchester Boat Dock
2
Port Orchard Marina Dock
2
Waterman Point Pier (Sinclair Inlet)
2
Bremerton Marina Public Dock
2
Coal Dock (Lion's Community Park
1
Illahee State Park Pier
2
Illahee City Pier
2
Silverdale Pier
2
Brownsville Dock
2
Squamish Dock
2
Indianola Pier
2
Crystal Springs Public Fishing Pier
2
Table 1: Listing of Fishing sites with number of visits per site. By: Robyn
Dally
has been shut down due to safety issues. Note that this survey has been vetted through the
Evergreen State College Institutional Review Board, a copy of the approval letter is attached in
Appendix A.
20
Survey measures
The survey consisted of 29 questions covering demographics, socio-cultural
characteristics, and cultural aspects including religion, and cultural beliefs surrounding the catch
and consumption of fish, fishing habits, what is done with the catch, familiarity with the term
subsistence, what the qualities of a fishing location fishers look for, and finally if there were any
additional information they would like to share for this study. Please see Appendix B for the full
survey instrument.
Analytical strategy
Descriptive statistics were performed on the Survey123 responses to gain insight into
what Kitsap County fishers are doing with their catches, and how subsistence fishing is being
conducted within Kitsap County.
21
Results
This survey was conducted over a seven-week study period, during part of which there
was a winter Chinook season that was open on Thursday, Friday, and Saturdays only. From my
own fishing experience, winter Chinook is a deeper water caught fish at a depth of 100 to 150
feet and not commonly fished from the fishing piers in Washington State. This limited the
number of fishers on the piers during the study period as the large squid runs had already come
through, and many groundfish species (flounder, sole, cod, hake, walleye pollock, ling cod,
cabezon, surf perch, etc.) were either not biting, or not open for fishing, Dungeness and Red
Rock Crab seasons were closed.
A total of twenty-five participants were surveyed. Of the twenty-five respondents, seven
responded in-person at the piers and eighteen responded online, using a weblink shared through
the use of the QR code, through local interest groups, or by word of mouth. Figures 3 displays
demographic characteristics of the respondents. The highest rate of response was from Harper
Fishing Pier with 9 respondents, as this was the most popular alternative fishing pier for the
survey respondents. The consumption of fish showed that 48% of respondents preserved their
catch for later with most respondents eating at least one meal of caught fish a month. Salmon
was the favored finfish for consumption. All but one respondent had familiarity with the term
subsistence, and many understood it as only take what you needed.
22
Demographics
Survey Participant Demographics
Age of Respondants
Race/Ethnicity of
Respondents
White
24 and younger
No
25-39
White/Native
40-60
White/German
60+
Black-Hispanic
Asian/Alaskan Native
Sex of Respondents
Respondents from
Kitsap County
Male
Female
Resident
Non-Binary
Other
Other
Figure 10: Upper Left age of Survey Respondents.
Figure 11: Upper Right Race/Ethnicity of Survey Respondents.
Figure 12: Lower Left Sex of Survey Respondents.
Figure 13: Lower Right Respondents from Kitsap County.
All respondents were between the ages of 25-60 with 60% falling between 40-60 and
40% between 25-39 as seen in figure 10. 72% of respondents self-identified as white, 8% had no
race that they identified with, 8% identified as white/native, 4% identified as Asian/Alaskan
native, 4% as Black-Hispanic, and 4% identified as white/German. The majority of respondents
were male 76%, while 20% identified at female, and 4% identified as non-binary. 88% of
respondents were residents of Kitsap County.
23
Respondents were from thirteen zip codes, ten of which were located in Kitsap County,
one from Thurston County, one from Lewis County, and one from Snohomish County. In Kitsap
Figure 14: Survey sites with respondent zip codes. Map by: Robyn Dally
County seven respondents were from Port Orchard zip codes, five were from Bremerton zip
codes, four were from Olalla zip codes, three were from Poulsbo zip codes, one was from a Gorst
zip code, one was from a Manchester zip code, and one was from a Southworth zip code.
24
When asked about employment, 88% of respondents answered that they were employed
full-time. Four percent said they were a student, and 4% defined their employment status as
disabled. Finally, 8% marked their employment as “other,” with one filling in that they were a
“stay-at-home mom,” and the other not providing an answer.
Fishing structure
The responses from the 14 sites as designated on the WDFW website in Kitsap County
that were on this study are represented below. These structures are fishing piers that are either
fixed or floating structures or a combination of these, that allow fishers to access water deeper
water, mixed use piers follow the previously mentioned fixed, floating, or combination, then also
have a boat ramp, launches for human powered vessels such as kayaks or paddle boards.
Which Fishing Pier were You Contacted at?
9
Harper Pier
8
Annapolis Dock
Manchester Boat Dock
7
Port Orchard Marina
6
Waterman Point Pier
Bremerton Marina
5
Coal Dock
4
Illahee State Park
3
Ilahee City Pier
2
Silverdale Pier
Brownsville Dock
1
Indianola Pier
0
Crystal Springs Pier
Figure 15: Pier at which respondents were contacted at.
25
Figure 15 displays that the fishing infrastructure that most respondents 36% were
contacted through Harper Pier with Manchester Boat Dock coming in with the next largest
response 16%. Annapolis Dock, Port Orchard Marina, Bremerton Marina, and Brownsville Dock
each had a response of 8%. Waterman Point Pier, Illahee State Park, Silverdale Pier, and
Indianola Pier each had 4% of the responses. There were no respondents from Coal Dock or
Crystal Springs Pier.
Most of the respondents (86%) said they did not always fish at the same location. To
follow up respondents were asked to select all of the other fishing infrastructures that they fish
at. Harper Pier and Manchester Boat Dock were the top 2 alternate fishing locations (n=9) with
an equal number of responses. Waterman Point Pier and Illahee State Park came next (n=8)
responses for alternate fishing location. Bremerton Marina (n=6) was the next most popular
alternate fishing location followed by Silverdale Pier and Brownsville Dock (n=5) with an equal
number of responses as alternate fishing sites. Port Orchard Marina and Illahee City Park (n=4)
followed with an equal number of responses as alternate fishing sites. Annapolis Dock (n=3),
Indianola Pier (n=1) and Coal Dock (n=1) wrapped up the responses as an alternate fishing
location. Crystal Springs Pier had 0 responses as an alternate fishing pier.
Respondents were asked “When you choose your fishing location, what helps you decide
where to do your fishing?” Species (n=13) was the most popular answer with answers of “what
is biting,” “what species is open,” “what I can catch,” as the most common. Looking for
underwater structure, “underwater drop-offs,” “presence of bait,” and “deeper water” were other
common answers. Accessibility (n=12) to not just home, but also jobsites, and when the pier is
open were other answers was the next most popular theme. Within this group there were also
those looking for areas with deeper water (n=2) to be able to fish for specific species of shellfish
26
(crab & squid). Several respondents (n=4) also discussed not wanting to be within “proximity” to
many people.
Fishing
Respondents were asked about who taught them to fish. This question allowed
respondents to choose multiple people. Most respondents either had their Father (n=13) or
Grandfather (n=10) teach them how to fish. Teaching themselves how to fish (n=3) was the next
most popular response as to how respondents learned how to fish. Grandmothers and friends
(n=2) each gained an equal number of responses from the respondents and the last respondent
learned to fish from their mother (n=1).
To follow up on how they learned to fish respondents were asked if they had taught
anyone else to fish, and 76% of respondents said they taught someone else to fish. Who they
taught to fish was most commonly their children (n=15) and friends (n=11) when asked to select
all relationships they had taught to fish, with spouses (n=6) next, and siblings (n=1), pier regulars
(n=1) and partners (n=1) finishing the list.
Consumption of fish
When asked what they did with their catch in a “choose all that apply” question,
respondents most commonly reported that they preserved their catch for later (n=22). Consuming
their catch the same day (n=21) and sharing (n=14) their catches were second and third most
common. Using their catch for bait (n=10) was fourth on the list of how respondents used their
catch. Finally, a few respondents sold (n=2) and traded their catch for other meats (n=1).
Respondents were asked to estimate how many meals of caught fish they ate, and 48%
said they ate at least one meal a month of caught fish, 28% of respondents said at least one meal
a week, 16% said at least one meal a year, and 8% said at least one meal every 6 months.
27
Respondents were then asked about in which season they ate more fish in a “select all question.”
Most respondents selected summer (n=23), with fall (n=18) as the next most popular, followed
by spring (n=7) and winter (n=5). To follow up on the how often and what seasons, respondents
were asked what parts of the finfish they consumed in a select all applicable format. Respondents
most frequently selected meat (n=21) as the part consumed. With equal numbers selecting roe
(n=7), skin (n=7), bones (n=7), and whole fish (n=7).
Of the 25 respondents, 5 had family or cultural preparations/practices for the fish that
were caught. Smoked salmon (n=2) was mentioned by of the respondents as their family
tradition. Other respondents discussed family meals (n=2) including the local finfish or shellfish
that they had caught. The last respondent declined to share their preparations/practices with me.
To finish the section on fish consumption respondents were asked about their favorite
finfish & shellfish to consume in a fill-in-the-blank response. Salmon (n=16) was the largest
response. An equal number of respondents put clams (n=8) and oysters (n=8) as the next popular
response. Squid (n=7) came in as the fourth most popular response. Crab (n=5), flounder (n=5),
and halibut (n=5) were tied for fifth most popular. Anything that is season (n=3) was sixth most
popular. Finally, tuna (n=1), steelhead (n=1), sole (n=1), trout (n=1), mussels (n=1), and razor
clams (n=1) were tied at eighth most popular finfish or shellfish to consume.
28
Subsistence Fishing
When asked directly if the respondents were familiar with the term “subsistence,” most
respondents (96%) answered yes. To follow up, respondents were asked to define what
subsistence means to them in a fill-in the blank style question. The most common theme was the
need for food or feeding yourself or family, and 10 responses contained a reference in part or
fully to this. Some example responses that highlight this theme are: “Fish to live,” “Harvesting of
wild-sourced food to serve as primary or supplemental food source,” “Eating what you
catch/capture,” and “Feeding yourself and family.” Another common theme was survival, and
nine respondents mentioned survival or taking only what is needed to survive in part or as the
whole of the response. Another theme was need (n=6), which addresses additional responses
such as “taking only what is needed,” “using only what is needed,” or “having the basics of what
is needed to survive,” was
Why do you fish?
Food
another theme in these
Relaxation
Mental
Health
Fun
Sport
responses. Supporting
oneself (n=2), living off the
land (n=1) and ensure that
Lifestyle
Tradition
you harvest cyclically (n=1)
Challenge
appeared less frequently in
respondents’ definitions.
To partner with the above question, survey respondents were asked why they fished in a
select-all applicable question. As shown in Figure 16, most commonly respondents fished for
food (n=21) and relaxation (n=21). Mental Health (n=16) was the next most frequently answered
Figure 16: Responses for why respondents fish
29
reason for fishing, followed by fun (n=10), sport (n=5), lifestyle (n=4), tradition (n=4), and for
the challenge (n=1).
30
Site review
When Ray Buckley and the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife began the
endeavor to create the fishing piers in the 1970’s, a large part of the project was to create an area
of comradery and access that the disappearing boathouse culture had left. However, the WDFW
website has a gap in information, including exactly where these sites are and what type of
amenities beyond a restroom you might find at the pier. To review how a fishing pier makes it on
the WDFW Public Fishing Piers Page, the managing company of the pier needs to email their
contact at WDFW and provide all of these details including open hours, amenities, ADA access
status, lighting, railing, if the pier is good for squid jigging, if they have rest rooms. Then
WDFW is responsible for updating the listing on their website. On the WDFW website each of
the sites is noted as a map point, not as a street address, which can make it difficult to locate if
you are unfamiliar or new to an area. The following section of the thesis provides this
information and starts to collect mappable addresses for each of the fishing piers in order to
ensure that the information on the WDFW is complete and correct.
Upon visiting each of the sites, notations of the theoretical street address that could be put
into a navigation tool to get a fisher to the pier was noted as this was not provided on the WDFW
website, if hours of the location were posted these have been recorded. Along with this who
operates the pier, what parking is available, what ADA accommodations have been made are
noted for each pier if it was noted as an ADA accessible pier on the WDFW website. In addition,
if there are lights, restrooms or are there any local amenities such as coffee shops or tackle shops
was also noted. Finally, a brief history, and points of interest for the site were also noted.
31
Harper Fishing Pier:
Harper Fishing Pier is located at 9833 SE Southworth Dr, Port Orchard, WA 98366. Hours of
operation are from 5 am to 11pm daily, Port of Bremerton operates the pier. Parking for this pier
Figure 17: Looking South at Harper Fishing Pier. Photo By: Robyn L. Dally
is limited in the immediate area, but there is Harper Park which is operated by Kitsap County
less than a quarter mile walk from the pier that provides ample off-street parking. Harper Pier
does provide ADA accessibility in the form of lowered railings and no ramps to access the
fishing area. I have not observed the kayak ramp in use and therefore have not been able to
access its accessibility for ADA standard.
32
Figure 18: Fishing area of Harper Pier. Photo by: Robyn Dally
There are lights along the walkway of the pier and a porta potty. There is also a coffee shop that
is occasionally open at the end of the pier called Audrey’s Espresso.
Harper Pier was a Mosquito Fleet Dock in a former life, serving the hamlet of Harper,
which had several stores, but was once home to a brick factory, The Harper Brick & Tile
Company, which was known to produce one million bricks a month. This Pier is also the site of a
Scuba Forest, has dock space for some small vessels, has access to waters both deep enough and
in the right conditions for good crabbing and squidding. In the summer months there is a kayak
and canoe float to launch vessels from as this pier is also part of the Kitsap Peninsula Water
Trail, and the surrounding community uses the pier to swim.
33
Manchester Boat Dock:
Manchester Boat Dock is located at 8079 E. Main St, Manchester, WA 98353, and is operated by
the Port of Manchester.
Figure 19: Manchester Boat Dock. Photo by: Robyn Dally
There is some street parking for this location as well as some lot parking for those that do
not have a trailer and are not launching a boat. There is one handicapped trailer parking space,
and ample trailer parking.
Launching a kayak is free, a daily launch fee is $7 and an overnight fee is $10
(MANCHESTER, n.d.). This fishing location is focused on those who are launching their boats,
but they do allow, or more aptly there is no signage to prevent people from fishing from the
piers. This site does have permanent bathrooms rather than port-a-potties. The Manchester Grille
34
is no longer in operation, there are no nearby coffee shops or gas stations, despite this location
being a more urban setting.
Figure 20: Pomeroy Park as viewed from Manchester float dock. Photo by: Robyn Dally
There is a small park, Pomeroy Park, associated with this location. The park has a picnic
area with one grill, and 8 picnic tables, along with one permanent pavilion. This location is also
another former Mosquito Fleet Dock.
Waterman Point Pier
Waterman Point Pier is located at 4282 Beach Dr E, Port Orchard, WA 98366 and is
operated by the Port of Waterman.
35
Figure 21: Waterman Point Pier. Photo by: Robyn Dally
This fixed pier has 1 handicapped parking spot and 11 other parking spaces. This fixed
pier has ADA accessible fishing spaces at the end of the pier, where the rail has been lowered.
There is one port-a-potty in the parking lot. Rod holders line the pier and picnic tables are
located at the end of the pier. The walk out to the end is also lined with lights and a there is
paddle dock which is part of the Kitsap Peninsula Water Trail.
The Orchard Beach Improvement Company operate this pier. It was a Mosquito Fleet
pier for runs on the steamer Advance between Seattle and Silverdale.
This is the first of the piers that is open for salmon fishing year round, specifically
Chinook that are a minimum of 22” with a daily limit of 2, only one can be kept from August 1September 15 (Marine Area 10 - Washington Fishing, n.d.)unless Emergency rules supersede.
36
Annapolis Dock
Annapolis Dock is located at 2067 Bay St, Port Orchard, WA 98366. This pier is operated by
Kitsap Transit.
Figure 22: Annapolis Pier & Kitsap Fast Ferry Dock. Pre-Construction. January 2022. Photo by: Robyn Dally
The pier is, as of the time of this study, undergoing construction to become more ADA
friendly for foot ferry passengers (Vosler, n.d.) through the improvement of ramp grade and
materials used for the pier.
There is ample parking, with several handicapped parking spaces, there is a daily $5.00
parking charge. There is one porta potty at the site as well. There is no signage that prevents
fishers from fishing.
37
This pier is currently a Kitsap Foot Ferry Terminal, and a former Mosquito Fleet stop.
Port Orchard Marina
This pier is located at 707 Sidney Parkway, Port Orchard, WA 98366, and is operated by the Port
of Bremerton, Washington.
Figure 23: Port Orchard Marina Map, Fishing is allowed on the outer side of this breakwater. From: Portofbremerton.org.
There is ample parking provided for fishers as well as local businesses. There is a variety
of coffee and food available. The Port Orchard Marina allows public fishing, squid jigging, and
crabbing from the pier provided that fishers are courteous to the marina tenants and guest
boaters, and follow the guidelines that they have provided.
Port of Bremerton has asked the fishers is to stay 10 feet away from boats on the docks,
not to shine lights into boats, quiet time is 11:00pm, fishing is allowed only on the outside of the
breakwater, and that they clean-up after themselves to include any ink sprayed or spilled on the
dock from squid ink.
38
Bremerton Marina Public Dock
Bremerton Marina Public Dock is located at 120 Washington Beach Ave Bremerton, WA
98337. This pier is operated by the Port of Bremerton.
Figure 24: Bremerton Marina Public Dock Map. Fishing is allowed on the outside of the breakwater. From Portofbremerton.org
Due to current construction, there is limited street parking at present. However, there is
some paid parking below the conference center. There is lighting along the pathway to the pier as
well as low lighting along the pier, there is minimal lighting on the pier. To access the fishing
pier a fisher must go to the P dock to fish along the outer breakwater. Fishing is allowed only on
the outside of the breakwater from 7am to 10pm. As with Port of Bremerton’s other assets, they
allow public fishing, squid jigging, and crabbing from the pier provided that fishers are courteous
to the marina tenants and guest boaters, and follow the guidelines that they have provided.
The closest restroom is on the promenade by the conference center, and is only open
limited hours for safety reasons. There are lights on the walk to and from the breakwater. This
pier also provides tables and grills on the breakwater during summer months.
39
This is the second of the piers that is open for salmon fishing year round, specifically
chinook that are a minimum of 22” with a daily limit of 2, only one can be kept from August 1September 15 (Marine Area 10 - Washington Fishing, n.d.) unless emergency rules supersede.
Coal Dock (Lion’s Community Park)
Coal Dock is located at 251
Lebo Blvd, Bremerton, WA 98310.
This facility is operated by the City
of Bremerton.
Currently this pier is closed
due to disrepair and does not show
a project to repair the
infrastructure. There has been no
response to inquiries to find out if
this pier is slated for repairs and if
it will ever be open again.
Access is still available to
Figure 25: Disrepair of Coal Dock in Bremerton, WA. Photo by: Robyn Dally
the boat ramp. In addition to the
boat ramp there is shore fishing that can be easily accessed at this location. This location is part
of a larger park in Bremerton that has a playground, several ballfields.
Illahee State Park Pier
This pier is located within the Illahee State Park at 3540 NE Sylvan Way, Bremerton,
WA 98310. This facility is operated by the State of Washington.
40
Figure 25: Illahee State Park Pier with Boat Moorage. Photo By: Robyn Dally
This facility does have ample parking. There is no lighting along the pier. There is a boat
ramp. There is a restroom facility that is open seasonally. There are several floating docks that
can be accessed from the fixed pier to provide deeper water access. The beach at Illahee State
Park is rich with oysters and some clams when opened. The State Park that houses and maintains
this location does have campsites that are available to rent throughout the year. There are no full
hook-up sites, but an RV dump and water fill are available for use.
This is the last of the piers that is open for salmon fishing year round, specifically
chinook that are a minimum of 22” with a daily limit of 2, only one can be kept from August 1September 15 (Marine Area 10 - Washington Fishing, n.d.) unless emergency rules supersede.
41
Illahee City Pier
This pier is located at 5510 Illahee Rd NE, Bremerton WA 98310. This facility is
operated by the Port of Illahee.
This facility is located on a severe
incline and has limited parking. The facility
operates between sunrise and 10pm. There
is minimal lighting along the pier. One
port-a-potty is on site. There is a shoreside
launch for human-powered vessels such as
kayaks, paddleboards, and canoes.
The site this pier was built on was
once the site of another Mosquito Fleet
stop. As there were no roads to Illahee in
the early 1900’s, the ferry access to this
dock was the only access the residents and
resort-goers had to get to the small town of
Figure 27: View of Illahee City Pier, taken from the parking lot.
Photo by: Robyn Dally
Illahee.
Brownsville Dock
This dock and marina are located at 9790 Ogle Rd NE, Bremerton, WA 98311. This
facility is operated by the Port of Brownsville, WA.
This facility has ample parking 59 trailer spaces, 173 car spaces, 4 motorcycle spaces,
and 9 handicapped spaces. There is minimal lighting along the pier. There are 2 boat ramps,
which can be used for a $6.00 daily launch fee or a $60.00 annual fee. The public dock is open
42
from 8:30 am until 10 pm. They do have several options for restrooms, at the port office they
have male and female restrooms, with showers which cost $.25 for four minutes, and the Miniloo
at the end of the east breakwater which has one unisex bathroom.
Figure 28: A view down the breakwater of Brownsville Marina. Fishing is allowed on the outside of the breakwater. Photo by:
Robyn Dally
This pier has been around since 1920 and has been a recreational destination boaters and
fishers since its beginning. Brownsville has 20 guest moorage spaces that accommodate vessels
24 ft and larger, 20 for vessels of 40 ft, and 550 linear feet of moorage space. There is a small
shellfish beach to the north of the marina that is monitored by Washington State Department of
Health.
43
Silverdale Pier
This pier is located at 3337 NW Byron Street, Silverdale, WA 98383. This facility is
operated by Kitsap County.
Figure 29: Silverdale Pier & Boat Ramp. Photo by: Robyn Dally
This location was under construction for the duration of this study. Under normal
circumstances it has ample parking including several handicap spaces. There is lighting along the
pier. The restrooms are currently closed due to the construction, but under normal operations are
open seasonally. The hours of operation are only during day light hours. There are several nearby
restaurants.
The park that houses this pier includes a playground, picnic tables, picnic shelter, and a
group BBQ. This location is also one end of the Clear Creek Trail System.
44
Indianola Pier
This pier is located at 19839 Indianola Rd NE, Indianola, WA 98342. This facility is
operated by the Indianola Beach Improvement Club.
Figure 30: Indianola Fishing Pier. Photo by: Robyn Dally
This location does not provide parking. The pier is open from 6 am until 11 pm. There is
no lighting along this pier. This location does not provide restroom facilities. The Indianola
County Store is close to this pier.
This pier was originally built as a ferry pier 1916 as the only means to reach the
community from Seattle. In its current form this pier was completed in 2016 with new pilings,
decking and swim float ramp.
45
Suquamish Dock
This pier is located at 18408 Angeline Ave NE, Suquamish, WA 98392. This facility is
operated by the Suquamish Tribe and Suquamish Foundation.
There is limited parking at this
location. The hours of operation are
Monday – Thursday 5 am until 10 pm
and on Friday & Saturday from 5 am
until 11 pm. There is no transient boat
moorage at this dock. There are some
lights along the walkway on the fixed
portion of this pier. There are restrooms
available nearby. There is a boat ramp
at this location. Crabbing is an
incredibly popular activity at this pier
however, at the time of this study only
Tribal Subsistence crabbing is permitted
at the Suquamish pier.
Figure 31: Suquamish Dock. Photo by: Robyn Dally
There are several restaurants and Suquamish Tribe and Suquamish Foundation Cultural
sites nearby that are of interest. Chief Seattle’s gravesite is near this location.
Crystal Springs Public Fishing Pier
This pier is located at 3992 Crystal Springs Dr NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110. This
location is now known as Point White Pier. This facility is operated by Bainbridge Island Metro
Park & Recreation District.
46
There is limited
parking at this location,
there are 11 primitive
parking spaces with no
designated handicapped
spaces. No hours are
posted for this fishing
pier. There is no lighting
at this pier. There are no
restrooms available at
this location. A concern
with this facility is that it
does have rails along the
pier, but they are spaced
such that young children
are able to easily climb
between them.
Figure 32: Point White Pier. Photo by: Robyn Dally
This location does offer kayak and stand-up paddleboard storage through Bainbridge
Island Metro Park & Recreation Districts.
47
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to address the gap in the literature on the subsistence
fishing within Kitsap County, Washington, to explore who is conducting subsistence fishing, and
explore subsistence fishing’s role in supporting economies, social well-being, culture, and
livelihoods in Kitsap County. During the course of this study, I observed that there is a great deal
of community connectedness to certain piers, specifically Harper Fishing Pier, especially when it
comes to the topic of the Kitsap Fast Ferry.
Fishing structures
Harper Fishing Pier was the most popular of the piers surveyed with Crystal Springs and
Coal Dock being the least popular. The community surrounding Harper Fishing Pier is engaged
and heavily supports the fishing use of this pier. In addition, with the threat against it from
Kitsap Transit, to use the pier as a maintenance facility for the Kitsap Fast Ferry Fleet, the
community has been ensuring that the Kitsap voters understand that this is a pier that does get
used. I believe this is one of the reasons I receive more responses from this particular pier. There
is not much of a community surrounding the pier at Crystal Springs Pier, it would be a walk for
someone to access this pier, which is a change from Harper Fishing Pier. This lack of walking
accessibility, and the fact that this site is on a dead-end road with no good turn-around after the
pier, could be a reason for this pier to be underutilized.
Ray Buckley and colleagues did well in focusing on creating piers that not only had the
social aspects of fishing in mind but more importantly to the fishers in Kitsap County, easy
accessibility as well as design components such as drop-offs, rock outcrops, and deeper waters.
In addition, the site selections for many of these piers appear to overlap with areas that fishers
48
are able to select from a variety of finfish and shellfish throughout the year if there are open
seasons for them.
Fishing
Fishing is a family activity and the findings for the questions in this section have
emphasized that most fishing knowledge has been passed down through familial tradition, from
father or grandfathers and less frequently from mother or grandmother. The original intent of the
fishing pier was to learn from other fishers and replace the boathouse culture in Puget Sound.
This mission does appear to be alive and strong in Kitsap County, as evidenced by respondents
who reported learning to fish from other pier regulars. Of those that have taught pier regulars to
fish, family or friends have taught the majority.
Fish consumption
With most respondents consuming their catch either the same day or preserving it for a
later date, and more than half of the respondents consuming one meal a month or one meal a
week of caught fish, we start to gain the sense that fishing for food is occurring with in Kitsap
County. These fishers represent low volume catches - they are not catching large enough
numbers to negatively impact fish populations, and many of them discussed how they were
concerned about over harvesting. As such they did not fish every day of a salmon season in order
to ensure there was enough of the extremely limited quota to go around.
Subsistence Fishing
Many of the participants in this study have indicated that they do use their fish to feed
themselves (n=21) and their families they do also participate in subsistence fishing to relax
(n=21) or for their mental health (n=16). If we were to revisit Nieman et al. (2020) and their 6
definitions for subsistence fishing, Kitsap County fits most into the third “living close to the
49
resource.” This is higher than the findings in Ebbin’s (2017) study in Connecticut or Nieman et
al (2020). In the Ebbin study (2017) 43% of the 47 respondents cited fishing for food as a
motivation, and in Nieman et al (2020) 17 of the 80 respondents responded that they fished for
food.
Based on the data analyzed in this thesis, the fishers of Kitsap are subsistence fishers. I
found that respondents in my Kitsap County study had a higher-than-average population that
fishes for food compared with other studies, and that 24 out of the 25 participants understood the
term “subsistence” and many of them linked that understanding to food. The access to this food
source and in particular the access to three piers that are open for salmonoid species year-round,
may contribute to the specific act of fishing for food year-round.
As such it is critically important to keep these fishing accesses open in order to keep up
with the demand of the pier fisher. Removing even one of these piers--even in part, would
severely impact the subsistence fishers within Kitsap County. These piers provide areas to fish
that are not otherwise accessible from shore and allow for a wider variety of fish to be caught
due to the depth and structure that the piers provide.
50
Conclusion
This thesis presents a survey of Kitsap County subsistence fishing. The results contribute
to the body of knowledge on non-indigenous subsistence fishing activities in the United States by
beginning to identify and quantify the subsistence fishers within Kitsap County and Washington
State. Additionally, it adds to the literature on the social, economic, and cultural characteristics
of individuals who fish for food while accessing fishing infrastructure. The results of this study
have begun to address a gap and characterize the fishers of Kitsap County.
There is a gap in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW)
understanding of how Kitsap County residents and Washington residents are utilizing the fish
they catch, in addition to a gap in knowledge about how the piers are being used. In similar
studies (Ebbin, 2017; Nieman et al., 2021) Connecticut and North Carolina provide limited
access to subsistence fishing licenses. In Washington State subsistence fishers are handled the
same way as recreational/sport fishers, who are defined as personal-use fishers (WAC 220-300170:, n.d.). A personal-use fisher is someone who takes food fish or shellfish for personal use by
angling or other means within the gear and limits prescribed by the director, not for sale or
barter. The definition has limited how fishers are able to use their catches. Under the current
definition of personal-use, fisher sale and barter are illegal. This conflicts not only with the usage
that is seen in Kitsap County, but also with the developing definition of subsistence fishing. This
gap must be corrected along with the definitions that exist within the laws to begin changes for
Washington state fishers as it does not allow for true non-indigenous subsistence fishing to occur
within the state.
The findings from this study show insights into a population that has been grossly
unstudied, particularly in Washington State. It has shown the value of the WDFW fishing piers
51
in Kitsap County and the benefits that fishers derive from the access to these piers including
fishing for food, mental health, relaxation, and fun. Future research could be done at the
additional boat ramps, shore accesses, and fishing points in Kitsap County, which could build
from the results of this thesis and further close the gap in knowledge about subsistence fishing in
Washington State and elsewhere, as well as help increase the knowledge, impacts, and access for
all those who are involved in subsistence fishing.
52
Bibliography
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (n.d.-a). Alaska Subsistence Frequently Asked Questions,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Retrieved October 28, 2021, from
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=subsistence.faqs
ANILCA - Title 8. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2022, from http://www.webak.com/anilca/title08.html
Berkes, F. (1988). Subsistence Fishing in Canada: A Note on Terminology. ARCTIC, 41(4),
319–320. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic1739
Boucquey, N. (2017). ‘That’s my livelihood, it’s your fun’: The conflicting moral economies of
commercial and recreational fishing. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 138–150.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.018
Boucquey, N., & Fly, J. (2021). Contested Commoning: Urban Fishing Spaces and Community
Wellbeing. International Journal of the Commons, 15(1), 305–319.
https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1095
Burger, J., Pflugh, K. K., Lurig, L., Von Hagen, L. A., & Von Hagen, S. (1999). Fishing in
Urban New Jersey: Ethnicity Affects Information Sources, Pe ception, and Compliance.
Risk Analysis, 19(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00401.x
Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus. (n.d.). Retrieved
February 9, 2022, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
Cost of Living in Kitsap County, Washington. (n.d.). Https://Www.Bestplaces.Net. Retrieved
March 14, 2022, from
https://www.bestplaces.net/cost_of_living/county/washington/kitsap
53
Ebbin, S. A. (2017). Fishing for food: Piloting an exploration of the invisible subsistence harvest
of coastal resources in Connecticut. Agriculture & Food Security, 6(1), 12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-016-0087-z
Food security and nutrition and sustainable agriculture | Department of Economic and Social
Affairs. (n.d.). Retrieved March 27, 2022, from https://sdgs.un.org/topics/food-securityand-nutrition-and-sustainable-agriculture
Galligan, B. P. (2021). Fisheries extractivism and the right to subsistence: Conflicting
governance models and the legal structures that enact them. Marine Policy, 133, 104729.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104729
Gillespie, N., Epstein, J., Alexander, S., Bowker, J. M., Medel, R., Leonard, M., & Thoms, A.
(2018). Socioeconomic Benefits of Recreational, Commercial, and Subsistence Fishing
Associated with National Forests. Fisheries, 43(9), 432–439.
https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10127
Hauck, M., Sowman, M., Russell, E., Clark, B. M., Harris, J. M., Venter, A., Beaumont, J., &
Maseko, Z. (2002). Perceptions of subsistence and informal fishers in South Africa
regarding the management of living marine resources. South African Journal of Marine
Science, 24(1), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.2989/025776102784528556
Home | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). PRD-FAOHome.
Retrieved November 18, 2021, from https://www.fao.org/home/home/en
Leong, K. M., Torres, A., Wise, S., & Hospital, J. (2020). Beyond Recreation: When Fishing
Motivations are more than Sport or Pleasure. https://doi.org/10.25923/K5HK-X319
54
Macinko, S., & Schumann, S. (2007). Searching for Subsistence: In the Field in Pursuit of an
Elusive Concept in Small-scale Fisheries. Fisheries, 32, 592–600.
https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446(2007)32[592:SFSTFI]2.0.CO;2
MANCHESTER, P. O. (n.d.). Welcome to THE PORT OF MANCHESTER. PORT OF
MANCHESTER. Retrieved March 4, 2022, from https://portofmanchester.com/
Marine Area 10—Washington Fishing. (n.d.). ERegulations. Retrieved March 19, 2022, from
https://www.eregulations.com/washington/fishing/marine-area-10
Marjadi, M. N., Drakopulos, L., Guo, L. W., Koehn, J. Z., Panchang, S. V., & Robertson, D.
(2021). Negative socio-environmental feedback loop may foster inequality for urban
marine subsistence fishers. Environmental Science & Policy, 121, 68–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.04.002
Nazarea, V. D. (1999). Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/located Lives. University of Arizona
Press.
Nieman, C. M., Chory, M. L., & Rudman, A. N. (2019). Fishing for Food [Duke University].
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/18362/Fishing%20for%20
Food%20FINAL.4.21.19.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Nieman, C. M., Rudman, A. N., Chory, M. L., Murray, G. D., Fairbanks, L., & Campbell, L. M.
(2021). Fishing for food: Values and benefits associated with coastal infrastructure. PLoS
ONE, 16(4), e0249725. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249725
Pitchon, A., & Norman, K. (2012). Fishing off the Dock and Under the Radar in Los Angeles
County: Demographics and Risks. Bulletin, Southern California Academy of Sciences,
111(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.3160/0038-3872-111.2.141
55
Public fishing piers. (n.d.). Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Retrieved November 18,
2021, from https://wdfw.wa.gov/places-to-go/fishing-piers
Quimby, B., Crook, S. ES., Miller, K. M., Ruiz, J., & Lopez-Carr, D. (2020). Identifying,
defining and exploring angling as urban subsistence: Pier fishing in Santa Barbara,
California. Marine Policy, 121, 104197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104197
Raghubanshi, G., Venugopal, S., & Saini, G. K. (2021). Fostering inclusive social innovation in
subsistence marketplaces through community-level alliances: An institutional work
perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 97, 21–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.06.009
Schumann, S., & Macinko, S. (2007). Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy: What’s in a word?
Marine Policy, 31(6), 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2006.12.010
THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development. (n.d.). Retrieved October 28, 2021, from
https://sdgs.un.org/goals
U.S. Access Board—ABA Standards (enhanced single file version). (2014). https://www.accessboard.gov/aba/
U.S. Access Board—About the U.S. Access Board. (n.d.). Retrieved November 12, 2021, from
https://www.access-board.gov/about/
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Kitsap County, Washington. (n.d.). Retrieved October 18,
2021, from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/dashboard/kitsapcountywashington/POP010210
Vosler, C. (n.d.). Kitsap Transit moving forward with Annapolis dock upgrades. Kitsap Sun.
Retrieved March 21, 2022, from
56
https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/2020/01/22/kitsap-transit-moving-forwardannapolis-dock-upgrades/4536035002/
WAC 220-300-170: (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2022, from
https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-300-170
Williams, D. B. (2021). Homewaters: A Human and Natural History of Puget Sound. University
of Washington Press.
57
Appendix A
58
Appendix B
Survey Instrument
Thank you for participating in this survey on subsistence fishing. The purpose of this
research is to explore the who is conducting subsistence fishing and to explore
subsistence fishing’s role in supporting economies, social wellbeing, culture, and
livelihoods in Kitsap County. This survey will not contain any identifying information
about yourself beyond basic demographic information and a zip code to help determine
utilization for the pier. Please be aware that you may stop at any time, if you are
uncomfortable answering any of the questions I ask please let me know we can skip
certain questions. The data collected is solely for my research and Master’s thesis aimed
at understanding the who are and the needs of the subsistence fishers. If you have any
questions regarding this research I can be reached at Robyn.Dally@evergreen.edu. By
clicking yes you consent to starting this survey
Which of fishing infrastructure were you contacted at?
What is your home zip code, to help track distances traveled to piers?
Who taught you to fish?
Have you taught anyone to fish?
If yes, who?
Why do you fish?
What do you do with your catch?
Do you always fish at this location?
What other piers or locations do you fish at?
Do you have any Family or Cultural preparations/practices for fish that are caught? Traditional
recipes, Thanks ceremonies, restrictions on fish being used.
If yes, would you share what those beliefs are?
How many meals of caught finfish, shellfish or other do you consume?
Which seasons do you eat more fish?
When consuming your finfish catch which parts do you use?
What are your favorite Finfish & Shellfish to consume?
If you share your catch who do you share it with?
Are you familiar with the term subsistence?
what does it mean to you?
When you choose your fishing location, what helps you decide where to do your fishing?
Do you have anything additional you think I need to know about fishing or this pier?
To finish this survey, I would like to collect some demographic data to create a whole picture
of who is utilizing the fishing infrastructures in Kitsap county. Please let me know if you do
not wish to answer any of these questions.
What age are you?
Which gender do you identify with?
Do you identify with a particular race?
What is your employment status?
59
Are you a Kitsap County Resident?
Do you have a religion you identify with?
What is the primary language spoken at home?
What is the secondary language spoken at home? If there is one?
60
