COOS BAY — It’s all over but the politics.

No, not elections — though that may play a part — but rather funding for the West Coast salmon disaster that was officially declared a failure this week.

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez made the announcement that the closure of sport and commercial Chinook fishing off the coasts of Oregon and California and the reduced seasons in Washington do qualify as a fishery failure under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and a disaster under the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act.

An authorization of that sort means it’s easier for lawmakers to appropriate funds that could be routed to West Coast businesses and fishermen affected by the closure. It also means fishermen are out of work for a year at least, thanks to low fall Chinook returns to West Coast rivers.

But while fishermen are trying other fisheries — hagfish or octopus, anyone? — to stay afloat, political leaders, state agency folks and federal regulators are working behind the scenes to find a way to keep salmon-depended businesses from sinking altogether.

Political maneuvering

Congressional delegations from all three West Coast states are working hard to get a disaster relief bill attached to a current supplemental Iraq war bill, but it will be a challenge.

The exact amount of the funding is in limbo. National Marine Fisheries Service officials estimate a $60 million direct impact; the governors of all three states figured a $290-million effect based on direct impacts and  multipliers that would account for money on which related businesses depend.

“The federal government has almost entirely closed the salmon season, now Congress must provide financial assistance to our fishermen,” Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said in a press release Friday. “I will not allow our fishing communities to perish, the way the salmon have.”

The Bush administration has objected to anything being added to the war bill, but it also is an attractive bill for lawmakers just for that reason. Bush wants it passed. Lawmakers want to add items to it for projects in their home states, in part because it shows constituents they are working for their states.

And there’s little more important than that during an election year.

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., promised salmon funding would get through, one way or another. It was the Oregon and California congressional delegations that pushed the limits on getting $60 million in disaster relief to commercial fishermen in 2007, after the Klamath River disaster.

“Obviously, the six senators from the states are of one mind on this,” Smith said, noting that they also have support from their colleagues in the House.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., both are on the Senate Appropriations Committee — a key committee to getting the war bill passed through the Senate.

Smith said he also has an ace in the hole.

“We’re senior senators now,” Smith said. “We’ll make sure we get this heard by the full senate.”

If the money comes

Fishermen already are calling the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission with questions about upcoming disaster aid.

The commission was the agency responsible for distributing the $60 million of disaster funds to the fishing industry in Oregon and California. It may be the same vehicle for distribution this time.

“I’m not sure if we’ll be involved,” said Randy Fisher, the commission’s executive director, noting that it’s up to Congress to first appropriate the money.

The template for distribution already is in place. Oregon fishermen received their checks before those in California — primarily due to technical difficulties in tracking California catch records and databases — but still, it was in a timely manner, Fisher said.

The disaster relief included enough to cover administrative costs.

“That was what was important,” Fisher added, “that we get it out to the coastal communities.”

Trollers remember, too, the extra effort state and federal officials put in to make the distribution equitable. A review board still is going through some cases and fishermen are getting anxious for funding help.

“Oh yeah, oh yeah,” Fisher said with a chuckle. “They’re wondering when it’s going to happen.”

Other fisheries

As in 2006, both state and federal fishery managers are worried about spillover into other fisheries. If commercial trollers can’t catch Chinook, many will look to hook other species to pay the bills.

Two of the obvious ones are Dungeness crab and tuna. May trollers already fish for crab during the winter, but this year has been less than stellar compared to recent high-yield years.

“It’s been slow. Lots of empty pots,” said Winchester Bay fisherman Alvin Gorgita.

Albacore tuna always is an option, but only if the migrating fish come in close to shore. Larger boats can venture hundreds of miles offshore to the main tuna grounds — if rising fuel prices don’t make the trips cost-prohibitive — but smaller vessels must be able make day trips out and back. And sometimes the albacore don’t show up in sufficient numbers to make fishing worthwhile.

The other option is developmental fisheries. The state manages species for which there is no highly-developed or highly organized fishery. Little-known species or species that require very different fishing techniques may provide marketing opportunities for fishermen willing to take a chance.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife just notified the industry that all of the hagfish (slime eel) permits are taken and there is a waiting list.

“We’ve received steady interest in hagfish permits,” ODFW Biologist Keith Matteson said in a press release. “The waiting list will be developed according to the date and time of the postmark on the application.”

He couldn’t say for sure why there was an increased interest, but noted that the salmon season closure and poor crabbing season likely played a part.

Matteson said there also are anchovy, octopus, box crab, coonstripe shrimp and scarlet, king and tanner crab developmental fisheries permits still available.

At the market

While fishermen wait for disaster funding, it’s the consumer who will see a difference at the local seafood counter.

Wild Chinook will be at a premium.

In April, shortly after the Pacific Fishery Management Council announced it was recommending a complete Chinook closure in California and most of Oregon, customers rushed to seafood markets to buy king salmon while there was still some.

Consumers undoubtedly will feel a pinch, said Cary Hofmann at Wild Salmon Seafood Market at Fishermen’s Terminal in Seattle .

Wild kings at less than $20 a pound at Wild Salmon Seafood was a bargain in a world where the price is expected to rise to $40 a pound or more.

Hofmann said he’s been seeing an increase in the “buy it now” mentality. “It’s been incredible,” he says, placing fish on ice for display. “People really like wild fish.”

Most seafood buyers say they will seek Chinook from Alaska, but demand for wild fish will be keen. The other option, one that local seafood outlets shun, is farmed fish.

Trollers have worried about farmed salmon taking over the market slot where wild kings have reigned. In 2006, customers remained loyal for the most part. This year, though, may be different. The uncertainty of a season in 2009 also may create more of an opening for farmed fish, selling for much less than wild fish, just to get in the door.

“You’re still going to have Alaskan fish,” Hallmark Fisheries Production Manager Scott Adams said from Charleston, but in 2010, Hallmark’s supply chain may dry up.

“By then, our customers may be hooked up with those guys from Alaska,” he said.