Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Gertie's Pa, Aug 19, 2008.

  1. Amen Brother. Couldn't a said it better.

  2. No offense, you have a really "seems and appears" post. Have you been to a CCA meeting?

    If you had, you would know that all of the points you bring up are grave concern to us all (CCA members). But, you gotta show up. You might find others that are way ahead of you.

    I don't know a single CCA member, gear or fly head that wants to see hatched fish stray, take up wild fish habitat or further dilute the gene pool (1/16 wild ain't cuttin' it.).

  3. carefully step back and observe what is happenning with this thread.

    first there is the excitement of listenning to the stump speech of mr loomis, gives a person goose bumps

    next we wonder what is happenning 'cause nothing is being shared.

    then we find out why, vetting yur ideas before going to bat

    followed by, '...those ain't my objectives, how come mine are not the top priority......'

    and this exact series of events is exactly why the sport fishing community does not have a unified voice and has totally failed to gain any traction with the political forces to be.

  4. I bet the commercial fisheries have a unified voice, a bullet statement that all of them use to its fullest extent so that they can operate at will on the fish in the open waters before they return to where you and i happen to attempt to make our recreational chance encounters. Therein lies the million...maybe billion dollar question, how can the recrational fishermen create that one stance to represent all of our interests?
  5. Yeah, I know. No goose bumps here.

    It does where I come from; and, it works. Man, Give it a flippin' chance.

  6. the answer is no, but when i move back to washington in the next few months i'll likely check one out. honestly though, shouldn't there be enough information on the regional web site to get a good idea about the positions of the organization, especially when that organization is actively trying to gain members?

    in theory, most people don't. but cca's own website promotes increasing hatchery plants by 70% (see quote from prior post). what impacts do you think adding all those fish will have to straying fish and gene dilution? if not a "single cca member" wants that, why do they take the position of increasing hatchery plants by 70%?

    and to those who state that sportfishermen should have a unified voice in allocation battles, i would agree. i think cca will likely be successful in reducing non-tribal commercial harvest, which is a positive. don't get me wrong, harvest does play a role and i support reducing it across the board (all harvesters).

    the issue isn't always black and white, with us or against us. bringing up issues we have with conservation groups is not a bad thing, and doesn't always mean that sportfishermen are always divided... but it shows a diversity among us because most of us are not in the "sportfishing" industry so some value wild fish over opportunity and others want fish to catch. some want more harvest in saltwater areas, some want more of those fish to harvest in the river. some want fly-fishing only and others like to fish at blue creek.

    and the commercial fishing industry has not always been united. the upriver fishers fought downriver fishers, non-tribal fought tribal fishermen. ballot initiatives were passed banning certain gear types. certainly not a love-in, and makes the differences between sportfishermen seem tame in comparison. fly-fishing vs gear fishing aint got nothing on gillnets vs fish wheels.
  7. A few issues from an unrelated TU meeting last fall in Spokane concerning the Spokane River/redband trout that gave me some perspective on other issues.

    In attendance/speakers were WDFW biologists, WDFW game wardens, TU chapter and an Avista biologist. They all gave good informative talks, but no one spilled the beans. They all gave the public info. Avista was very guarded, mostly due to recently and pending law suits. Later I ran into someone from that meeting and he talked to me a great length. It appears that there was a deal in the works for some time between Avista and unnamed parties to improve redband habit and to monitor/increase flows at critical times. The deal was out of the spot light and basicly done when organizations from out of the area decided to file law suits against Avista to "improve" the Spoakne River. Avista pulled everything of the table and all that work went for not. Now still in the court system and nothing positive has been done to improve the river or habitat.

    So I am completely on board with not standing from the top of the highest building shouting what your intentions are. It only helps your opponents.

    The biologists and wardens both confirmed that if people are not allowed to fish and harvest some fish that interest drops. The support for any projects drops off dramaticly. As counter productive as it seems sometimes it does make sense.

    gt, we have heard your skepticism repeatdly. If you have found a better option let us know, if not??? The one issue I would agree with you is that there is not national unified voice such as NRA. This is critical that we have an organization with enough presence to make people listen, having a face to the organization also helps.
  8. sadly, LD, no, i have not found an organization which i can support which is focused on the issues of most concern to me regarding anadramous fishes.

    i am not privy to the inner workings of CCAPNW, nor should i be. the fact that vetting is happening behind closed doors is a good thing and we can all continue to hope that something beneficial will result. until those inner workings become public statements or better yet, actions, i will remain a skeptic. too many other groups have made claims and they have all failed and that is exactly where my skepticism began. CCAPNW can delightfully prove me wrong.

    my three agenda items for real change to occur are:
    - removing all nets. nets kill indiscrimently no matter who deploys them, all nets mean exactly that, commercial fishing is commercial fishing no matter your lineage;

    - leveling the playing field among all commercial interests. this means full disclosure of catch by everyone with a single entity overseeing this data which would be available for pulbic examination;

    - laying out a strategy for becoming a player on the decision making bodies. NOF sets limits and seasons WITHOUT input from sport fishing or sport equipment interests sitting at the table. ALL commissions set up by the gov are vested in commercial fishing, that has to be balanced.

    tinkering around the edges, from my perspective, is a waste of time, talent and resources. a clear identification of the pinnacle issue(s) may be going on, lets hope, and at that point all talent and resources should be marshalled toward that pinnacle objective.

    when that is made public by CCAPNW we will all know how on target this new group may be in helping to solve a critical problem.
  9. Unless, of course, going for the whole apple in the beginning would be political/popular suicide.

    Say that CCA wanted to get rid of all commercial fishing. Do you really think it would be a good idea for them to announce that as their mission statement? How in the world are they going to get enough political and popular support in a state like washington to make that happen?

    Even if that was their goal (which I do not believe it is), it would be better to hide some of their their cards until they had the political might to make it happen. To do otherwise would be the REAL waste of time, talent, and resources.

    I'd rather see CCA build political will and membership by attacking stuff like ghost nets and derelict crab pots to start with. Actions everyone can get behind. build the ranks up then tear down the walls. None of this happens overnight.
  10. Good points Josh.

    There are things about Gary Loomis' song and dance that I didn't agree with and some I completely oppose. One choice is to not join. On the other hand, CCA's methods of using legislative and legal processes appear potentially more effective at achieving some of what I think needs to occur so that I'm willing to support them even if they're not the "perfect fit" with my interests.

  11. I agree with that statement. A friend and I were essentially arguing with him and the other CCA representative at his last CCA bellingham presentation. His "facts" seemed fairly disingenuous on some issues and that annoyed me.

    However, since then I have learned more about CCA and their goals, I've watched the work that people Like Jason are putting in, and I have grown more supportive of the organization and it's concept.

    Gary is a great rabble-rouser and stump-speaker (and to be honest, a heck of an interesting guy), but thankfully CCA has other people doing the science and the planning.
  12. gt,

    I don't think that your thoughts and feelings are all that far out from what we, at least in the North Sound CCA chapter, think. The beauty of CCA is that if something is important to you, people listen. This is not just a bunch of idiots that are devoid of the capacity to accept new ideas. If it's a good one and makes sense, then it gets discussed, run on up the flag pole to CCA at a State level where it is reviewed and, if indicated, pursued. Nets are not going completely away. However, a particularly destructive method, i.e. - gill netting, is under attack by CCA right now.

    One of my questions at a CCA meeting where Frank Haw (sp?), CCA Government Relations, spoke was related to Steelhead. I think the fact that there is no consideration at NOF relating to the impacts and potential bycatch of our ESA-listed wild Steelhead given the Sockeye/Chinook netting schedules on the Skagit is completely ludicrous.

    I was personally pleased with his response.

  13. it would be stupid of me to think i understand the strategies that are being discussed at the state level by CCA.

    what i do know, however, is while fairly 'minor' issues (ghost nets and derelict crab pots) are consuming limited resources and person power, our anadramous fish continue toward extinction. i do believe there is a sense of urgency here. we don't have 5 or 10 years to strategize, build coalitions and make everyone feel like they are a part of the action.

    mr loomis was more than willing to rail on about commercial gill netters, but when i pointed out that the native americans were also gill netting, the phone went silent. that is the sort of limited vision i can't support. politically, taking this on is dynamite, everyone knows that, but someone better light this fuse before many more distinct runs of anadramous fish go extinct, maybe tomorrow. the appropriate federal laws are in place to make this happen, what is missing is the political will.
  14. If anybody had the bollocks to go after the nets, ALL the nets, and quit tapdancing, I'd be writing checks measured by K's not fins.
  15. iagree
  16. So start your own group and do just that.

    Talk is cheap and easy.
  17. Good points again Josh.

    Borrowing from a reply to a friend this morning, I mentioned,
    ". . . consider that the only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. What I mean is that it’s not likely the Commission is very open to such a radical change . . . I think it’s beneficial to support that as an intermediate goal while keeping your eye on the long term prize . . . It appears that it is an integral part of human nature to be more receptive to incremental changes than to radical or large scale changes. I think it is wise to exploit human nature in one’s strategy to change human behavior."

    GT has mentioned several times that all netting needs to stop, and it needs to stop now, or salmon and steelhead will go extinct. Even if he is correct, it won't matter if the number of people who will support and act on his view are few in number. From what I have observed since former Senator Slade Gorton's 1984 attempt to ban treaty Indian gillnetting, the necessary support simply does not exist. So long as it does not exist, is there a next best alternative and if so, what is it? Harping on endlessly about a perceived single course of action that society has demonstrably rejected seems like wasted energy to me. It's primary if not only potential reward is perhaps being able to say, "I told ya' so."

    CCA's process is deliberative and uses methods that have been demonstrated to be effective. That's not to say that the same process and methods will surely work in the PNW, however, they appear more likely to be so than most efforts I've watched and participated in. And here again we have anglers diverging and resisting supporting an organization because it isn't exactly like their preferred choice. That has been the perennial problem that has kept sport fishing from being an effective lobbying and legislative force. Having organizations that are exactly how we want them to be results in many "organizations of one" or no more than a few, legislatively speaking. CCA understands and uses the benefits of representing many. That limits the range of what it can do because it cannot possibly be exactly right for the masses. But if anglers will accept and support an organization that partly represents their views, they are far more likely to experience some degree of success that has been otherwise elusive.

  18. Originally posted by: Undecided Whiney Fly Fisherman Who Wants Someone Else to Carry His Water

    Dear Dr. Citori,

    I can't tell if I should join CCA or not. How can I be sure they will fix all the problems us fishermen face - nets, declining runs, short seasons, endangered species, global warming, international high seas unrestricted seasons, and hemorrhoids? I think I need to see results before I can commit the funds and resources to join.


    Can't poop, and can't get off the pot.


    Dear Poop,

    I hope you don't ever need brain or open heart surgery, and want your Dr. to heal you before you decide to pay him. CCA is a bunch of guys just like you who have decided that restoring fish runs is worth one more try, and have made the decision to write the $25 check instead of buying that electric bobbin threader retractor attachment this month. Those guys, like me, have decided that they are going to get off the pot, and do something rather than just sit there and wait for their legs to fall asleep. No one else has been able to accomplish much, but with over 5,000 other members, at least we are in good company. Besides, those CCA guys throw a damn skippy banquet and auction every year!

    My advice is to get your ass off the pot, write the check, and make it happen instead of waiting for someone (no one) else to do it for you.

  19. No one says it so well as Citori.
  20. :thumb::rofl::rofl::rofl::thumb: Thanks - I needed a laugh before the weekend hit!

Share This Page