Tribal netting

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by MasterAnglerTaylor, Jan 23, 2009.

  1. Yup, total agreement with this statement. I don't *hate* the CCA, just disagree with their hatchery policy. They've done a *LOT* of good work to date, but I'm not sure if the national organization knew what they were getting into when they added the PNW. Of *all* the places, we've got probably the hardest to solve issue.
  2. I'm sure higher national average of disposable income coupled with a population that is genuinly concerned about the state of our fisheries had quite a bit to do with them jumping into the PNW sheitstorm. This area has the highest probablility of keeping the dollars flowing in to them. The state of fisheries are equally f-ed up across the entire country, but I guarentee some guy in Detroit is not going to give up part of his unemployment check to the CCA.

    These are business men and politicans, not saints.
  3. GT,

    I had and still have my issues with CCA, about like I would with any organization I suppose. I have many differences of opinion (and fact) with Gary, but I've come to think of him as a charasmatic mouthpiece for the organization. Even though he's flat out wrong on a number of his points and uses distorted contexts to make them, people love his stump speech. I decided my opinion of him is less important than the fact that he draws new members.

    The courses of action to be taken by CCA are uncertain because there is still so much organizing to be done. As members are added and committees created, the action plan is evolving. The most probable CCA agenda isn't likely to be my cup of tea, but as long as CCA keeps the LCR gillnet fishery in its gunsight, it's worth $25 a year to me.

    The people I've talked with are clear that this is a long term effort, and while there is a target rich environment, it can't all happen at once. So no big push in Puget Sound yet.

    Here's the email I got last night from CCA:

    "The Pacific Northwest chapters of Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) have been heavily involved in the debate surrounding the upcoming 2009 Columbia River spring Chinook fishery. We wanted to update you on some of the latest developments and urge your continued involvement in this important conservation issue.
    As you may know, in mid-December the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission voted to ignore the recommendations of the bi-state Columbia River Fish Working Group (CRFWG) -- a process they pushed to create and in which, ironically, three commissioners participated. Instead, the Commission endorsed an increase in the non-selective commercial harvest of our wild salmon and steelhead this spring. Last week, the Oregon Commission again voted against the recommendations of the CRFWG -- putting them in open conflict with the conservation-driven position of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission.
    CCA has been actively engaged in both Salem and Olympia to highlight this break in the public trust on the part of the Oregon Commission and to support the resolve of the Washington Commission to stand firm for conservation and selective fisheries.
    Following the December Commission vote, CCA Oregon’s members mobilized by sending 2575 emails to their legislators and the Governor. CCA Oregon also sent a letter to the Governor and key legislators opposing the Commission’s action. Several key Legislators contacted the Commission and throughout the building Legislators are becoming more aware of the Commission’s current approach to managing our fish resources.
    CCA Oregon’s lobbyist has been meeting with many key legislators and the Governor’s office to urge them to weigh in with the Commission. The Oregon GRC and CCA’s lobbyist are also laying the groundwork for CCA Oregon’s legislative agenda. Stay tuned for more details on the agenda and CCA Oregon’s Day at the Capitol, which will be held on February 24th in Salem.
    Washington CCA has focused on supporting the conservation-based position adopted by the Washington Commission. The Washington Commissioners are supporting the important first steps towards selective fisheries and conservation – they deserve the support of the citizens of Washington.
    Last week, Ed Wickersham and Andrew Marks of CCA Washington testified before the Senate Natural Resources Committee to advocate for selective fisheries reforms, including those related to the Columbia River spring Chinook season. Similar to Oregon, CCA Washington is promoting its legislative agenda in Olympia and recently retained a lobbyist to assist."

    Any CCA success will come in steps, small ones initially, perhaps larger steps later. The key to me is that CCA is being noticed in the right places. They don't have Senator Jacobson by the short and curlies yet, but I could see that day coming. It's important to not try to do too much too soon. Strategically I think it's critical at this stage to only make a move that is pretty well known in advance will succeed. A few small successes and Jacobson will be calling CCA for advice on what his position should be on fishery issues, that is, if CCA decides to let Jacobson stay in the Senate. OK, I'm getting ahead of myself, but I hope I'm making clear the need for the actions and strategies to evolve, to create initial successes, and then build on those. The WSC got blind-sided badly a few years ago on the wild steelhead release regulation and hasn't fully recovered yet. Hence my acceptance of a slower approach.

    No organization in this region so far has used the type of strategy and long term planning that CCA has been successful with in other regions of the country. It's been frustrating for many people that they cannot go on the web and read a detailed strategic plan. Besides not being fully developed, please know that the gillnetters and their lobbyists read internet web sites. Would you really want your adversaries to read your internal documents? I wouldn't. I hope this post encourages you to reconsider and maybe shell out a few $ for membership for the simple reason that when CCA attends a fisheries management meeting and says, "we just started a chapter here a couple years ago and have XX,000 members," policy makers and politicians notice. This matters.

    Thanks for reading.

  4. Spaz,

    As usual, your research is thorough and well presented and your opinions well reasoned also.

    Even tho I may not totally agree with 100% of everything proposed by CCA I believe it and other organizations are our best hope for, er…, “change!”

    I also agree with others that advocate relentless contact with our State & Federal legislators – even though whatever method we chose – it’s going to take time to effect any meaningful change….I can only hope it will not be too little or too late!

    Thanks for all your efforts, Spaz you have been instrumental in my increased level of awareness on these issues as has Kerry, Salmo g, gt, Mike E. and many others!

    It seems to me that this forum should be, and for the most part is, a venue, a roundtable if you will, in which many different views can be discussed with reasonable civility and the probability for some good to come of it is increased accordingly…keep it up!

    A mind, like a parachute, works much better when it’s open….
  5. '...slow and steady...' if a fine approach, but, puget sound anadramous fish don't have that sort of time. delay is death, next is extinction, coming sooner than CCA and their approach seem to realize.
  6. GT,

    If the cost of criticism was to offer up a plan, a viable plan, of your own, what would you do? Stop criticising? If not, then what?

  7. gee salmo, seems to me i have offered up a host of ideas. but here's another one for'yah:

    enforce the ESA listing of puget sound fish, that means zero allowed by-catch.
  8. GT,

    Your host of ideas aren't viable if they don't generate popular support enough to make them happen. With regard to ESA enforcement, the law doesn't require zero catch, let alone zero by-catch. Therefore, the law is enforced, and ESA listed fish are legally caught and killed up to the lawful incidental take limit. Either the law needs to be changed, or you need a better idea.

    The region is full of internet fisheries experts. Experts in the sense that in their minds complex issues exist in isolation with simple, clear-cut black or white answers. If only it were like that. It ain't. And I think you know it.

    When you come up with a good idea - and it's only good if it's viable - please let us be the first to know.

  9. roight there salmo. just flickin'shit as usual instead of expanding, elaborating, revising or, heaven forbid, suggesting something, keep up the good work pardner....................
  10. I joined CCA reluctantly thinking it was mostly for the guides and to keep them fishing, but as was stated -their aim at the nets, selective fisheries, and derelict gear was worth the $25. I now see the goal is CONSERVATION and for that I'm getting more deeply involved. CCA has experience in taking on big issues. We gotta do something and this is one of the best shots at making something happen.
    I've also supported the WSC since its inception and praise that organization for the role it plays.
  11. first off-
    jc, thanks for the compliment...but really, I'm just a bigmouth guy from Jersey. I don't think I've had too many original ideas yet on this subject, I think I referred to it earlier in the thread as "hideously complex" :D which by now should be clear.
    There's a wealth of experience and knowledge reflected in this thread, passion, and a desire to see changes at the very core of the management philosophy we're discussing; I reviewed the thread and found methodology disagreement but no fundamental philosophy conflicts. We all seem to have some very similar desires and goals. How we get there is open to argument, but let's never let arguing about how to get there keep us from traveling!

    CCA is playing their cards close to their chest for the reasons the _G man mentioned, and I don't blame them. I also agree with _G's assessment of Gary Loomis. I think CCA should represent all of us, not just one man's personal vision.
    I've been vibing right along with RiverElf, gt, JMello, all of you. What a spirited discussion, and what insights!
    If we all start cc:ing links to this thread to lawmakers, maybe they can benefit from all our years of observations, because these are carefully considered thoughts from experienced guys who are obviously well-read and smart. And we vote.
    We have to demand that management be driven by conservation first, commercial interests second, not the other way around.

    BTW I went fishing today, all day, and I'm dog tired. Got two bumps and a pull, that's all. But at least there's bumps and pulls.
  12. I have that "feeling of imminent doom" too, really gets to me at times.
  13. Great thread… At first I thought I would stay out of this but since the thread has broadened to include Columbia Basin stuff, I want to weigh in with a couple of questions, thoughts and frustrations about this topic. As for the coastal stocks (OP and PS) of steelhead, I have no doubt that gillnets are killing more fish than they should… but my frustration lies in the discussion of the Columbia Basin. Here is how I see the issue and hope someone can comment (with or without the use of a flamethrower is fine).
    Here is how I see it:
    The tribes, while killing some fish out from the 13 stocks of the Columbia River fish are insignificant when compared to the FEDERALLY run hydro-electric dams. Because of this, the picture seems to look strangely lopsided.

    Our federal government is killing a large % of out-migrating smolts on the Snake R with turbines and smolt barges, but because these dams support some inland shipping that make big bucks for several people in the basin and the BPA likes the power to sell to Californians, it becomes much easier for groups like CCA to isolate and blame the commercial fishing industry than to take on the elephant in the room. In fact, the gill nets have steadily declined their catches in the last 50 years where as hydro systems have expanded their salmon killing operations a great deal. So why the one-sided approach to this issue? The Snake River Dams are a great case in point. These things are salmon/steelhead killing machines that every one of us pays for with our taxes… Not only that but it pencils out to pull’em. Where is the outrage? Where is the strategic focus of CCA (I am not attacking, I’m just wondering).

    Now I can see wanting to further reduce gillnets that kill ESA listed fish, but do you see how this picture is adding up? The biggest culprits of the four H’s is given a free pass by the crew that should be screaming the loudest. Meanwhile groups like TU, Sierra Club, and the NWF are left to the unsavory task of being in court working w/ Earth Justice to force the feds to build a recovery plan for 13 stocks of fish that actually works. As a result these groups have forced court injunctions ensuring Snake and Columbia River flows to support smolt survival so us sport fishers have some fish to catch… In fact, the whole success w/sockeye this year was because of court ordered injunctive flows that were the result of hard work on the part of some of these other groups. This disconnect between efforts confuses and frustrates me. Why doesn’t CCA hold their nose if they feel like they have to and join w/ the likes of the Sierra Club in pounding on the feds and the hydro system?

    I can see why the OP folks are all over the tribal nets, but the sport fishing silence on Columbia Basin (specifically Snake R.) dam operations seems to me to be a hole that you could drive a truck through. Perhaps like Salmo g suggests its strategic and the CCA will take these operations on in their own time… The problem is that now is the time.

    Now, I agree that NW salmon issues are not black and white, and I do not profess to be an expert, and to be clear, I AM NOT SLAMMING CCA, I would like to hear what you think about this hydro system “omission” (as I have defined it). I wonder if it is just as James pointed out, NW salmon issues are a real complex can of worms to sort out…
    It is also that sense of doom around these fish that has me jumpy and frustrated:(.
  14. yes, jerry, the different stocks have many similarities, but also many differences in threat. you may have been aware that 'we' have just paid the B.C. government a huge sum of money, i recall something like 30M, to reduce the harvest impact on the west coast of vancouver island (WCVI). it is a fact that fishes headed for the columbia have been intercepted in significant numbers along WCVI for decades. this season, there is a 30% reduction in fishing due to the fact that they B.C. government has bought out the trollers, with our funds!

    but, the dams are going nowhere. the very best that could be hoped for in anyone's wet dreams are the snake river dams. main stem columbia are there forever. all of these dams obviously have a huge impact on the columbia runs, some say they are still bigger than the fraiser runs, the other big producer of salmon. but that vision is long term, worth ticking away at, but does nothing for extinction right now.

    same thing is true further north. puget sound salmon 'mix' in several know locations with stocks headed in other directions. the way the ESA listing was done was to ignore the killing of wild fishes via nets. the basic rationale here is lost to me but thats the way it comes down. the fish stocks were listed, sport fishing was heavily regulated, commercial fishing continues as if nothing much had happened except supposed reduced fishing time. of course, as many have already pointed out, the indian nets are all over the place ignoring quotas, and theoretical seasons.

    here is a situaiton ripe for litigation, just as is the big C situations. two fronts, two differnet sets of issues but both with the count down clock ticking. my sense of doom intensifies day by day simply because within the last 15 years, i have witnessed stock extinction. look around, salmon have disappeared from any number of systems close to where each of you live and fish.

    slow and steady on, stay the course? strategies which are also extinct in this time period of disappearing fish runs.
  15. CCA has been in the PNW for a very short time. They can only do as much as they have funds for and that is pretty obvious. They are gaining respect and power quickly because they tend to walk softly and carry a big stick.At the meetings I've attended I can sense that everyone knows they're there and are wondering what they're going to do next.From what I've seen they walk their talk.They have to start somewhere and can't accomplish everything at once. Thats what has happened in the past so nothing gets done.I feel that once they get established they'll take on the other issues as well.I agree that organizations need to work together but the group with the most clout and expertese should run the show where they've had the most success and work with other in their fields.Bottom line is support these groups with funds and a warm body when needed.There is definately momentum right now, we just have to keep pushing.
  16. I was involved in CCA in New England. I supported it and became active because of the good work that they had done previously in the Gulf and South Atlantic states. The reason that they were so effective is because they stuck with facts and science and conservation first. They put the fish first and the fishing second. To my mind that was the correct order of thinking. I had long since burned out on the knuckle-headed-meat-hunting fisherman's groups and clubs who only wanted to kill more fish in the sports fishing allottments. CCA stood out as a solid and responsible voice for conservation based management. I also liked they way that they drew off of the talents and strengths of the membership to develop strength in all areas of concern in a region. It was a very good experience of organized activism. There was never a sense of "us and them" with regard to our area chapter and CCA National way down in Texas- the help and support was always there.

    This proved especially true after the first few years of work as we saw increasing numbers of forage fish returning to our New England coastal waters and nearshores with some of the first good legal work that CCA accomplished there. What was impresive was that before CCA got into the conversation, the states had sold out the forage fish to the herring industry and they were extirpating them. Anyone who had grown up on the waters of the northeast shores, and Hudson River, Long Island Sound etc, knew that the forage fish and Herring in particular were just about non existent. We had seen the collaps of so many things in our lifetimes. In just three years they began to flourish once again. and then the Striped Bass and Bluefish and Weakfish, the False Albacore and Bonito, and a host of others soon followed. It is not all better there now. but it is a hell of lot better than in the immedite decades before, and it continues to heal.

    If CCA can keep its long standing and successful conservation ethic at the root of it's work here it will get my support. When I began to study the issues here in earnest, over eight years ago, I often thought of CCA and I wondered how they might fit in out here. I too have a difference of opinion with Gary Loomis approach. And some of his "facts" just dont sound right to me. Stregth in numbers can be a good thing, but only if the membership is pulling in the same direction together. One problem with this region in general is a social tendency to steer conservation and restoration efforts soley to a goal of resumption of harvest on salmonids, ect. We have to take a regional approach, and an ecologically based approach, or we are doomed to fail. We have to put the health of the ecosystems- and the fish are integral to those systems- first in our goals. I would agree with the opinions voiced here that time is running out.

    If all we are going to do is fight over who gets to catch the last fish, then that is all that will happen. It will just be a question of by whom and when.
  17. Thanks Bob... Way more articulate than I could have ever put it...
  18. Bob What you have described is the general feeling I get from CCA in the PNW.
    I have been impressed with the diversity of the Olympia chapter. Theres ocean sportsfisher guys, guides,bait fisherman,conservationists,trollers,biologists,X WDFW employees,politicians and flyfisherman and others I'm sure. Everyone really seems to be in sync. Thats what has me excited that change is coming because folks are leaving their egos home. Thats what it's going to take.Unification!
    Theres an Oly meeting Monday,Feb 2 at 7:00.Come and check it out.
  19. Well, CCA certainly has a diehard following, and they boast a pretty great record in other parts of the country... that much is obvious from the support given in this thread. Certainly 8000+ members in the NW in two years is impressive. I will follow this closely.
    I agree, different fronts different time frames at work which require different strategies. I also agree that in the Columbia Basin some of the biggest baddest hydro projects aren't going anywhere... I'll never see a June Hog in the Spokane cause Coulee Dam is here to stay. However, I am a fervent believer that the 4 lower Snake Dams may come down... and we need to work on that foundation now. Clearly if Judge Redden rules that the feds are in violation of the ESA again and this leads to pulling the 4 dams out, we are still over a decade away from realizing the benefits of this... and in this way I agree that it is no quick fix but this piece is essential to the long term survival of the Snake R stocks... Here is where I would love CCA to change their platform and pitch those 8000 members into the battle against the USACE and the BPA... With CCA on board with TU and others... we would be that much closer.
    River elf:\I get what you mean about the incremental approach... One issue at a time but the following quote from the above CCA Email spooks me.

    "Ongoing hatchery review and salmon recovery efforts in Washington waters and the
    Columbia Basin have made it clear that if we are to restore depleted and ESA-listed
    stocks of wild salmon and steelhead, we must reform fishing practices so investments in
    hatcheries, habitat improvements, and hydro operations can be fully realized."

    Does CCA seriously believe that barging smolts and other ineffective programs simply need time to be realized? This has been the BPA and NMFFs line for years. Meanwhile stocks continue to grind toward the brink. I hope you are right and Loomis will change his tune when the harvest picture has been figured out and the organization will take and its own government. These lines leave me wondering...
    I think I may check out their meeting here in Spokane next time they get together...

    Also, I am running down the references to the book tossed out above but are there any other books that would help me understand harvest and over-harvest issues of salmon in the Pacific (or in the Columbia and Puget Sound)? I would love to learn more about the ocean piece of this puzzle.
    Well I'm off to dream about rowing my drift boat passed concrete remnants of Lower Granite Dam... Hey, FISH ON! Ha Ha and a great wet dream it is!
  20. Jerry W,

    Good questions. A couple quick points: God created time so that everything wouldn't happen at once. OK, OK, maybe not as funny as intended. Loomis has chosen to ignore the mainstem dams in the context of his pitch. That doesn't mean CCA will. But CCA isn't taking it on now. There is Earth Justice, and the taking the feds and its dams into Redden's court is their baliwick. Maybe some day CCA will join in that effort, but meanwhile there is other business for CCA to attend to, the anachronism of the LCR gillnet fishery. No organization is big enough to take on everything, and all the organizations together likely aren't big enough to take on all the conservation work that needs doing. Meanwhile, understand that a great many CCA members are well aware of the contribution of FCRPS dams to the decline of salmon and steelhead.


    Salmo g.

Share This Page