CCAPNW

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

  1. Steelheadjunky

    Steelheadjunky Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Redmond, WA.
    Topwater,
    Amen to that. From what I read and asked they are more interested in harvest and increasing hatchery fish and when I have asked them about how hatchery fish aren't good for wild fish that they don't resond.
    JJ
     
  2. 509

    509 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    WENATCHEE, WA
    Weren't the CCA folks the anti-net group??

    I will support anybody that will get rid of commercial harvest and nets!!!
     
  3. doublespey

    doublespey Steelhead-a-holic

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    The impression I've gotten from the meetings are that hatchery fish are for harvest and since we've paying licensing dollars for access to them we should get as fair a shake as the commercials. Maybe more, considering the $$$ generated by the sportfishing industry.

    Wild fish and their supporting habitat needs to be protected. There has been no discussion of anything but C&R for wild steelhead. Wild salmon as well, if the stocks are below escapement.

    The focus on harvest is because we're (sports fishermen) paying for the hatchery fish that are then being (in the case of salmon) relegated disproportionately to the commercial fishermen by the WDFW. Like it or not, many members would like to keep a salmon for the table and there is a high level of frustration with the way hatchery stocks have been managed in the past.

    I don't think this is a mutually exclusive position - there are times to fight for allocation (harvest) and times to fight for habitat and protection (native fish). If you look at the history of the National CCA, you'll find plenty of examples of them fighting for habitat and restrictive harvest where necessary.

    Just my .02 - your mileage may vary. :rolleyes:

    Brian
     
  4. Don Freeman

    Don Freeman Free Man

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes Received:
    421
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    It's really gratifying to read all the kudos for CCA in this thread.

    I can respond to a couple of the questions raised here. As president of the Olympia (Capitol City) chapter, I am on the state board and am privy to some of the policy discussions. It is the practice of CCA not to make position statements on issues until all the homework has been done. There are currently six or seven formal positions that have been taken and published. You can read them on the ccapnw website. These have been subjected to extensive peer review by scientists and others to be certain that we can go to the mat on these specific issues, and defend them at any level. We are repeatedly cautioned against making statements that we might not be able to back up later. In the marines, we referred to this as "letting your crocodile mouth get your canary ass in trouble". If a CCA official didn't respond to a specific question, he or she simply might not want to have to retract it later.

    Next, there are a lot of problems affecting our runs. These are being prioritized according to the most dire threats, and the best chance for success when implementing change. Just because there isn't a position published, doesn't mean that the government relations board hasn't heard of the problem. Some of those guys have been in the fisheries forum for nearly 50 years.

    There is now a formal position on hatchery reform. Lee Blankenship of the state hatchery reform research group addressed our chapter last month on hatchery reform and practices. It was a 45 minute, highly professional lecture and I was amazed at how little I know about an issue I thought I'd understood.

    The first Monday of each month, we have a speaker bring us up to speed on the background of each of our formal positions. You are all welcome, 7:00 pm at Lacey Fire Dept at 1231 Franz, across from ST Martins University.

    If there's not a chapter in your area, you can start one. I was so perplexed that there wasn't one here in Olympia with the legislature, agencies, etc. right here within a few blocks of each other, that I contacted Gary Loomis and asked why they had omitted such a critical venue. He told me there wasn't a chapter, because I hadn't started one. I took the hint, and the organization was very supportive in getting us going.

    I won't drag this out by listing all the positions, policies and history of CCA. You can look that up on their website. I hope you do. You can also check a current thread in the Salt section of this forum, entitled "Where are the fish", which I kinda hijacked. A gent named gt raises some very valid critiques of CCA and advocacy groups in general. We welcome skeptics, especially informed ones that ask incisive questions.

    If any one here wants information more specific than is appropriate in a thread like this, pm me, and perhaps I can put you in touch with a chapter near you, or answer simple questions.
     
  5. Chris Bellows

    Chris Bellows Your Preferred WFF Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    2,016
    Likes Received:
    1,205
    Location:
    The Salt
    i've read the position paper on hatchery funding and reform... and the focus seems to be more on funding than reform.

    "Washington CCA supports the important role hatcheries have to play in conserving and sustaining salmon stocks as well as efforts underway to improve the efficacy of these programs."

    you state this is science based but i am unaware of any science that states hatcheries have been successful in conserving or sustaining salmon or steelhead stocks.

    "Funding has remained flat for over a decade without increases to address inflation, inadequate maintenance budgets, or newly required programs such as mass marking. This has
    resulted in reduced smolt production from over 110 million migrants per year in 1993 to
    less than 65 million currently. Washington CCA urges the federal government to fulfill
    its Mitchell Act commitments."

    the focus seems to be on restoring larger plants of hatchery salmon. there is nothing about segregating hatchery fish from wild fish on the spawning grounds. nothing about wild fish sanctuaries. nothing about what i would consider hatchery reform, except reforming them to plant more fish.

    no statements on hydropower, no statements on protecting riparian zones.
     
  6. hookedonthefly

    hookedonthefly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    123
    Amen Brother. Couldn't a said it better.

    Ed
     
  7. hookedonthefly

    hookedonthefly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    123
    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.).

    Ed
     
  8. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    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.

    interesting!
     
  9. Ed Call

    Ed Call Mumbling Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    17,781
    Likes Received:
    2,047
    Location:
    Kitsap Peninsula
    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?
     
  10. hookedonthefly

    hookedonthefly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    123
    Yeah, I know. No goose bumps here.

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

    Ed
     
  11. Chris Bellows

    Chris Bellows Your Preferred WFF Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    2,016
    Likes Received:
    1,205
    Location:
    The Salt
    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.
     
  12. LD

    LD Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    110
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    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.
     
  13. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    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.
     
  14. Josh

    Josh dead in the water

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    3,307
    Likes Received:
    835
    Location:
    NW Washington
    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.
     
  15. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    8,634
    Likes Received:
    2,973
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    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.

    Sg