I think it's reasonable to sign up with groups that represent your interests and let them represent you at the meetings...it's hard, or impossible, for most folks to make very many of them...this topic (SSMP) at least has several meetings scattered around the state.

I'm not sure if this is true or not, but my impression is that the CCA is going to have a "war chest" and is going to sue WDFW into submission...remember, you only win lawsuits when you prove that someone is doing something illegal...you can disagree with policies, you can disagree with who the policymakers are, or how they formulate their policies, and you can disagree with the implementation of their policies...but if they're not doing anything illegal, then lawsuits won't do a damn thing.

I've heard folks say that CCA is going to do something to change the NoF process...how? It's not illegal...inefficient, unfair, slow, laborious, and particularly unsatisfying, yes...illegal, no. How does CCA intent to change it? Again, you can't just sue people because you don't like what they are doing...you have to point to a particular law that they are breaking, and prove that they are breaking it, and at best you can just make them comply with the law. You can't say "North of Falcon meetings should go like this...and we'll sue you to make you do it this way"...

Until the laws mandating WDFW's behavior are changed, there is always going to be a problem...for every law that says they need to protect and perpetuate species, there's another one that says they have to satisfy a particular standard to stop a fishery, and another one that says they have to provide so many hatchery fish, and another one that says they have to provide a viable commercial fishery, and another one that says they have to provide so much recreational opportunity...and they have their own definitions of what "viable" and "opportunity" mean...and just because it's not the same definition I would use doesn't mean I can sue them over it.

Fish on...

Todd