I completely agree with that. In fact, I don't believe any advocacy group can be effective without a multi-faceted plan of attack that deals with both habitat and harvest. I also feel that the "H's" are very broad terms and have room for much improvement from all user groups. Strategy, I would think, would have to be applied at a macro level as well, as the threats facing the runs seem to vary by region, so, it doesn't seem there is any one solution to restore fish populations, which means more resources required applied across many factions to effectively enact change. A mystery for me is whether the CCA plans to use it's funding to build alliances or fight in court or both. Will the banquets fund an endless court battle that you'll have a hard, costly time pursuing or are there going to be closed door concessions made? There are huge powers in place here that have been organized and effective long before the CCA showed up, builders trade organizations, commercial fishing lobby, tribes, etc. These guys have a lot of pull and some of them I would doubt that you could even bring to court. These groups are also not concerned about a recreation, but for a standard of living and their careers are effected by the changes needed for restoration, they're gonna fight tooth and nail. I understand that it's a very complicated issue and that the answer to this folly may take years to explain to someone like me, but a group that can form a consensus with a tactful plan that encourages advocacy and restoration is a fantastic idea and I want to be a part of that.

JimB,

Thanks for the note. Your quick addressing of my questions is much appreciated and proves you are a worthy representative for such a group. I would have to equate that with a strong work ethic and a tireless passion that is refreshing to witness in midst of this often ugly debate. I took the liberty to review previous posts of yours and you seem to be consistent in your statements concerning the CCA and are seemingly always willing to bend an ear, thanks again. From a layman/rookie point of view, the issues to be examined that concern me most can still be characterized under the two main H's. Habitat, that addresses development and construction practices, encroachment by them on the habitat, (farms, communities, sceptic systems, waste, ground water concerns, pcb's, etc), logging practices, habitat restoration through lawsuit or philanthropy and volunteerism, industrial waste, dams, recreational waste, the list seems endless. Harvesting, this one has been beaten to death on this board, but I think everyone can agree that restrictions on harvesting are a suitable first step in some areas but are not the limiting factor in other areas. Getting to my point here, I am curios as to whether the agenda is built by the participants or if the agenda is dictated by a "manger" level group. Has the strategy been pre-determined or is it something that you are requiring the separate chapters to formulate and build a consensus? I understand now that strategy is best kept under cover currently, however I get a little shy when I don't see a mission statement, an ethos or action items to support your direction. Although I understand the need for a certain amount of secrecy, I have a hard time not equating direction with organization, and that's a difficult hurtle for me to jump over. Once more, I appreciate your concern and that someone of your nature is working hard on this for my behalf, before I've even signed up, I hope that soon someday we can work together on restoring our dwindling resource.