Well, looks like you've joined the "let's be mean to Jerry" team...which, of course, it is not at all.

I don't know how I can make my point any clearer, but I'll try one more time. Just to be up front, Jerry, I'm not addressing you...you have shown a willingness to overlook all facts and logic in forming and sharing your opinion, and I don't see that changing one iota...this post is for the others who feel I am picking on Jerry.

My number one goal is the protection of the fish, followed closely by protecting the recreational fisheries...most of the time, if pursued in that order, you can do both...healthy fish runs mean healthy fisheries.

To that end, I am both a member and/or board member of several sportfishing and conservation organizations. I participate in those meetings, advisory groups, and ad hoc committees that do a lot of the heavy lifting so far as getting fisheries set and followed.

I participate in the formation of the sometimes very detailed and heavily scientific comments that the WSC provides on virtually every program, agreement, and fishery that affect wild steelhead. In addition to those comments, I write my own and submit them via e-mail and/or snail mail. Often I attend the meetings and testify either on behalf of the WSC, or myself, or sometimes both.

There are many obstacles to overcome in reaching my goals of healthy fish and healthy fisheries...recaltricant managers, policymakers who are sending the resource away from where I think it ought to go, commercial and tribal fishers who are lobbying for more of that resource, to the detriment of either the fish, the fisheries, or both...

Sometimes those obstacles include others who are advocating for sportfishing, because sometimes the things they are lobbying for don't serve the fish or the fisheries.

Some are like what Sg outlined above...in a limited resource there are even allocation issues amongst sport anglers...who gets the fish? The saltwater anglers in the Straits, or the river anglers in Puget Sound? Should they go to the guys with sleds in the lower river, or to the bank and drift boat anglers upstream? All of the above? How do we divvy 'em up, if we want to do it "all of the above"?

The most insidious, and most frustrating, obstacle is the sheer ignorance of some of our sportfishing brethren.

We were all ignorant of what is going on with our fish and our fisheries at some point. Some folks learned about it in school, some went to work in the field and learned about it there. Some just studied the hell out of it and became almost as well-educated about it as the folks who work in the field...I mean, the resources are out there, they're not a secret, and anyone can get ahold of them and learn 'em up.

It even happens that way on these BB's sometimes...folks with particular knowledge or expertise come on here, unbidden and unpaid, and share the information and experiences that they have gathered over the decades while working in the field. They are often the best resources, as they not only have the "book learning", but also know how it all works from a political or social perspective, having dealt with those things for years, too.

Others, unfortunately, form their opinions early based on the false opinions of others, or emotional responses to things that they clearly don't understand.

That's too bad...but all is not lost...like I said, the resources are out there, and when their opinions are shown to be nonsensical, they often seek out the truth, and may even experience a sort of epiphany when their opinions and the facts start to jive, rather than run counter to each other.

Some, however, just can't seem to ever let go of their over-emotional, illogical, and flat out wrong set of "facts"...it's hard enough to try and reconcile different opinions amongst advocates, but when some of them can't even begin to see the facts clearly, then they'll never be able to form a logical opinion and enter the discussion on any reasonable or constructive basis.

Those folks actually do harm to the fish and the fisheries, and by extension to us, the sportfishers.

Because of that, and realizing that my first goal is to protect the fish and the fisheries, I can't just "let it go" when a fellow sportfisher is doing that damage...they are no different than any other person who is doing damage to the goals of protecting the fish and the fisheries.

If folks want to give them a free pass because they belong to the same group as them, or just because they are fellow sportfishers, then that's your decision to make...but it's not the one I'm going to make.

I keep getting e-mails and PM's from folks who are in positions of leadership in the CCA...and you might be surprised at what they keep telling me.

Is it "stop being so mean to our members"? Is it "You don't know what you're talking about!"...?

No, uniformly, they are saying that I am right, that there are folks within their ranks who don't know what they are talking about, and that the ridiculous notions they keep purveying on the internet are most emphatically NOT the opinions of the CCA as a whole. They assure me that useful and meaningful progress is being made behind the scenes, and that the "$25 Experts" are not in line at all with "official" CCA positions, whatever they may be.

Fine...and this I say to them...get your membership in line, and tell them to stop doing damage to the fish and the fisheries. It is not a matter of them speaking officially for the CCA, because everyone knows they do not.

They do, however, proudly display their CCA memberships while spouting their ignorance on these BB's, and that not only does damage to the fish and the fisheries, but to the CCA, and other conservation/sportifishing organizations, as well.

The CCA leaders who send me those notes also often ask me to join up and become part of the CCA...and until the CCA starts reining in their members and starts working on things more concrete than banquets and membership drives, then my answer will uniformly continue to be "no". Like I've said before, it will take a major shakeup when many of those $25 Experts find out that they aren't all that expert about anything, and that their own organization will not be supporting their outlandish opinions...maybe after that first purge of the ridiculous the CCA will be something worth joining for me...we'll see.

Until then, as well as after that, I'll continue to advocate for our fish and our fisheries, and advocate against those who do them harm, no matter what card they are carrying, be it commercial, tribal, or sport...and I won't apologize for it, either.

I'll also continue to share whatever knowledge I have, and whatever resources I've been lead to over the years, and hopefully I can help folks who are looking to learn about our fish and our fisheries, just as others have, and continue still, to help me.

Fish on...

Todd