Don -
If you re-read my posts in this thread you'll find that I never attributed any statements to CCA. Rather after FNP posted a second time regarding issue #5 I posted questions directly to him.

When you responded to that post (by the way I don't mind having those kinds of debates/discussions - it is the way we all learn) I directed my comments directly to you. Again never referring to CCA at all.

It was the first post that said -
"Where is CCA headed on pertinent local issues? Here are six areas where the organization has taken an OFFICIAL position, as outlined by distinguished Govt Relations Co-Chair Frank Haw."

If you or lead Bouncer have issues with that statement I suggest that you take it up with the FNP or Mr. Haw and not myself.

Lead Bouncer -
regarding your questions -
1. - Out front impacts
I don't recall using that term. I believe that the original posting talked about "front loaded" fishreies and I repeated the use of that term. In this case I took that term was used to describe those fisheries that were occuring prior to any in-season updates.

2. Where is the data?
Not sure what data you are referring to. However there is wealth of data on who is catching what stocks of fish from code wire tag information. In the case of the Puget Sound Chinook (ESA listed) and stocks I assume that a Olympia Chapter of CCA might have concerns about. The data is pretty clear that except for the Samish hatchery fish that we recreational fishers collectively have greater impacts on those stocks than the non-treaty commerical fisheries - the reason of course is that in Puget Sound Chinook have been given a recreational priority with no direct non-treaty commerical effort at those Chinook (except for the above mentioned Samish fish).

If you have specific question regarding particular stocks I probably can dig up specific data if you desire.

3. What level of responsibility does the state and the commercial fisherman have, to create the results that you are concerned about.

As alluded to above I feel that Tribal, non-treaty commerical and recreational fisheries all contribute to those problems. Experience has shown that doing much about the Tirbal piece is pretty tough., However that should not prevent us from addressing the other two pieces. I merely suggested that if we wish to hold the commerical idustry to a conservation standard that the recreational fisheries should be prepared to live with the same standard. If we take the time to inform ourselves about the details of these issues and the various fisheries coming up with standards that most folks can live with should be doable.

4. How large is the "out front impact" of a 1500 foot ghost net?

I have no idea what the impacts would be from such a ghost net. I suspect that it would range from near zero to pretty substantial depending on the condition and location of the net. I do however applaud any and all efforts to addrss dealing with that lost gear. Though I not sure what that has to do with a discussion on Issue #5.

5. FNP and DF don't speak for cca or the GRC. If you want an answer, you can send a letter or email to vancouver or the GRC Chair.

Again I did not ask either FnP or DF to speak for CCA; rather I asked them direct question regarding their posts. Nowhere did attribute anything to CCA - it was others that did so.

I do find it laughable that you refer me to direct my questions to Vancouver or GRC chair. If some one questions any thing in reference to a potential CCA postion that seems to be the stock answer. However if some sees some of the same "information" and decides they like it and sign ups for CCA I don't you and others saying wait a minute those are not official positions and they might want to contact Vacouver or GRC chair prior to enlisting to get a better clarification of their postions.

It all has the appearance of CCA supporters what to have best of both sides of the issue. Sorry but does not instill a lot of confidence.

Sorry but no where in this discussion have I made this about CCA. Rather I merely asked questions about the direction expressed in issue #5 and what such a position might mean for recreational fishing.

As always I have made my priorities -
#1 - the fish
#2 - increasing the information available to anglers so that they can form informed opinions and take effective actions
#3 - recreational opportunities

To date I have chased those priorities as an indepent and will likely continue to do so. Though I more than willing to work with others when our goals match up.

Tight lines
Curt