A poll on IFish was wondering which fishing or fish organization was the best to belong to...there were a few offered in the poll, but most people voted "other" and listed many, many more in the thread.

What do you guys think?

Here's the post I put there...

**************************

I don't think that any one group represents everything that any conscientious angler ought to be concerned about.

While I am the VP of Political and Legal Affairs for the Wild Steelhead Coalition, I also belong to three other organizations, and work weekly with representatives from as many as a dozen more.

Things I see as issues:

1. Opportunity for sportfishermen

This is addressed by working on all the other issues on this list, but more generally is done by addressing things through various channels, i.e., politically, legally, work on the ground, and combinations of all those. No one group I know, except perhaps TU, uses all those channels.

2. Wild fish advocacy

This is accomplished by various types of groups, some being fishing groups, some being conservation groups, some being preseveration groups.

3. Commercial fishing issues

Mainly addressed politically and legally, but from very different and complementary angles. The WSC does it from a limiting wild steelhead bycatch angle...NSIA does is from a greater allocation of harvestable fish for sportfishermen and the businesses that depend on them, as does the NMTA. WT, OT, and NFS do it from the ESA impacts on wild salmonids, steelhead and salmon, angle. PSA and RFA do it from a sportfishing opportunity angle.

All of these are important, and all need to be done, and none of these groups do it from all the necessary angles.

4. Hydro issues

Kind of the same as #3, all the groups address it, but from very different angles.

5. Habitat issues

Some groups spend time planting trees, some picking up garbage, some spreading carcasses, some battling the BPA, or counties, or using the SMA or GMA, or the ESA, or working for funding to fix habitat that's still salvageable, or protecting habitat that's still pristine.

Again, all necessary, and many different groups all work on it to get all the different angles covered.

Sometimes the same groups that band together on, say, the Col. R. net fishery issues, may be on opposite sides of the table when the discussion of proper hatchery techniques comes up. Three or four groups may even represent four non-compatible positions.

In an effort to protect wild fish, some groups may advocate for better selective fisheries, while some may advocate for less hatchery fish. The overall goal is the same, though, because there is no opportunity if wild fish get pushed too far...we'll have no hatchery fish or fishing.

With all these competing needs and philosophies, how does the sportfishing community come together and take the big chunk of political power we have by the horns and wield it with all of our numbers behind it?

To me it's obvious, the various groups have to agree to agree on some things, and agree to disagree on others. Unfortunately, it's just as obvious that most of the folks in the groups, including many here and on other BB's, don't agree to disagree, and also agree to just antagonize each other on everything because they don't agree on everything.

It's stupid and counterproductive, and makes the tribes and commercial fishermen jump for joy.

Fish on...

Todd

If one wants consensus on a topic, then one works beforehand to engender consensus and allows all parties to have their say.

One does not beat the masses into consensus after a special interest group worked out a special agreement.

Personally if I had a chance to input on this decision before it was made, then I would not have an issue.

As it stands now, I do.

What in the hell does that tirade have to do with Todd's topic.

I don't think it was a tirade.. it was an opinion and an observation.

Here's the part it was in regard to:

...the various groups have to agree to agree on some things and agree to disagree on others. Unfortunately, it's just as obvious that most of the folks in the groups, including many here and on other BB's, don't agree to disagree, and also agree to just antagonize each other on everything because they don't agree on everything.

It's stupid and counterproductive, and makes the tribes and commercial fishermen jump for joy...


The "various groups" aren't "agreeing" right now as one group didn't play fair with all groups when the commission made their prelimary ruling.

I say "preliminary" as I think it will be revoked and be the subject of a later meeting that allows for public input.

Actually no Aunty. If you'da said Washington Trout, then I'd be startin' to get a little nervous! :p

When you start injecting hyperbole such as..

'One does not beat the masses into consensus after a special interest group worked out a special agreement.'

...into your opinions they DO start to look more like a tirade than a cogent point.

btw...how exactly do you beat into the masses a message which they appear to support by an overwhelming majority?????

Right now, I'd have to say that the WSC comes the closest to representing my ideas about how the resource should be managed. They've done such a damn fine job of advocating for wild steelhead that they may have even convinced me to reach deep into my pocket and.....okay, maybe not yet but they do have my ear.

Besides, all of the people on this board involved with the wsc with whom I have had communications are truly stand-up individuals. Every single one of them puts the resource first and their desire to exploit that resource second.

My .02

Most of the groups with alot of members such as RFA get things done via support of the membership and not via a concensus of membership. Members join to help a cause of just to be part of the solution. Trying to get any group to agree on everything is impossible so it is the few, the proud and the brave who lead. I think getting involved is the important part. Disagreement is part of the deal with a volunteer group. Patience is also a good thing. Commercial fishing groups have a really narrow agenda and find it easy to unite while sports fishing groups are so diverse we find it almost impossible to unite. So we support each other when we feel like it and oppose each other when we feel like it. There are always passionate people on both sides but at the end of the day there are just a few who lead and try to get others to follow to a satisfctory end. So which group is best is an oxymoronic question. Reminds me of the which truck is best or which rod or reel is best. I do what I do because it suits me and I give something to a process that is so multifacetted it has no absolute best or better way. Even if I disagree with a stand taken by a certain group atleast I can associate how much effort it takes to get involved at all.

Be part of the process and there is no need to hijack the process or sue for that matter. The NOF process is time consuming but it is interesting and vital to those interested in fishing.

Grandpa,

That is one darn insightful post...I wholeheartedly agree with you!

"Getting involved", in the context of sportfishing groups, ranges from buying a membership so that others can speak for you, to attending membership meetings to make your position known, to joining committees within organizations to help shape organizational policy, to speaking for those committees, to being board members who speak for the entire organization.

All are important aspects, and some do several or all of them.

I also think that the more people get involved, the more they discover the intracacies of working in this particular field, and also appreciate the work that others, even the opposition, do in this field.

Thanks for that post...I appreciate you and your work with PSA a lot.

Especially if you can help get us a Lk. Washington Sockeye season!

Fish on...

Todd

I would say PSA and RFA are by far the best groups to belong too.
But it looks like the PLF has the best legal team as shown by the resent court rulings.

You keep bringing this up H2O.... where are you getting this idea? Earlier you said 2/3 are happy with it. I'd guess its more like 50/50. from a poll on this site perhaps? This group is a little biased since some of the board favorites and owner are outspoken advocates of wsr. Most ffishermen in Washington do not know this site exists and know nothing of any polls done here. If you are getting your numbers somewhere else, I'd be interested in hearing about it or seeing some statistics. Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe.

And again, not against WSR, indifferent really.. can see both sides of the issue. Just not caring for the propaganda.

Holy crap.........grandpa, that was a tremendous post you made. Very insightful.


Your tinfoil helmet is working well for you.

Elkrun...

Its not a fact. There hasn't been a study done on it, but there have been numerous polls from varying sources...all of which have indicated the same thing, by about the same margin.

70+ to 30- support FOR statewide wild steelhead release. Far from factual or even scientific admittedly BUT the consistency of the numbers would seem to indicate a trend. Even if all the polls have a ten percent margin for error, that would still be 60 - 40 which is an ovwerwhelming majority, IMO.

Reread exactly what I said...I said I believe its more like75 to 25 (more near what the polls indicate) but I'll give you ten percent margin for error in your favor....still a two thirds majority.

50-50?

Maybe on the OP brotha but statewide?

Like I said...we'll split the difference. After all, yer 'I'd say' numbers are about as valid as my 'internet polls indicate' numbers.

ISSU ( Idaho steelhead and salmon unlimited) is an outstanding organization thats been fighting for sportsmens rights along with ( Idaho rivers united ) for a long time now... The basic issues have been covered for some time.

1> Release of wild stocks manditory
2> Limited tribal fishing
3> No nets
4> No sales by the tribes on steelhead, and very limited sale of salmon if the season permits.

The basics are covered. The only issues that really affect our runs of Salmon and Steelhead are down stream issues. Nets in the Columbia take a large amount of Idaho fish, and and the dams on the lower Snake and the Columbia are an issue also. Seems like Oregon has their act together as well in relation to tribal issues and release of wild stocks. All the crying about the town of Forks Washington is funny... As if thats the only little berg in the woods thats been affected by an ESA listing or the like in the Northwest. Its sort of odd... Idaho is a strong republican state with outstanding enviro laws and could never be concidered "green"... Washington is the state that comes to mind when you think of a " green state " and you would think they could get an handle on some of these issues. The same people who drive around in electric cars drinking "Starbucks".... have gill nets and retention of wild fish. Talking it over with some people we decided that the yuppie crowd from Seattle must not be aware of these issues, or they would be all over it.

No slam on Washington, its a nice place. Its just that you have stupid laws and treatys and can't get together on anything to fix it..

I guess thats a Tirade... But its true.

Then you are speculating by your own admission. No credible sources, only a few internet polls, which I think you'd admit aren't a very reliable sample. so propaganda it is...

by the way, there are fishermen outside of King/Pierce Counties. So yes I'd feel statewide its a closer split than you claim. All this has done is driven a further split amongst our user group, I feel its unlikely we will be able to become a "force to be reckoned with" to make meaningful change. (no I dont think this will be meaningful without the other user groups participating....we have just given them a bigger share) Perhaps the people behind this are smarter than we think... They have let us divide ourselves.... brilliant!

Happy fishing....

Aunty-

I agree 100% that whether or not the majority approve or disapprove isn't all that important, really. I'm sure I'd screw everything up royally if they put me in charge, that's for sure....

I only even brought it up in response to Zen's statement that somehow the wsc beat some sort of message into the heads of the masses.

Elkrun,

As I posted on the other thread, WDFW's user preference survey from almost three years ago found that among steelhead fishermen, over 60% favored mandatory release of wild steelhead. WDFW has also noted that it goes up a few percentage points every year, so it's likely more than that now.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd -
I feel obligated to respond to the continued use of the "urban legend" of widespread support of mandatory WSR.

While it is certainly true that interest and support for WSR and CnR opportunities among steelhead fishers has increased dramatically over the last 2 decades it is my recollection (don't have a copy in front of me) of the 2001 preference survey results don't support your statement:
"As I posted on the other thread, WDFW's user preference survey from almost three years ago found that among steelhead fishermen, over 60% favored mandatory release of wild steelhead"

The survey give the folks several choices in response to a give situation - in the case with 60% support they were presented with a river whose wild steelhead were expected to return at less than the basin's escapement goal but whose hatchery run was at acceptable levels. Choices ranged from complete CnR for both hatchery and wild steelhead, to WSR to harvest of both hatchery and wild. In this case more than 60% support at least WSR. However that is far from a 60% support of a statewide mandatory WSR.

In fact the last question of the survey asked what folks thought the annual limit and daily limit should be for wild steelhead. This is the most germane facet of the survey. It gets directly at the issue of angler support of mandatory WSR. If most supported mandatory WSR as you suggest then more than 50% would have picked an daily limit of wild steelhead of ZERO. However more than 70% opted for a daily of 1 or more wild steelhead.

This would seem to suggest that many anglers are willing to accept WSR when there are hatchery fish for harvest but they still may wish to reserve some opportunity for wild fish harvest, especially if they are the only game in town.

My understanding that WSC and your allies couched your arguments to the Commission in support of WSR on recovering depressed wild stocks and protection of the few remaining "healthy" stocks - biological arguments if you will. This continuing after the fact trying to justify the change based on the "urban legend" of widespread support for mandatory WSR or that WSR will support more recreation are examples of revisionary history and only serve to discredit your original position.

Tight lines
S malma

Thank you for setting the record straight S malma!...

It is also my understanding that Van Gytenbeck and WSC meet prior to the Feb 6th commission meeting to strategize on how to get the statewide WSR passed. Can anyone from WSC verify that or not?

The WSC met with 7 of the 8 commissioners in the month before the Feb. 6th commission meeting.

So Jerry your saying that WSC and Van Gytenbeck did not have a private meeting prior to the commission meeting?

I'm sure that Van was one of the commissioners that the WSC met with.

Jerry thats not was I was asking...

Did WSC and Van Gytenbeck have a private meeting prior to the commission meeting?

Nothing wrong with private meetings boys..that is what makes the world go around. Private doesn't necessarily mean secret of sinister. ...just face to face ...one on one...best way to get things done in my book.

I will put this as plainly as I can Bruce , the WSC met PRIVATELY with 7 out of the 8 commissioners and Van was one of the 7. The commercial fishing groups have lobbied the commissioners privately for years, I would worry more about them.

Grandpa,

You are right of course, "Private doesn't necessarily mean secret of sinister. ...just face to face ...one on one...best way to get things done in my book."

The situation here though is that the WSC met privately with those members at the last minute with the purpose of indoctrinating them with what they called science and facts preventing the opportunity for comment and review by the other parties including the WDFW staff whose science was challenged.

As S malma pointed out, some of the so-called facts and science presented were innacurate and misleading.

The public is mandated to be involved to prevent such miscarriages.

Marsha haven’t yourself, Todd and others been harping that if you don’t like the way things are then we need to get involved?? What does getting involved mean to you? Joining WSC and agreeing with you? Now that we’re “involved” you call it a well organized attack and a witch hunt…. I call it getting involved. :rolleyes:

I also find it interesting that those folks that oppose this statewide ruling have refrained from using terms like “Murder”, “witch hunt” and other derogatory phrase’s like some have resorted to Marsha. From what I’ve seen the folks opposing the ruling have been pretty respectful and have stuck to debating the issue based on the facts.

I'm not going to let you turn this thread into another slug fest Marsha, I would prefer that this thread does not get deleted or closed.

Talk about reaching for straws

I'm closing this and the other thread for a couple of hours till I get back from some business----- seems it needs some baby sitting

To take a break from further instigation towards derision...

One of the most respected clubs is the Steelhead Trout Club of Washington .

Here's a snippet from their history:

On Friday evening January 20, 1928 at a meeting in the Wilsonian Hotel in the University District, the Steelhead Trout Club was formally organized with charter members A.A. Paysse, Roger Cummings. V.J. Nichols, Dick Dunn, Andy Braun, Bill Annis, Floyd Ritchie, Louis Ashby, Al Kurth, Al Bloss, Fred and Gordon Hoyt, Tom Myers, S.P. Paysse, Ralph Lyttaker and Ken McLeod. Lyttaker was named president and S.P. "Buzz" Paysse secretary-treasurer.


Some of their accomplishments:

1930 - Activation of first impoundment on upper Newaukum Creek for rearing of steelheads to migratory size and first two circular rearing ponds by County Game Commission at Tokul Creek Hatchery.

1931 - Twelve of its members served on a 31-member statewide committee to sponsor an initiative for state game control, which culminated in passage of Initiative 62 and abolition of the old antiquated county-control system in the November 1932 election.

1933 - Joined forces with the same group and a coalition of commercial fishing organizations to abolish fish traps by Initiative 77 in 1934 election.

1934 - Took lead in organizing Washington State Sportsmen's Council in a statewide group in May of same year.

1935 - Secured over $l million in federal funds for salmon rehabilitation program culminating in construction of Issaquah and Minter Creek hatcheries and biological station, plus screening of irrigation ditches and power diversions in Western and Eastern Washington for protection of downstream migrant salmon and steel-heads.

1936 - Three club members served on 6-man U.S. Senate appointed committee which negotiated final agreement between U.S. and Canadian fishermen, and ratification of Fraser River Sockeye Treaty by U.S. Senate in five months from date of appointment after 40 years of fruitless effort by others. This created the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission; and two members served on its advisory committee for a combined total of 32 years.

1941 - Secured amendment to Federal Black Bass Law to give additional protection against interstate shipment and sale of steelhead.

1942 - Stopped construction of proposed dams on Deer Creek and Stillaguamish.

1943 - Secured legislation at state level requiring approval of game and fishery departments as to adequacy of all fish protective devices before construction of any projects that would change flow of any river.

1944 - Secured federal legislation requiring participation of state agencies during planning stages of all federal water projects.

1945 - Enactment of law that created State Pollution Control Commission with statutory authority.

1946 - Defeated Governor Wallgren's attempt to take over political control of State Game Department and Commission through Referendum 26 by a 7 to I margin.

1946 - Defeated efforts to build flood control dam on Green River six miles East of Auburn and prevailed on Corps of Engineers to move site upstream to Eagle Gorge above the migration range of anadromous fish. Also played major part in preventing dam construction on lower Nooksack River and at Faber Ferry site on Skagit.

1949 - Member, with Club support, authored Lower Columbia River Salmon Sanctuary Act designed to prohibit all dams higher than 25 feet on tributaries of Columbia below Bonneville, including Cowlitz. Passed overwhelmingly in Legislature and reaffirmed in 1957, and again by vote of the people in 1960, but Tacoma's dams were later approved by U.S. Supreme Court through pre-emption of Federal Power Commission. But did get mitigation providing two hatcheries for salmon and steelheads.

1951 - Started successful stream bank access program.

1953 - New gains in pollution control by requiring permits for dumping effluents into state waters.

1959 - Initiative 25 to Legislature to prohibit Cowlitz dams, in which 110,000 signatures were obtained. Club led all others in number obtained and in finance raised.

1960 - Vote of people approved Initiative, but U.S. Supreme Court overruled it. (See comments under 1949 above, also details elsewhere in this booklet).

1964 - Club obtained over 14,000 signatures on Initiative 215 for unclaimed marine gas taxes, leading all groups for number obtained and for passage of $10 million bond issue for outdoor recreation, and later for a $40 million issue for the same purposes. Subsequent activity has been eternal vigilance to maintain the progress already made.

1969 - Under urging of Club and State Legislature named the Steelhead Trout the official 'State Fish of Washington". Feb. 12,1974 - Federal Judge George Boldt showed his contempt for the United States Constitution in his failure to honor his oath of office to defend it when he exploded his dirty bomb on all that is sacred to Americans - the equal protection of the laws to all citizens of the United States, regardless of race, creed or color.

1978 - Club members hatch and plant 116,000 winter-run and 60,000 summer-run steelhead fry this spring for plant in Tolt tributaries.

1974-1978 - The Steelhead Trout Club has been fighting and will continue to fight this foreign Boldt philosophy until victory or eternity, whichever comes first.

more...

Plunker, the WSC did not present the commission with any info about how many people are for or against WSR( I think that is what you are referring to?). We presented the commission with charts (using WDFW data) showing the decline of steelhead in our rivers.

Did the WSC offer to buy the commissioners hookers or anything good? Maybe a free fishing trip on th e OP? Good old back scratching payola?

Thanks for the clarification Jerry - I had assumed thet the recent "Wild Steelhead Fact Sheet" that Rich has been repeatedly posting recently and that appears on the WSC website or much of that information was included in arguements to the Commissioners.

BTW: I don't see where I had specifically alluded to the presentation of information by WSC about how many people are for or against WSR in this thread.

I'll just assume that is in reference to Smalmas correction about the numbers.

You mean this part of the WSC "Fact Sheet" Plunker? Where did these numbers come from any way?

One thing I know for sure is that when you use numbers and statistics the person or group presenting the statistics can spin the numbers to promote whatever agenda they have. This is a classic case of doing just that. If you want the real picture then refer to S malma’s post where he states the facts.

14. A growing majority of sport fishers clearly prefer a non-harvest plan for wild steelhead. In 1995, 42.3% preferred CnR, 14% preferred harvest, and 43.4% had mixed opinions. In 2001, 49.3% preferred Wild Fish Release, 11.5% preferred releasing all steelhead, 2% preferred to close the fishery, and 33.9% preferred continued harvest (with 3.4% having no opinion). Combined, 65% of those with an opinion in 2001 preferred either CnR or closure for wild fish, even when a river would meet spawning escapement needs.

Surveys are an interesting thing.... I never heard someone quote a survey that didn't support what they believed, even if they knew it was out there. That said, answers can be easily misintrepreted, or even skewed to say whatever you like. Thats common with media surveys.... whatever makes the best story you know! I am always suspect of people spouting out numbers on the board. Most people ask a couple friends or run a poll on a website and call it data. Wrong.... that wouldn't be a fair sampling. Often sampling issues are the biggest problem with faulty numbers. I suspect one or more of these reason are what we are seeing here. a "super-majority" is difficult to get from a large population even on the easiest issue... on an issue as volitile as this, I'd be really surprised if it wasn't closer to 50/50 MAYBE.

That is correct Bruce.

And to quote smalma:

*****

"While it is certainly true that interest and support for WSR and CnR opportunities among steelhead fishers has increased dramatically over the last 2 decades it is my recollection (don't have a copy in front of me) of the 2001 preference survey results don't support your statement:

"As I (Todd) posted on the other thread, WDFW's user preference survey from almost three years ago found that among steelhead fishermen, over 60% favored mandatory release of wild steelhead".

The survey give the folks several choices in response to a give situation - in the case with 60% support they were presented with a river whose wild steelhead were expected to return at less than the basin's escapement goal but whose hatchery run was at acceptable levels. Choices ranged from complete CnR for both hatchery and wild steelhead, to WSR to harvest of both hatchery and wild. In this case more than 60% support at least WSR. However that is far from a 60% support of a statewide mandatory WSR.

In fact the last question of the survey asked what folks thought the annual limit and daily limit should be for wild steelhead. This is the most germane facet of the survey. It gets directly at the issue of angler support of mandatory WSR. If most supported mandatory WSR as you suggest then more than 50% would have picked an daily limit of wild steelhead of ZERO. However more than 70% opted for a daily of 1 or more wild steelhead.

This would seem to suggest that many anglers are willing to accept WSR when there are hatchery fish for harvest but they still may wish to reserve some opportunity for wild fish harvest, especially if they are the only game in town.

My understanding that WSC and your allies couched your arguments to the Commission in support of WSR on recovering depressed wild stocks and protection of the few remaining "healthy" stocks - biological arguments if you will. This continuing after the fact trying to justify the change based on the "urban legend" of widespread support for mandatory WSR or that WSR will support more recreation are examples of revisionary history and only serve to discredit your original position."

*****

Plunker, The only facts that Smalma said were misrepresent were numbers from the angler survey. Nowhere in his post did Smalma say that the WSC misrepresented science as you contend in your post

Plunker
As S malma pointed out, some of the so-called facts and science presented were innacurate and misleading.

I think this kind of innuendo and outright faslehood is what Aunty was calling a witch hunt.

OK " Best Organization" would be all groups comming together to find a solution for the problem.....wont happen cause ya all can't get along!!!!!

" You all can't get along "... thats obvious... ongoing and pretty sad

Jerry,

I was referring to yhe following line from Smalma's post:
"My understanding that WSC and your allies couched your arguments to the Commission in support of WSR on recovering depressed wild stocks and protection of the few remaining "healthy" stocks - biological arguments if you will."

Let's just agree to disagree upon what that meant.

I don't want to join the class of mudslingers and antagonists led by our dear "relative".

I also wish to not degress into petty bickering or nitpicking over barely significant details which detract from the gist of the conversation.

Have you looked into the "Steelhead Trout Club of Washington" that I linked to in the above brief about some of their history and accomplishments?

They, in my opinion, have probably been the finest and most accomplished fishing group in the state over the many years that recreational fishermen have required representation.

I think that sounds like a fine organization Plunker.

TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_ TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_TU_

So, FishDoctor,

Exactly which group is it you like? I can't really tell from your post!



Fish on...

Todd

I think he is into ballet....

Or a famous Bishop named Desmond...

Don,t Know where this post is going but how about we keep it simple?
Without all the bickering? After all, all we want to do is restore the fish runs so our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren can have the same or better opportunitys to fish the lakes and rivers as we have.
I did like B-Run Steelys group, pure and simple(maybe not so simple)
1> Release of wild stocks manditory
2> Limited tribal fishing
3> No nets
4> No sales by the tribes on steelhead, and very limited sale of salmon if the season permits.
I Believe as do the Commercials(who count on it) that the Sports groups will not come together and unite because of the differences between the groups.
If we can agree on these four things or three of them or even one of them, and unite as a group, That we would be a powerful voice in Olympia and they would Listen.
How about United Sports fishermen and Women of Washington.
A lobbiest in Olympia and Mucho cash For the campaign of our future Gov.
I,m sure the commercials have been looking to pay the future governer off already.
With all of the experience, Attorneys, Leaders, and followers on this board Can We do it?
Comments? Ideas?
LETS WORK TOGETHER!
RAMPRAT

Keep in mind that thats not a "wish list"... the things I outlined are the way things are here in Idaho. These issues have been handled for years. CR of all wild stocks is 20 years old over here. The tribes can't use nets and they can not keep any wild fish... they can't sell steelhead period.. true story.

In the end, if you could just understand that CR of all wild stocks is the only tool you will ever have if you plan to take on the tribes and commercials in the future. I wonder how good fishing would be if our fish did not get hammered in the C.R by nets.

That Bolt Character really screwed you guys bigtime... Some of the things that happen over there in Washington are so wrong that its totally amazing that they happen at all. When you read about tribes catching salmon and taking the eggs and throwing the fish away etc over there it almost sounds like a B.S story- It would seem that if a national T.V show like 20/20 did a story on things like that it would get stopped dam quick. As I mentioned before, I don't think the people in this country are aware of this abuse of a natural resource. You guys can't get together on anything so let the rest of the country see what your complaining about.... Think that people would care if you showed the whole nation your tribes using wild steelhead for crab bait ??? Its like a crime going on in your backyard.. and its legal

interesting idea B-run.... except the media wouldn't touch it. Its not PC. I suspect they have been alerted many times. I personally called the Tacoma News Tribune when I was fishing the Puyallup and saw a huge mound of salmon laying on the beach, baking in the hot sun.. Never made the news.

Go national, while the local news might be afraid of these issues the national media would eat it up.

Easy lead in- show some Japanese stuffing their faces with Chum salmon roe... then show the rotting fish.. Throw in some shots of the casinos that the tribal members won't work in, some cheap smoke shops and fire works stands... selling wild steelhead for less than a buck a pound, and throwing away what does not get sold.

Sounds like a horror story ?? Thats because it is. Think of the money end of it all... suppose the sales of C.R salmon are even 1/10th of the cost ??? Doubt it. The whole thing ranks right up there with clubbing baby seals or killing bears for their gall bladders