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?