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.

Well you and I both know that I never posted that comment above, Nice try though.

Jerry,

Your approach suggests you don't really like to debate. You just like to argue.

The reason for the limited chinook fishery in the Green has nothing to do with a lack of harvestable hatchery chinook. It is about allocation (the non-treaty share being caught in the Pacific Ocean, the Straits, Puget Sound, and Elliot Bay) and the ESA. The MIT hold the trump card controlling the terminal area sport fishery. If you want more GR chinook allocated to freshwater harvest, you'll have to get into the North of Falcon Process and reduce saltwater interceptions so that more will be left for river fishing. You might find strong resistance from other interests who prefer to take their GR chinook while they are still in the salt, bright, and on the bite. Also, I think there is an ESA issue wherein the non-treaty ESA impacts have been mostly taken by the time the fish enter the Green, leaving few or no remaining for freshwater fishing.

The upshot is that it has nothing to do with your contention that it cannot support both treaty gillnetting and rod and reel sport fishing. Why am I not surprised.

OK, I just learned that GR steelhead haven't made escapement lately. They were doing so better than most PS runs, but have recently hit the skids as well. Again, the indication is PS wide that wild steelhead runs are presently limited by early marine survival, but as long as you can see a river gillnet any time of the year, even when wild steelhead are not presesnt, I don't expect you to believe it. As long as you rely on visceral knowledge, you have nothing to debate.

Now that you admit that allocation and conservation are one and the same issue to you, you betray your participation in these BB debates. It's just a forum for pointless arguing for you. Would you like to inform us how allocation and conservation are the same, or would such an attempt further betray your overall lack of understanding of what each concept means? All the harvestable fish can be allocated to one party with conservation being achieved by simply not harvesting into the escapement part of the population. A dead fish is a dead fish, no matter who or what gear type caught it. As long as escapement is met, it doesn't matter if all the catch occurred in saltwater or fresh, by hooks or by net. Your contention is beyond misunderstanding; it conveys ignorance.

You may be tired of sportsmen getting what's left, but what alternative is there if other sportsmen decide thru legal channels to take most of the non-treaty chinook in saltwater fisheries. Obviously you're only going to get the crumbs unless you can form a coalition interest that negotiates for a larger freshwater harvest allcation. Be tired of it all you want, but unless you're going to do something about it, you're just spewing verbal flatulence here.

Onemorecast,

At least you added the flame.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Again Salmo our entire reply makes my point......Overharvest. Reread it if you must and maybe you could explain what you meant by "adding the flame"?

adding the flame was for onemorecast's comment

Jerry

Your contention is that sportfisherman are overharvesting Green River Chinnok in the saltwater thus leaving less for the river fishery.


Again just trying to understand your point better

Joe

once again, the statement is false.
They only caught 499,000 Kings plus a bycatch of 120,000 in the Pollock fleet. Thats not Millions

Then they caught 2.9 million coho

Ok thats millions, but in reality 90% of those coho actualy would return to alaska's streams or rivers.

Ok so they caught 160,000,000 pinks ugh who cares?

Then they caught a millions of chum. Who cares

The reality is that the numbers of Kings and Coho in general are low. They expected to catch another 1,800,000 Coho.

Picking a fight with Alaskas commercial fleet is a mistake.

As is countiuning the thread.

Jojo Overharvesting is going on everywhere thats my point. In the Ocean, Columbia River, BC waters, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and elsewhere.

The numbers in the topic post simply show that. This whole thread shows this.

We cannot overharvest are fish into recovery!!!!!!!!!

I guess I don't see what your seeing in regards to data showing obvious overharvest everywhere. It's obviously just an emotional reaction by you without any scientific data to back you up.

Joe

Jerry

if you enjoy reading I would highly recomend the book "Salmon without Rivers" it may be enlightening for you.

"verbal flatulence".

That's funny!

Seems to me that the original post on this is full of data.

Ok Jerry I give up. Pinks, chums, and sockeye harvested in alaska are not coming to washington so your number just don't jive. But you should read that book, I think you would enjoy it. I have had enough on this thread.

Joe

So Joe, where's your data explaining that Washington Sockeye, ( Lake Washington fish) and all those chum and pinks do not migrate to Alaskan and BC waters as you stated above once they leave Washington rivers and streams?

All ready read it some time ago. Good read though.

I am concidering joining CCA. After reading this, maybe there is a greater cause to spend my money on.

It's time to spend your efforts in helping, not hindering progress. We all share the same passion, after you read this crap, you'd be hard pressed to believe anything.

Quit bashing one another and work together.

Kevin, the way I look at is this its only $25.00

Thats like 8 gallons of gas or
1/8 the cost of a new reel or
6 bags of worms or
a cheap bottle of booze

I had a extra 25.00 so what the heck I gave it to them.

If they do something I agree with I will give them more money next year.

Jerry,

If you knew what you're talking about, you'd already know that WA sockeye, chum, and pink have an ocean migration path that mostly keeps them out of AK territorial waters. But you don't know what you're talking about in this thread. More verbal flatulence from you; you're just being a gasbag who likes to argue and continues to shift the attack to keep the argument going. I'm gonna' see if I can make that ignore function work.

Sg

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

Salmo and Todd can we all 3 agree on this? Overharvesting in our Oceans, streams and rivers is a problem toward recovery of our fish stocks?

If so I would be happy to leave it alone as this is the only point I have been trying to make.

Again I do not see us Overharvesting our fish into Recovery.

Is that so far out of line or is there some other science, legal issue, report or whatever I need to read to be corrected?

Seriously, not trying to hurt are fish, fishery or anything else. I have grown up here in this state and remember fishing here in the '70's '80's '90's and the 2000's and its the same old story........who's going to catch the last fish?

I just want to see fish healthy and healthy fishing populations for the future.

I really think that it is time to just drop all this right fighting. It gets nowhere constructive and just perpetuates the longest lasting problem amongst sportsfisherman and that is; I have seen the enemy and it is I.

Truth is I believe we all want the same thing with different perspectives. Nothing is going to be won here and much damage can occur. Choose how and where you want to fight and do your absolute best. I have obviously chosen CCA and devote a large part of my time each day promoting what I believe I can stand behind. I will not try to make Todd or anyone join CCA but I look forward to the day when the WSC and CCA work together for the good of the resource. There are many good and positive ways to place your energy...here or any other board has proven to not be one of those areas. It is a great place to have the opportunity to have great dialogue with folks. But that only works if you can check your ego at the door and quit right fighting, if you are not able to do that then just be quiet and get prepared for your next meeting the resource needs your energy.

JimB

"I just want to see fish healthy and healthy fishing populations for the future."

As do we all, or we wouldn't be here having this conversation at all...but if you want to do more than just see it, but want to participate in making it happen, then educate yourself on what is limiting the productivity of our fish runs, educate yourself on how to effectively counter those limits, and put your emphasis there.

There are damn few places where overharvest is the limiting factor on our fish runs, and man of those places are being overharvested by tribal fishing that is federally protected. There are no fisheries targeting "Gary Loomis' fish", no matter how many times he says it. Salmon and steelhead are NOT returning at better numbers in the Columbia River since the dams were put in, no matter how many times Gary says that, either.

Like I said, the resources are out there, and they are free...books, reports, online or in hard print, and in the actual experts that are on these BB's, guys like Salmo g. and Smalma who have worked in those fields for decades, not just during the past eight months as $25 Experts.

Overharvest is only a problem where we are overharvesting...that may sound pretty damn obvious, but clearly it's not because there is a large contingent of people who seem to think that everywhere someone other than sportsfishers are harvesting fish, they are overharvesting.

Allocation is most emphatically not the same as conservation...as a matter of fact, they are exactly the opposite.

Conservation is making the pie bigger, allocation is dividing the pie up and eating it.

Fish on...

Todd