Have a little patience Parker. CCAPNW is what, a year old?

Question to Todd. Remember back when WSC was first stating?/ We would meet at Ted's, sit around on folding chairs and listen to a few "enlightened individuals" talk about their hopes and desires to get C & R statewide for ALL native steelhead. How long did it take to get the state to come around? Never mind the fact that it is still not a state wide regulation. Did it happen in one year? Two? More? I finally got tired of listening to it and left.
I'm not saying that the WSC hasn't gotten some things done but... it didn't happen over night or in a year. There is strength in numbers and i've kicked in my coin this year to help. I'll give them a chance for a few years also. Heck $25 isn't even half a tank of gas these days. I'll go fishing one less time each year and I can sponser a friend or two.
I think it is at least worth a try.
What has negativity ever accomplished?
Those who say it can't be done should get out of the way of the people who are doing it.

A light in all the darkness, thanks Stever.

I think Parker's concerns are valid and you can bet your bippy JimB will take that information/criticism with him to the state board. I have an advantage in that I can pick up a phone and contact/pester somebody to get answers.

One reason I gave up on the RFA is that communication to the membership stunk, unless you were also a PSA member. Besides that, it just started to have the appearance of a closed, secret society and CCA is anything BUT that.

I will say that NSIA, despite criticism, ALWAYS keeps folks up to date. That Liz Hamilton is a smart cookie and we need to learn from her example.

If you really want to make a difference, join a bunch of groups that most closely share your views. Who cares if you get counted as being represented 2-3 times in front of the commission or a politician?

Yes and no aunty m, in the local chapters in the PDX area, the goals and positions aere made by the chapter members that go on to the state level. As for the all hatchery fish are bad for wild fish, there is science on both sides of that argument. Its largely based on how the hatcheries are ran and the stocks used. But this discussion is not for this thread.

I’m sincerely interested in knowing who made that statement and the seminar where the statement was made and if the person making the statement identified themselves as representing CCA. Any information you can provide is appreciated.

Thanks in advance

I joined CCA at the first organizational meeting on March 3, 2007. CCA, at least in SW Washington, is now 14 months old.

Our chapter has 1,014 paid members. There are 17 chapters in Oregon and Washington. More than 6,000 members in the two states.

Not bad in 14 months.

None of our problems took only 14 months to develop. And it will take 3-5 years to make inroads in fixing them.

CCA acts with a focus that is amazing to observe. Right now is the first stage --- membership. This coming year is fundraising and the building of political alliances. As that occurs we will have the capability begin to effect real change.

To be down on CCA because we haven't "fixed" your problem after 14 months of existence is pretty silly.

Parker --- Send me your address and I'll gladly refund your $25.

Folks,

You can't expect the CCA to detail out all of the fronts they are working on and spill out their plans to the general public. Why potentially notify the opposition of your goals? If you have questions about what is going on, get involved and learn about what's going on!

Parker, how many Chapter Meetings have you been too?

if you don't participate, you can't expect much.


I hope to see many of you at our Chapter fundraiser May 20th at the Everett Events Center.

I don't think anyone is disillusioned...yet...that the CCA hasn't solved all their problems in 14 months.

What they're disilllusioned with is that the CCA hasn't even told them what they stand for in 14 months, besides boosting $25 memberships and selling banquet tickets.

I wouldn't give any group a dollar until I know what they stand for, and anyone who tells me to "trust them" and just sign up must either think I just fell off a turnip truck, or more likely just fell off one themselves. That doesn't even take into account the made up Cedar Creek story that is being used to sell those memberships and banquet tickets...not trustworthy at all on that one.

People aren't asking about secret strategies, or looking for an attorney to come out and outline their legal arguments, or anything like that...how about just what do you stand for? Is it really that hard?

Like Parker said, so far all they stand for is an amorphous "save fish and fishing" with no explanation whatsoever, and selling memberships and banquet tickets.

stever, whatever you might think about the WSC, you knew what we stood for and what we were going after from Day 1.

You weren't bombarded with "membership drives", you didn't pay for your membership, and then get hounded into not only dropping more change on banquet tickets, but to have to go out and schlep banquet tickets, too.

You certainly didn't have to re-up 12 months later and still not know what we stood for...you already knew for 12 months what we stood for.

You mention WSR? Within 18 months of the WSC's formation we spearheaded the drive that reduced the limit from 30 wild steelhead to five, and the following year won the moratorium ending sport harvest of wild steelhead. That moratorium was reversed, and a one fish limit was reinstated.

Rather than sell memberships and banquet tickets, we actually went out and did something that we said we would do, that everyone knew from Day 1 that we were after, and got almost all the way there in two years.

Going from a 30 fish limit on twenty seven rivers, to a 1 fish limit on seven, is a direct result of doing exactly what we said we would do...from Day 1.

I didn't see any need to bring the WSC, or any other group into this conversation, since this conversation is about what the CCA hasn't done in the past year, not about other groups...but since you bring it up, thanks for bringing up a perfect example of how to get it done...come up with a goal, tell your membership what it is, how you're going to do it, and then go and do it...

Fish on...

Todd

CCA Positional Statements have been drafted. If you care to find out what they are, join a chapter, attend some meetings, and get involved. Otherwise, you won't hear about them, not here anyway, yet.

SLowleak, that statement was made at the Springer seminar at Outdoor Emporium. However, I can't remember the guys name. Now that I think about it that was probably in March.

After giving this some thought I guess I should attend some meetings and learn firsthand what is going on then decide to join or not. I assume prospects are allowed to attend meetings without joining right away.

WRO, Two different states and the differences between management in regards to hatcheries is like night and day. The two CCA state chapters will have to take that into account when developing a policy. I am under the impression ya'll in Oregon may have an easier time than we will, because you don't have as many tribal fisheries and I think your managers have done a better job with hatcheries.

Sorry for bringing up the WSC Todd but I figured it was important to note that there are groups with specific goals and agendas to note. CCA has none at this time, Too bad the WSC is only about steelhead though.

I like some of the stuff I read about CCA; however when I hear their new members jumping up and down "we are the CCA" and acting as though they are going to conquer a bunch it makes me realize just how little they know about how big a fight in this state it is.

Between the commercial powers and the Boldt crap those are big damn mountains to climb. Taking a stance and making a position would be a good start if you really want to boost your membership.

I am really watching to see how many Parkers there are out there. What will the membership be after 2 years? 8,000 ... or 4,000?

My 2c or less but I joined both the WSC and CCA the same day. I am a firm believer in numbers and from a political perspective I believe the CCA will have a large, positive impact on fisheries in this state at some point in the future.

That being said I would like to see more of a rifle vs. shotgun approach such as the WSC has implemented. Focus on an issue that helps all of us NOW such as DERELICT NETS in Puget Sound/San Juans...make that the first focus issue as each day we could remove 1-4 purse seines or gill nets that are raping the bottom of Puget Sound as we sit here arguing. EVERY single day would be a good day and do something measurable that actually enhances our fisheries and the health of the Sound. That ONE issue should have no resistance from any user group including commercials, tribes, sporties, bird lovers, seal lovers etc...in fact the major contributors to the current effort right now are the tribes. In two years with the right pressure and funding reallocations from Olympia we could remove thousands of nets and crab pots from the bottom of PS. Just one little issue amongst many but if I was CCA that is where I would start. Cheers

Well, as boldly put by some CCA member(s), what good are 8,000 members who do not go to the meetings?

Apparently, other than 8000 x $25, we're not worth a whole lot.

Yes you are worht a lot Parker. In fact, CCA needs guys with smarts like you to be involved.

But let's be honest here. You aren't much of a joiner. You are in the middle of the "kid" years and time is more valuable to you than to me, who has more than enough extra time on her hands.

SkyGuy...for real? Join a chapter (pay my $25), attend a few meetings, and then find out what I'm funding with my $25?

Are you fuckin kidding me?

B-Run brings up some very good points...there are really two ways to look at things...from a conservation standpoint, or an allocation standpoint. There's some inevitable overlap between the two, but mostly they are two very different perspectives.

Clearly the membership is mosly an "allocation" team...they want the nets out, they think they will get commercial fishing banned, and they are under the "Twilight Zone" fantasy that they are going to change the Boldt Decision.

They are also clearly under the impression that Gary's Cedar Creek story is Gospel, rather than the bogus story it really is.

These are the folks that are spending their $25, and comprise at least 90% of the membership.

What's gonna happen when none of their pipe dreams come true?

There is a handful of people in the CCA that consider themselves, and their organization, a "conservation organization"...which, if they actually are, will run directly counter to the other 90% of their members, who will jump ship in one minute.

Then where's the CCA gonna be?

Which one are they? You can't even tell, because they won't tell...they have people saying one thing, and most of their membership believing a very different thing...which is it?

What in God's name would I want to put money into an organization that doesn't even tell me what the hell it's going to do with my money? Are you guys for real that you actually think this is a good idea...to pay money to someone who you don't even know if they will at all represent your interests?

Don't tell me to "go to a meeting and get involved and play a part in the direction of the organization"...I read the stupid polls that CCA members keep putting up on BB's about how they're gonna overturn Boldt and ban commercial fishing...like I said, that's what 90% of the sheep actually believe...I'm supposed to think that my "vote" on the direction the organization takes will matter when that's what the other 90% think?

Think again...or more to the point, start thinking.

The one single issue that the CCA has made a stance on is selective commercial fishing in the LCR...but for some reason most of their membership seems to interpret that as "we get more fish, and more wild fish spawn"...when the truth of the matter is that it means no such thing, neither of them.

What's going to happen when the 90% of the folks who think this will improve their fishing find out that it doesn't...not one bit...and that their leadership either didn't tell them that now...or worse, actually believes themselves that it will?

Fish on...

Todd

Its all about the coin my friends and any of you who cant understand that well you must have one heck of a life style not to mention live in the ice age. I do not frown one bit on there focus to fill the Chest. They are not hiding that fact one bit. I look at organizations like Green Peace and wonder how they get as fare as they do with shutting down issues that they do not feel is in there best intrest of there cause and it sticks and when it doesnt they jump right back in and put there foot down. Why because they stand as one united group with huge political clout and loads of CASH. Correct me if I'm wrong they make changes maybe not for the better for some folks but they make things happen. Even if the CCA passes a few laws do you think that the opposition will not try and fight it in other avenues of the court. It takes money to fight these things and how I see it without everyone joining one group then nothing will happen long term as is the case. The problems is way to huge for us in our own little groups to make things happen.

Your not ever going to change the fact the fish equal money and real money in the case of the salmon! The sport fishing industry spends more money than you could even begin to imagine. The Harvest Fishery is the same but doubtful the money is even close to what we do annually. Greed on both parties, guilty maybe but true manging of these resources must be made so the balance between all can be shared. The fact is the Sports fisherman can be selective but the Gill nets cant thats why they are outlawed in Russia but not in the USA?? Its a costly battle and I cant see another way than CCA holding there hand out asking for CASH.Paying for selective Harvest methods If it comes down to that then thats what we do again CASH.

We fought Fuji Rod components for years at the cost of Millions so we could sell Guides to the market. Even though we were right all along, they fought us to the end and we won. We ultimately joined our other Competitors in this industry and pulled in our recourses from other countries to make this happen. Did we like they way they did business, no but going in individually would have crushed us financially so all I can say history will repeat it self over and over again and this is the way it works in this world. You have to join forces if you like it or not because it takes numbers and cash to back it up.

I do not care at this point if CCA learns as it goes and I expect that, the fact is they know how to gain members and will bring in the cash to support it when the time comes. Will CCA still be around in Ten years to keep fighting the battle? Well by the looks of there numbers in other States i would have to believe yes. Just tell me one other organization that is this large and is focused on our fish for the sport fisherman then I will support that one too.

Tood its folks like you that pioneer and help lay the foundation to get things done and without groups like yours we would be in a bigger world of hurt there is no doubt but it takes a ton of money to do what you ask due to the court system and political clout. CCA needs your input and effort to help speed up the process of attending to the issues that you worked so hard to bring to the table. I bet that if you were to talk with CCA they would welcome your ideas and most likely add them to there line up. Fifteen years doing this I would think you know more than most of the members and folks trying to get this off the grounds. Its that type of feed back and field work data they need when its time to go to battle and use the Cash that CCA has collected. The way you handle your anger on this site about the CCA shows your extremely passionate about the wild fish and I respect that. Gary made a few great points about needing all kinds of educated folks not only Lawyers and judges but people like you who have good field data from doing it. If some of you do not want to be apart of this program then at least keep doing what you have been doing and hopefully in time they can work with you in the future.

I think you are talking through your hat. How can you purport to tell us what "most" of the 6,000 Pacific Northwest members of CCA are thinking? According to you, "most" of the 6,000 members think they will get commercial fishing banned and overturn the Boldt decision.

That is nuts.

Tell us what you think, not what 6,000 members think.