Would nt it be nice if we could just find something to agree about. Imagine what could be done if we all spoke the same about something.......

Todd try attending a meeting or two in your area, expect you could find something to chew on. General meetings are open. I believe that at the Kitsap meeting we had a tribal bio in attendance. As I said the meeting was open and he could have asked any question he wanted.

Now as long as we are on the issue of meetings, here is our nxt one.

Thurs, 29 May from 7 to 9 PM at the Silverdale Community Center

How do you really feel about it Todd? I can honestly say you do make some good points though. I joined because of seeing what impact they had in Florida and still do. I figured I would pay the 25.00 and see what happens. I personally support a no kill wild steelhead state (but would'nt the tribes just take more?) and would be in favor of a no kill wild salmon state as well if it comes to that. I just want to be able to fish. I dont think allocation is as important as still having the opportunity to c+r these great fish. Taking on the tribes is a huge mountain to climb but I honestly think that taking on other commercial fishing interests in this state can be accomplished. I dont know wether to buy into the GL story or not but I have seen this Conservation group have a dramatic impact on dwindeling fisheries in my other home state and am willing to help with my membership and a few donations here and there to help the cause. You may be right but I hope you are not. BTW I appreciate the hard work you and others have done at WSC as much as I appreciate the donation of time and effort that is going on with CCA. I dont know what the answers are but by reading your and others posts I am starting to get a grasp of some of the key issues. Good Luck.-TBJ

Todd,

You don't need to join to listen.

No, I'm not kidding, that's free.

I'm not going to begin debating the validity of Gary's story with you. Like you, I am suspicious of some of the numbers as well. Irrespective, I am not going to let that detour me from my goal of helping to make the CCA-PNW as great of an organization as it can possibly become. Gary's presentation wasn't the reason I joined the CCA.


You've pointed out that the CCA is taking an alternative approach to gaining members. You're right, Typically a group galvanizes itself around an issue and forms a coalition, and raises funds to address assist addressing a problem. The CCA is taking a different approach. We are "building the warchest" first, then allowing the membership to vote on what issues and position we will take. That's why it's taking a while to come up with positional statements and begin working on issues.

It's true, the CCA is asking alot of people to donate their money and time to join a cause that is not yet fully defined. There's going to be alot of questions initially.
However, the one thing in common amongst all the members that have joined is this. They want to see changes happen, and right now, attempting to form a large group of recereational anglers behind a group that has a proven track record is the best thing we have going for us in this state.

Power in Numbers....

Seriously?? It's my impression that most Bio's at the WDFW too laugh at the numbers........

So assuming your correct you'd think a quick phone call to the DFW would result in some documentation in which Gary apparently has and would put the knife in the coffin to validate Mr. Loomis' crazy #'s......

Keith

Keith

Thumper,

Find the polls on this BB, on gamefishin, on steelheader.net...and read the comments.

Some of them have been titled things like "How long will it take for the CCA to ban Commercial Fishing?", and stuff like that...then read all the comments from all the posters...not only do they think it's gonna happen, but they think it's gonna happen soon, and that the CCA will do it.

They have polls out there about tribal fishing, too, and the Boldt Decision, and the majority of the self-proclaimed members who post on those subjects almost uniformly say the same things...CCA will change the Boldt Decision, and either significantly change, or even end tribal fishing.

Maybe the folks who post on these BB's aren't representative of the entire CCA membership, but 90% of the ones who are members and respond in those polls sure think that...look back through this thread and you'll see numerous references to "ending this" and "banning that"...most of the folks on these BB's tend to be better informed than the rest, since they can clearly use a computer and are exposed to many opinions and issues all the time, and if they believe those things, I can't imagine what the less-informed who have never heard much of the truth think when they walk up to the CCA booth at a Fair and hear that stuff...

You wanna know what I think? I think that most of the members actually believe Gary's story about how WDFW purposely killed "his" run of 32,000 coho...I think most of the members believe the CCA will end gillnets, at least, if not commercial fishing altogether...I think that most of the members believe that the Boldt Decision can be "changed by the CCA"...and I think all of the members who believe those things are going to be very, very disappointed...and will drop like flies when it doesn't happen the way they thought.

Fish on...

Todd

Keith, I posted the links to WDFW's numbers, and wrote out the numbers themselves, in the last "Gary's Fantasy World" thread...and they are not Gary's numbers, or anything even in the same world as Gary's numbers, much less the same ball park.

Fish on...

Todd

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Now we know what you think, rather than what 6,000 members in two states think.

A couple of points:

This is not about Gary Loomis. Gary lit the fuse. 6,000 people are fanning the flames. I don't care how you feel about Gary. If you attended one of his talks you would know that the thrust of his comments is that overharvesting (ocean and freshwater) is a big part of the problem, and that non-selective harvest complicates the issue, both as bycatch on the high seas and as bycatch on our state waters (such as the Columbia River). Do you disagree?

As a CCA member, and not speaking for the other 5,999, I think that CCA will indeed be instrumental in changing harvest techniques towards methods that favor selective fisheries. Do you disagree?

And frankly, after 14 months of meeting and discussing these issues, your comments about the Boldt decision are the first time I have heard reference to the judge's decision by a CCA member. I would be amazed if the majority of CCA members could even describe the Boldt decision, much less argue about it as a CCA objective.

So let's keep talking facts, and not hyperbole.

Jack,

You'll note that I included plenty of facts...like I said, go find all the polls that the members have put up on the various BB's...at least the ones who respond to those polls really do think that tribal and commercial fishing ending are within the reach of the CCA.

I don't dislike Gary...I've worked with FishFirst in the past, namely on the EFL Daybreak Mine issue, and FishFirst and Gary were instrumental in whatever gains we made there...though we just took a beating in the courts on that one recently...far from over, I hope.

Fish on...

Todd

I do the mailouts of our membership for such things as banquets. I have watched the count of CCA members closely down here in SW Washington, and I have compared those 1,014 members to the rolls of Ifish, which I believe is many times the size of PP.

Ifish CCA members constitute about 2% of our local SW Washington CCA membership. I suspect that the same or a similar ratio applies to PP.

Please don't mistake a few posts on PP, or on Steelheader.net, or on Ifish or other bulletin boards as representing the views of CCA. That would be a logical error.

Todd, what should we all do to try and affect some change in the greater PNW region?

I'm not grasping at straws by being a member of CCA. I've seen postitive results from around the country and believe SOME positive changes can be made by such a group in the PNW. Is CCA the answer to all of our concerns? No. But neither is any group in the state.

So, all of us lemmings don't joing CCA. What should we do?

Join a group whose issues and goals best mirror your own, and get to work.

I don't know what the CCA's issues or goals are yet, so the "you're part of the problem if you don't send in your check" is about the most ridiculous notion in a thread full of 'em...if and when the CCA identifies what it is going after, and what it wants to do...and I see how they are going to go about it...then I'll decide what my position will be on them.

In spite of how people like to characterize it, my only position on the CCA so far is that there are a lot of misinformed folks climbing on the bandwagon, there are a lot of banquets, and there are no substantive positions on anything significant...which means its hard to have a "position" on the CCA, other than noting that you can't have one, because they don't have any.

Fish on...

Todd

you've made me laugh riley, thank you but not at the "No, I'm not kidding, that's fre" part....


it was the "You don't need to join to listen." part....(emphasis on listen)


C'mon..

Hey hey hey. That's progress compared to what you were spouting a few posts ago.:)

...or.

How about this one, join the group that has the best chance of accomplishing something through representation (by numbers)

...and then going to work within' THAT group to influence their "mission statement" to suit your ends.


Rather then the usual I want this and you want that, so let's form 10 groups with 10 members each instead of 1 group of "sportsmen" of 100 with the same BASIC motivation.

Quote: "How about this one, join the group that has the best chance of accomplishing something through representation (by numbers)

...and then going to work within' THAT group to influence their "mission statement" to suit your ends."

Stam. I think you nailed it.

Me too.


It seems like some think that the CCA is run by a big bad boogy man from texas.....(it can't be he got elected to be president...twice ) when the reality is that any group is of and by the members, what the members want is what drives the organization, if you are a member and the majority of the group generally agrees with your goals...then your goals will be what the organization works towards, if they are not then yeah, they may work towards something else....but, consider this, maybe they are right.....



.........and you are wrong.

I am not divisive , it's just that some people are heavily invested in lies and are thus offended by the truth..

hatchery fish are bad for wild fish PERIOD I have spent 10 years on this site and others laying out the science behind the issue. you have to accept the truth or reject it if you reject it you are an enemy of wild fish plain and simple and wild fish cannot afford any more enemies....

Here are some reasons to join CCA


1. CCA helped establish net bans in 4 states, and the prohibition of many destructive gear types. They have been instrumental in establishing far-reaching conservation legislation on both state and federal levels.

2. CCA has a legal defence fund that has ben used to defend net bans and bycatch reductions devices, support pro-fisheries legislation, and enforce existing regulations.

3. CCA has led the battle to protect recreational anglers freedom to fish. When it is adopted into law, the Freedon to Fish Act will provide reasonable guidelines for the use of Marine Protected Arreas by fishery managers and restrict the use of no-fishing zones for recreational fishermen to instance where all other fishery management tools have failed to fix the problem.

4. CCA has a registered lobbyist in Washington D.C. and hasa been active in critical fisheries since 1984. They currently retain as many as 17 stae and federal loyyyists.

5. CCA makes decisions from the bottom up, involving our membership in all the regional and national policy positons.

6. CCA has more than 80 stae and national committees, 150 national board directors, more than 900 board members -on local, state, and national levels- and tens of thousands of active volunteeers contributing to the organizations devleopment and growth

7. CCA members include a former U.S. President, former Cqbinet members, Congressmen, Senators, ICCAT Commissioners, Fishery Management Council members, Governors, State Legislators and state and federal fishery mangers.

Its basically just getting started on the west coast, less than 2 years. The sportsman around here have never had this kind of a far reaching organization to help with education, protection and restoration of our natural resources that we all love so much.

So come on board, join up and help. Its not going to happen over night and it may take as many as 10 years to get some things done, I have watched the decline of a lot if not all of our fishery resources over the last 35 years, and this is the best thing I've seen, it actually give me some hope that something constructive can get done to help us all...

Good grief Rob. Where WERE you last weekend when I had to stand alone, arguing with (insert appropriate names) people calling for an increase in hatchery fish at the peril of the native/wild ones? I could have used a little back up.

I'm certainly NOT disagreeing with you on the substance. Just on how to deal with it politically.