I Forecast that CCA will make some ground in the next few years but its going to be the demise of the salmon and steelhead as we knew it before things get better at the current level of active members of 5,000.In saying that, not if but when our beloved Wild fishery collapses in the next year to almost extinction due to one of the major problems over HARVESTING in the Ocean and then the rivers, the foundation will be laid by these awesome people donating there time today to bring together all groups and I guarantee you, everyone of us who still care and believe the 50,000 members will be achieved.

I keep reminding my self and many of you should as well that most salmon are on a four year cycle and Steelhead are a bit different but still they live in the OCEAN for several years. I see this as eight years of hard work and its going to take money. Anyone who thinks or needs to see results in fish return in the near future before they put there name on the wagon of CCA please think again and look at the long term goal and do it now! They are going to take a bite at a time and the more members the CCA achieve that bite gets a bit larger. Its all about Votes on the ballot when CCA brings them to congress and it takes dollars to get it that far.

That’s Politics and now with CCA the majority of us who do not participate can, by becoming a number hopefully 50,000 when things come to vote we will win a few of them. At this point we have not won anything and what we have gained is short term only. Its not that hard even if you do not want to participate and many of us don't so just throw what you can at CCA even if its only $25 you get 6 Tide Mag’s in the year as well as a $18.00 tax write off receipt you cant go wrong and become a member.We need some fish to return to the rivers before we can try and push for our share for the remaining fish that may return.


To continue to produce salmon and steelhead blanks for the Pacific North West we need the fish to return. We stock around a million dollars of inventory for that market and without the fish we as many rod companies will push our market more towards the Sea Trout, Redfish and Striper market that the CCA aka CCA Members had a major role in protecting. Our company supports around three hundred thousand rod builders and also Three hundred thousand Rod buyers world wide and our home waters are only a small fraction of our business but our company feels that it is the most important to protect because we need to recreate just like all of you and Salmon and Steelhead are an amazing creation of Nature and that why we live here like all of you.

The East Coast fishery is on its way back and the country will benefit from the revenues that we support it with via Jobs and tackle sales among one of many. I just cant live with doing nothing at all and watch our customers and family on the west coast close there doors and move away because lack of fish.

I personally want to thank all of the current organizations and I know who you are and we appreciate everything you are doing and have done and we look forward to your continued work on our home waters but I encourage you to help the CCA as well. Please JOIN before there are no fish left to protect and we are four years behind.

Batson Enterprises aka Rainshadow is signing up all thirteen of our employees in the next few days. Thank you http://www.joincca.com
Sincerely, Karry Batson

Thank you Batson Enterprises, glad to see you........

Chuck G

PS meet some of your new friends........

Ruh-Row....































Todd, maybe if you just ignore it, it will go away.

Can't really be ignored, and I doubt it will go away anytime soon...

Did Gary tell the fantasy story about Cedar Creek again? Did anyone ask him where those fantasy fish and fantasy numbers come from?

I'm guessing that the answer...again...is "yes" he told the story, and "no" no one, including those here on this very BB who have seen just how ridiculolus his story is, bothered asking one question beyond "Who do I make my check out to?"...

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, Part of me doesn't believe that DFW doens't care about our public resource.

Gary's story is not just one of numbers, it's one of betrayal by DFW Staff. I too, volunteered to re-establish a run of fishes here in the South Sound. We raised chum in a pond above Percival Cove chinook. Basicly the chum were a biological filter to capture the parasites before the water flowed into the chinook pond.

Hatchery staff undermined our efforts by allowing direct stream flows and contaminated the Percival Cove Chinook. Guess what? The chum re-established themselves . Johns Creek once again lives when it rains. I'm one of the few witnessing steelhead in the system. I believe the nutrients the chum return help feed juvenile steelhead.
Last year Harvest Management Staff testified in favor of increasing the harvest on the abundent Chum.

Staff favors the most harmful and least sustainable method of commercial harvest. I believe this is flat out, wrong! They view each species in issolation and then claim minimal bycatch.

Todd, the floor was opened to discussion during and after the presentation. Gary answered all questions, and I did not hear anyone call him wrong, he was questioned, and again answered all questions I believe to the satisfaction of all present. If Im wrong, I believe anyone who did not like the answers and was PRESSENT will pipe up here soon.........Oh yes while I am at it, I thought pnwflyguy made a very constructive comment. No wonder we get no where............

Maybe someday CCA will put an official post ( Yes I am CCA and I approved this message) on this site and others about what they really plan on doing with our Native, Wild and Hatchery Fish.

I am still on the CCA Team, but I am really getting tired of just hearing about Membership meetings and Banquets.

Nice.

You know, if you buy banquet tickets for the Sea-Tac banquet @ $55/each or $600 for a corporate table of 8, that each ticket includes a year's CCA membership plus dinner and the per ticket write off is $37.00 for a single and between you and your accountant for the corporate table. The banquet is May 9th

If you need tickets, pm or call me 253-797-4804 as of right this minute, we have less than 20 tickets left.

Todd, with all do respect. We've had organizations working for different fixes to the problems we're facing now and about all the sport fishermen can see are more closed seasons for fisheries we once had leading to less opportunity over all. You can hammer on youf point every time it comes up but it really doesn't do anything but divide us once again.

I tend to flyfish but won't consider myself a flyfisherman. Why? Because of the elitist attitude that my method is better than yours. Swing vs nymph. If you nymph fish for steelhead you're nothing more than a gear chucker and if you prefer to swing all you're doing is dredging bottom and flossing.

That's why I just consider myself a fisherman. My point? Not one group has achieved the goals that I would like to see as a sportsfisherman. Maybe different "fronts" can achieve better results. Yes, I'm an optimist.

I go back to one of your main arguements from this past fall and one you seem to have with CCA. You continue to say that nets aren't the problem. It has more to do with habitat. You hammered that point home time and again this past fall/winter when debating this whole CCA thing. In different threads we discussed the lack of chum making it back to the streams and the fact that they were being netted heavily on a depressed run out in Puget Sound. Those fish should have been allowed to hit the streams. Don't the steelhead and salmon depend on that nutrient "biomass" in the rivers to feed on? In that case I'd say netting had a huge impact and one that won't be seen for a couple years. But then we'll just blame it on ocean survival when maybe it had more to do with not enough nutrients in the rivers to supply the juveniles before heading to the salt.

Not as well informed as most of you on this board but some of it just makes sense. And the biggest rub is the whole STFU if you aren't FULLY informed because you're doing more harm than good. And that leaves us depending on a few people fighting our battles regarding fisheries. More participation is required but unless you know as much as me you're doing more harm than good?

There doesn't seem to be a good answer to these issues. So, I guess I'll just continue to do what I've done. Search out the chum line to peck at what's left.

Fully Informed? I can't wait for the Full Information from CCA about there plan statewide to "save our Native and Wild Fish"!

Maybe that will happen when the banquets are over.

Dave,

My biggest problem with the CCA is not that they focus on harvest ( I think mistakenly)...it's that the story Gary tells to sell $25 memberships and banquet tickets (which is all the CCA has done in a year's time...sell things) is completely made up out of thin air to take advantage of uninformed fishermen...for money.

The fact that these uninformed fishermen, rather than get riled up at being taken advantage of instead stick their heads in the sand and defend it...maybe they don't want to admit that they've been had, or maybe they don't care that their leadership is purposely spreading false stories to gain some sort of "political clout"...but whatever it is, it does more harm than good.

That's what my problem with the CCA is...advocates out there working for fish and fishing have enough obstacles to overcome...overcoming the made up stories by our self-proclaimed "leaders" shouldn't be one of 'em, but now it is...and yet, they continue to defend it.

Sooner or later the banquets and membership fees have to turn in to something other than just more banquets and membership fees...it's been a year...and when it does, they are going to be really surprised when no one takes them seriously.

You have to have some modicum of integrity to even get a seat at the table, and that is sorely lacking in the CCA, and has been from day one.

You have to have a true story, with pesky things like facts, and a good legal argument doesn't hurt, either, if you think a "war chest" will get you anywhere in court...and so far, they don't have that, either.

4000 memberships is, at a minimum, $100,000...what have they done with it so far except print out more tickets and fliers for more banquets?

Fish on...

Todd

Please Join CCA !!!

I joined the CCA for one reason, that I thought it could help....it costs far less than a good night on the town (that you won't remember anyway) and it cannot hurt even if it gets mucked up.

There's power in numbers and we've always failed at gathering *those* kind of numbers in the past, I am skeptical that it will make much of a difference in the long run, but any organized group that can gather huge numbers will be our best last chance....there is NO good reason not to join now, in fact if you don't join now you have become part of the problem instead of the solution. Good Day.

stam

"in fact if you don't join now you have become part of the problem instead of the solution"

Horseshit...that's the attitude that the $25 experts always like to trot out...they're so uneducated about the world of fisheries politics that they think the CCA invented it.

Fish on...

Todd

Agree with Stam.

I joined because I was glad to see an organization focused on building a HUGE membership, and a well-funded political action committee. I don't pretend to understand all the complex issues involved in our fishery management, but meanwhile I think we should recognize that this is a *political* problem as much as anything.

All the talk about what the "right" or "smartest" thing to do is, but in truth I think until the sporties achieve critical mass, it doesn't matter how right or how smart we are.

Like it or not, most political solutions are based less on FACTS than we'd all like, my annual membership is an acknowledgment of that.

Todd in case you missed it, CCA presented a letter at the Mill Creek meeting, giving their twocents on the Lake Washington Chinook fishery as did the PSA I believe. And as usual the wdfg will probable ignore it and give the M I all they ask for. Like you said, they are not doing anything eh.


Stam you joined for basically the same reasons I did. Samo, Samo is just not cutting it any more...................

If you can come up with a bigger group then you get to be right....until then, there is power in numbers and even if they don't toe your personal party line it's the only way to the bigger win that you are not seeing.

You're too wound up with being "right" let that go and look at the bigger picture of what IS the best way to get something done.

I'm my opinion the bigger the group, the better the representation will be...


...and, believe it or not, I'm generally right.


stam

I hope a couple of the CCA leadership takes advantage of the opportunity to attend the Steelhead Summit Alliance on May 31 and get involved with the other organizations to have a unified voice for steelhead. It will be a real opportunity for them to get better educated on steelhead issues.

Hey Tod do you have a plan? Let us know so were better informed. Gary's presentation was right on the money. Who cares about a lousy $25 bucks a year if we join an organization that will help give the sportsman a voice. We've heard your opinion about 100 times, it's getting real old. Why don't you either join us and try to get something done or STFU, and let us at least try.........

I will be at the Steelhead Summit Alliance as a member of CCA, as will several other members that I know.

I am also one of the hold outs. I have had long discussions with some folks about joining CCA. They are trying to get a chapter going in the Tacoma area. I understand the membership drive, and the fundraising, but sooner or later they will have to come out with their positions, and start floating bills through the legislature. I have been involved with union politics, have lobbied legislators to support our bills. The decision makers, may or not be educated on the issues, and that was why we visited Olympia each year.

What is on the radar for action from the CCA? Are you building alliances in Olympia? We work our arses of each fall to get polititions elected that support our position. The more conservations candidates that are elected, the more action you will see.

I think going after the ocean nets solely, is looking at the problem through a set of blinders. I think the big problems are habitat, tribal netting seasons, ocean conditions and commercial fisherman, etc.

I will remain on the fence until I see some direction, and something oher than banquet and membership drives.

Thank you. I am glad there is still intelligent life on this earth. I have been sitting on the fence for months about joining a group as the money doesnt mean squat to me but I want an ROI for it somewhere. If the CCA is so powerfull why do they not leverage their corp power here to really get it moving. Relying on GL to run around selling stories is ludicrous and running out of steam fast anymore.

There have been groups present in this state for many years ... all of them have their pity little victories to cheer about; none of them have any real wins to claim. They do seem to enjoy the monthly parties however.

The only chance we, the CCA and all the others have in this region, is to get CCA and their entire Nationwide power to attack the Feds and start with the Bolt crap that is outdated and needs to be fixed now. These runs are gone in 10 years if something bigger than our F'ed government doesn't stomp a foot. As long as the CCA keeps saying we are "you" they will flounder around with a 4-7K membership partying up and solving nothing and without a real plan.

Once they make a stance and get some real resources here, I am jumping on the ship ... until then I am watching in disgust, about to join the WSC so I can at least admit I am doing something other than bitch because at least I know exactly where they stand.

SJ - rambling and out

I argee with Stam and IrishRogue
My son and I both joined. Something has to be done now.
Saying that nets are not the problem; that loss of Habitat is the major item that needs correcting. todd is half wrong and half right. Nets out in the ocean result in bycatch as do the gill nets in the sound and the rivers. The loss of habitat is a death by a thousand cuts that the State, Counties and Cities allow everyday. Who is going to stand up to Developers, Commercials, and Indians. We have been screaming; each in our own voice. We need band together so that our voices are heard. Complaining on the forum will not win the battles that need to be fought.

BAN THE NETS and bring back the fish traps (allow selective harvest) and revisit the Bolt Case.
My views

Exactally well siad




I was thinking the same thing.

I have been trying to get a straight answer out of CCA for about 6 weeks now I have gotten e-mails and PM's by people who claim to be high up in the orgainization, none of which addressed the issue of importance to me. Hatchery vs wild interactions. it is my understanding that there stance on the issue is this..........................................................................................
...........................................................................
........................................................................................

I do not have the time to attend meetings or seminars and those who attend such meetings are unable or unwilling to share anything about what the CCA's stand is and without a stand on this issue they are a worthless orgainization.. The ball is entirely in their court.. 4 of my coworkers feel the same exact way as do thousands of other Washington and Oregon state anglers
As for cedar creek and fish first.... until they quit planting the creek and still have the creek full of fish they have achieved nothing

Just so y’know…this was in jest relating to the fact that no one from CCA has answered the questions and concerns Todd raised relating to Gary’s numbers on Cedar Creek.

Is Stam really old? He seems kind of wise.

Peace...out.
Ed

Although I'll give Gary Loomis a ton of credit for assisting in the hatchery returns on the Lewis River (Fish First net pens) I'll never buy the whole "mop up" gillnet fishery on his 16,000 wild coho....... Granted he's put ton's of effort into Cedar Creek with colverts, river clean up etc, you can't put a hatchery egg in a box and put it in a river and call the returning fish "wild".... It makes no sense......

I've fished that river more days in the last 15 years than 99.9% of the people out there. There's no way on god's green earth that Cedar Creek had a run anywhere close to 16,000 fish. To claim that is obsurd. If all the hatchery coho and spring chinook were actually "clipped" in the Lewis the states would be in for a rude awakening...

As for CCA, I won't put forth the slightest bit of effort until I understand what their stance is with hatchery fish and what would be next "if" in fact they were able to get the gillnets out of the Columbia...........

Keith

That's pretty funny considering the constant badgering that many CCA members partake in online (obviously your one of them) and personally I'm getting sick of THAT. That's a great recruiting technique btw, "STFU or join us." ...Later


Jake

I joined CCA a few months back. I figured it sure could't hurt.
I keep hearing we need to "build the Warchest" Makes sense I thought.
Banquets, meetings, etc gaining membership is good too.
BUT (There's always a big but), seems like every time I go to a forum, I read reports of Some net opening that directly affects a particular run.

My fear is that it will be too little too late.

Seems to me that they are focusing on the Columbia River system. Not saying it's a bad idea. But (There's that but again), Wouldn't make more sense to picking and winning smaller fight, thus gaining the much needed support and membership???

PS: To date, I have not heard one word, or received one piece of mail from CCA. Not a big deal, but I do wonder.

I invest every year in a fisheries dept that constantly undermines our resources and gives it away to the least financially viable participant, all while subsidizing their efforts to take as much of our resource as possible and I keep doing that, now that is crazy............

Todd, I promised an answer a few weeks ago regarding Garys numbers. Here is what I have come up with so far and this is straight from two Bios at the Vancouver WDFW office. Both told me the same thing: He came here and got our numbers. That was their answer. So maybe, just maybe your entire problem with these numbers is the simple yet true fact found in this great quote. "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statisitics" I would imagine you took statistics in college as well as I and I can only assume that you learned how to manipulate numbers as I did. Your hung up on it...I am not.

Now as for the rest of you on the fence; I have no problem whatsoever with your questions so let me attempt to answer a couple main ones.

What is CCA doing now after a year. Well lets quickly review the year:

One year ago there were no chapters in Washington now there are 11 and soon to be 13.

One year ago there were no members we hope by June 1 to be at 6000 here in Washington

One year ago there was no paid staff, we now have two full time and...

One year ago there was just talk about having a legal presence. We now have an attorney on a healthy retainer who has spent the last number of years in D.C. specializing in fish law. He will be moving to the state in the next month after his wife gives birth.

One year ago we talked about putting forth a plan to change laws, the first plan has been establshed and it is funded well and that is to get the Lower Columbia Commercial harvest to be selective so that the Wild and Native fish can make it back to the gravel in greater numbers.

One year ago WDFW didn't know who we were, now we have partnered with them on a rewards program, modeled after other such successful CCA reward programs in other areas of this country.

One year ago we had no positional statements: We still do not have offical statements, but only because there are minor changes that needed to be made and at the next State Board meeting I am certain they will be approved. I can tell you what the positional statements cover.

They are: Selective Fishing; Derelict Fishing Gear; Hatchery Funding and Reform; Catch Monitoring and Evaluation; Harvest Management; Nutrification of our Freshwater Ecosystems

You see while many of you who choose not to be involved complaining about nothing being done there are many of us sacrificing our work, our business', our family time and personal time to make sure this works. We as a state and as a country have spent billions of dollars on the 3 H's with virtually no significant results. That is why CCA is choosing to make the fourth and ignored H (Harvest) our first battle. We believe that if more fish make it back to the gravel the billions of dollars spent on the other 3 H's will have a chance.

Thats a snapshot of what has been done and is being done within this state. So if you still think that CCA has done nothing please join so with your expertise we can accomplish something in the coming year.


JimB
CCA Washington State Board Member

JimB
Thank-you for the above post. It was well written and showes to all what has happened in the cloak of darkness for the past year. When you go to war you don't tell your plans to both friends and your enemies. You never know who either are. Join the fight we need Numbers and as it has been said $25. is pocket change to most of us. A hour or two of pay.

I can't really add anything constructive at this time. My mind is on shrimping folks. SORRY!

Many shrimp will die. Hopefully, 480 of them will die in MY boat!

Todd, have you done anything to correct this in a positive way, or do we just get to hear you complain every time it's brought up?

"When you go to war you don't tell your plans to both friends and your enemies. You never know who either are."

Wild salmon and steelhead in the Columbia are in such bad shape that any organization that does not have a clear stand on hatchery and wild fish interactions and what should be done about them can only be viewed as an enemy.. That is why clear specific answers are so important. Especially in light of the hatchery program on Cedar creek..

it does wild fish no good at all to return in slightly larger numbers if they are inundated with hatchery fish on the spawning beds... Take a look at the Kalama hatchery coho spawn in the river by the thousands and yet wild coho are extinct..

Until i am sure that the CCA won't put Cedar creeks anywhere they can get funding for i view they as an enemy to wild fish..

they need to decide to be a true conservation organization not a sport fishermans advocacy group. I could care less if a wild steelhead dies in a commercial boat or fails to reproduce because of it's hatchery mate. It's still just a fish that won't have offspring and thus a hinderance to the survival of the species.

I prefer CCA to have realistic expectations of what they can accomplish Rob. Hatcheries aren't going away as long as treaty tribes exist and the Boldt decision stands. Not sure why you can't grasp that concept?

Any group that makes a decision that hatchery fish should never be raised/planted is NOT going to be taken seriously by the managers. I don't care if every citizen in the state of Washington agreed with them either. We have treaty obligations that WE CAN'T CHANGE.

That's just the way it is.

yes, I am....and I prefer "wizened"

stam

AuntyM i am not suggesting that hatcheries are on the way out.

what i am saying is that with a lack of comment on the issue it can only be assumed that the CCA is going to be a sport fisherman advocacy group and not a true conservation organization and will likely advocate for the use of hatchboxes as a means of wild fish restoration and thus they make themselves the enemy of wild fish.

habitat restoration and nutrient enhancment means absolutely nothing if the fish coming back are hatchery fish.

I have also been on the fence regarding CCA for the same reasons as many here have stated " what is it you stand for ??" . Its not because I'm worried about where my money might go.

My impressions tell me that: its all about allocation and wanting a bigger piece of a pie for sportsman.. for harvest. I'm not about that. My life is going to be fine if I never eat another Salmon or steelhead. Its a sport to me, my hobbie. I don't know where they stand on issues that are important to me.

Like.. what is the stance on wild steelhead release. Can a river be managed strictly C&R - My mind says that wild fish will never rebound to a point where eating them is O.K and I think people who trot out 1 or 2 % mortality rates for C&R are morons.

Like hatchery's.. The day there are not hatchery salmon in the Columbia is the day your all done fishing for salmon. So thats the end of that story.

Like commercial fishing.. I really don't care about the fact that there are people who make a living off of it. They need to find something else to do. I don't mind if eating salmon and steelhead goes extinct, I do mind if sport fishing is a thing of the past.

Like the tribes.. sure its stupid, whats your plan ?? I gather its give them less so we can have more.. for harvest..

Its great that your getting organized. Just not sure I want what your selling. Fighting for increased allocation is just re-arranging a already screwed up deal.

So somebody is going to say " show me where we ever said " and I can't because to date, nobody HAS said what you want. All I know is the people who are really into CCA are historically the people who are all about harvest for sportsman. I don't see a whole lot of concern for the fish, just concern about who is going to eat them.

Rob,

At the Mill Creek meeting this week, CCA had a representitive present that provided a letter from CCA regarding that fishery. Part of that letter was posted on another board and I will share it here. I can't vouch for authenticity, but I'm pretty sure it came from CCA.



To my knowledge, CCA has not taken an official position on hatchery policy as yet. I'm hopeful that they make something similar to the above as our position.

For others who seem to think GARY LOOMIS is the CCA, I am here to tell you that idea is WRONG. Every chapter has representation on the state board. Gary doesn't do the decision making, no matter what someone claims.

I failed to put one thing in my post and it needs to be said:


Kerry Batson and Batson Enterprises


WELCOME ABOARD!!


Make sure you introduce yourself at the next meeting!



JimB