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

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.

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.

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.

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

Haliman, it's dipsticks like you have never done anything for the resource, don't know what you are talking about, and decided that you are now an expert after hearing a bullchit presentation and spending $25.

I guarantee you I've done more to protect you and your fishing in the past six months than you've ever done, not to mention the past fifteen years.

Don't let the fact that most advocates and groups aren't playing to the masses in the media fool you into thinking nothing is going on...fish don't get saved there.

STFU? Indeed...you are the reason why the CCA will either need to change greatly, or will fail magnificently...the arrogance of people who have done nothing, know little, but think they are now experts is overwhelmingly going to ruin the already tenuous reputation that the CCA has, not to mention its serious integrity problem.

A bunch of members sitting around patting each other on the backs for their $25 checks doesn't get you anywhere, and attitudes like yours (ignorant and arrogant combined) are the ones that get ridden out of meeting rooms and court room so fuckin fast that your head will spin.

Fish on...

Todd

I hope they take no stand on hatcheries. The local chapters tend to make there own agendas. Right now it is focusing on harvest. Hatcheries are a divisive issue, but then again Rob, your a divisive person so there probably better with out you anyways.

As for the whole hatchery issue, there hasn't been a hatchery steelhead planted above tidewater on the neahlem (there is a run on the Nfork nehalem which comes in in tidewater) in 15 years and yet there runs are not booming like you think, in fact the wilson which is bombarded with hatchery fish still has about as many nates as the Nehalem. Hmm, there are much bigger issues that hatcheries affecting our native salmon and steelhead stocks. Ocean harvest, predation, and habitat are much bigger issues imho.

steelspanker, this isn't "other parts of the country", and no matter what they've done elsewhere, they haven't done it here yet, and they didn't invent fisheries politics.

To use the ridiculous notion touted by a few above, but many others in the past year, that if you're not part of the "CCA Solution" than you're "Part of the Problem" will not get the actual players on their side...and, in fact, will do just the opposite.

The followers of the CCA seem to think that they are going to walk in a room and dictate down what's gonna happen, then walk back out and get in their boat and go fishing, and there will be more fish there 'cuz they said there would be.

They are in for a very, very rude awakening...very rude...and their membership is evidently going to be very surprised when...

1. commercial net fishing is not banned asap
2. the Boldt Decision is going absolutely nowhere, ever
3. "selective" commercial fishing on the Columbia will save one single fish

...and then what?

I already know what...they'll whine, complain, and their leadership will tell them it's someone else's fault...and the world will go on.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Jim, that list of things that the CCA is proposing is a good list of things...

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

...but it's not like those things aren't already being done.

There are people working on the Derelict Gear programs, and they have been for decades, not just in the past 12 months. They need to be funded better, and if the CCA can help with that, then more power to 'em, but it's not like it's not already happening, and would be happening if the CCA weren't ever here..

Hatchery funding and reform is a big topic, one that every group is working on, and has been working on for years...and we'll all be working on it for years, too. What new is the CCA planning on bringing to the table?

Harvest Management? Whoever it is above who keeps saying that no one cares about it except the CCA needs to have their head checked. It's a constant concern, especially in Puget Sound, and it's directly tied in with fifty other issues...to think that no one but the CCA is concerned about it is ludicrous, and goes to show how uninformed many of the folks involved actually are.

Nutrient enhancement...you don't think Gary invented that on Cedar Creek, too, do you? It's been going on for decades, too, both here and in B.C.

Hell, I've gone and tossed carcasses several times...and believe it or not, I'm not a CCA member, and the CCA wasn't even here in Washingtong ten years ago when I started working on those programs.

Having lofty "issues" that are on the horizon of the CCA is NOT having positions and actions...anyone could start a group tomorrow and give you a list of issues, but that doesn't mean jack until they get out there and start working on them, and come up with some ideas on how to get it done...and if the attitudes displayed by the CCA members and leaders on this thread is any indication of how they are going to go about it, then they will fail miserably.

Todd, no one is trying to take the wind out of your sails here, the reason I and most others are looking to the CCA is that SAMO SAMO SHIAT from wdfg just is not cutting it anymore. People are fed up .................

NWP, it has nothing to do with the wind in my sails...it has to do with the attitudes of the newbies to the political world who think they've already got it all figured out...it's like talking to a 16 year old high school kid about relationships and politics...they've got it all figured out, and can't seem to figure out why anyone, and I mean anyone would question their great perspectives.

I can tell you this...anyone who starts a sentence with "See, it's simple..." and they are talking about fisheries politics in the Pacific Northewest, then they've already proven that they are utterly incapable of getting anything done...and the great majority of the Kool-Aid drinkers do seem to think it's simple, as simple as saying "We're the CCA! This is how things will be now, and it will be Good!"...and that's the "rude awakening" coming down the pike I was talking about above.

Fish on...

Todd

One point that I would like to make, whether a sport fisher is or is not a CCA member.

We all need to become more politically active. Write letters, send emails, make phone calls to your legislators, the WDFG Commissioners, the WDFG Director and staff and your legistlators regarding fisheries issues.

CCA may be a rallying point for changes in the PNW, it may succeed, it may not, but it is a start.

It is time to make your voices heard.

One of the first tenets of negotiating is, "if you don't ask, the answer is always no."