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in this region, is to get CCA and their entire Nationwide power to attack the Feds and start with the Bolt crap that is outdated and needs to be fixed now.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.