O.K, your right.. but a lot feel that FOCUSING ON HARVEST FOR SPORTSMAN, which is most of what anything I have seen from the CCA.. is the samo samo samo samo [censored]. You just enable the status quo

My thoughts go back to the WSR issue.. If CCA were on board with that.. you know, the simple idea that you can still go fishing without taking a cooler along, then it would be semi credible

Todd, B run steely, I know that you realize that a large # of voters can and will effect change of some sort. Add your knowlege to that pool and maybe it will get somewhere good. I really think that the CCA can and will build that pool, and I am trying to help, mostly to make up for all I havent done over the years and hopefully to leave something behind me for the kids and grandkids.

Less "implication" and more "explanation ".. so far, anytime I talk with the Idaho guys who are involved with CCA, they don't have a clue what it is they are standing for, they just know its " a really great thing !!".

To back track a bit, it is a cool deal that so many have actually gotten involved. That in itself is a change in direction.

Todd makes a good point that battles have been fought for years. The ones that matter have been lost. I feel the only way nets will ever leave any river is if Sportsmen are ready to go first. Its possible to have sport fishing forever. Harvest ?? probably not, when hatchery's are gone. I also can't really get all excited about dams coming down. Not in my lifetime. I used to think so but am more realistic these days.

What I can do is what I have always done. Support the groups that I know the mission statement is very clear. I.S.S.U T.U and Idaho rivers united.

I also call Larry Craig every so often and tell him he is fired. Come to find out, not only is it true I can't fire him, he can't even seem to fire himself.

Look why many sports fishing advocacy groups have failed in the PNW. Its because they get involved in the really divisive issues. If a group fights gill nets on the columbia, that benefits both native and hatchery steelhead as well as salmon. Most are onboard with having more fish. Now proclaim that your both either pro wild fish or pro hatchery fish and either position will alienate a large portion of the constituients, Less people makes groups weaker.

Sadly, as a paying, card-carrying CCA member, even I don't have a clue as to what they are standing for in Washington State, let alone locally.....

As far as I can tell from looking at the local chapters website, the goals are to make more money and get more membership. Past that, it's very vague.

I do get a nifty magazine that rehashes HARVEST techniques on fish. No joke. Last magazine contained a rehashed article by a STS author on how to harvest^C^C^C^C^C^C^Ccatch springers.

If I could, I'd take my $25 back, as I personally feel CCA has done nothing for me or for the resource now, nor will it in a year from now. Just glad I didn't toss $25 down the sewer *last* year. At least I'm only down $25, and not $50.

I was at a seminar a month or so ago and a representative of CCA made a short presentation. One of his comments claimed that CCA will end gill net fishing in three years. To tell you the truth that turned me off right there. I believe the individual who made the statement was sincere, but he was certainly a neophyte when it comes to politics.

I maintain that the fish are politicized and the war to get changes will be a long one and those changes will only come through the political process. Washington is not the East Coast or the Gulf when it comes to fish politics or for any other issue.

Too many organizations have come and gone. I will join the one that tells it like it is, with all of the terrible realities, not the one that creates false hopes with a fast fix.

I just like to fish and hope I always can. I am amazed to no end that our salmon and steelhead have put up with as much crap as we have dealt them already. I guess we do all have that thought in common. My life is pretty much centered around it. Most all my friends are guys I steelhead or fly fish with. We don't all agree with each other, but we do have a good time.

I fly fish most often. A couple weeks ago on a local river thats closed to the retention of brown trout, a guy took some pictures of a Hispanic family fishing. Cooking hot dogs, two kids running around the mini van, a dog. The dad was bait fishing. Not real common.. but legal. He caught a brown trout and kept it. So this guy takes the pictures of the license plate, and calls the fish and game. This all plays out on an internet forum and along the way its assumed that this guy is probably an illegal alien, probably has a meth lab someplace as well. Fish and game actually tracked this guy down and nailed him. That very weekend, I am sturgeon fishing with some friends. The wind was brutal and we were trying to put a sled on a trailer at the boat ramp and there was a family fishing off the ramp. Totally in the way. I ran off my mouth and the guy looked at me like " I'm just trying to have a little family time here, I ain't no pro and it sucks already.. wife can't stand it and now here you are ".. Some how between those two incidents, I just felt like a dick. What means everything to me is just a thing to do for most. I resolved to change my attitude and see if I could not get some respect for the little guy. We will see how that goes.

All I can really do now to feel better is call Larry and fire him again, or maybe go catch a few bass and eat them.. that always helps

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.

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.

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.

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