OK... attended the inaugural Oly Chapter meeting tonight... now officially the Capitol City Chapter of CCA-WA, complete with newly elected officers.

Where is CCA headed on pertinent local issues? Here are six areas where the organization has taken an OFFICIAL position, as outlined by distinguished Govt Relations Co-Chair Frank Haw.

1) Promote and advance harvest reforms that mandate the use of truly selective techniques. HINT: gillnets ain't gonna git'er dun.

2) Spearhead efforts to salvage derelict "ghost nets" that continue to fish and kill years after they were initially "lost". This will be tied into a an education campaign that challenges everyday folks to consider how those nets got there in the first place and whether that is really the best way to conduct responsible fisheries.

3) Restore FULL federal funding of lower Columbia River hatcheries to fully meet the legal obligatons mandated by the Mitchell Act. CCA STRONGLY supports the role that hatcheries play in conserving and sustaining salmon stocks. (Feeling better now, Keith and Jerry?)

4) CCA urges more stringent monitoring of developing commercial fisheries for bait/forage species (ex. sardines) to ensure that their impacts on the forage base are within reason AND to ensure that the fishery is reasonably "clean" in terms of by-catch of junvenile salmonids.

5) HARVEST MANAGEMENT: Hold managers accountable for their pre-season run-size forecasts. Commercial fisheries are often managed on the basis of fixed harvest/exploitation rates to harvest to the very last fish. When applied to an inflated forecast, the potential for a front-loaded OVERHARVEST is greatly increased (HMMM .... 2008 CR springers ringing any bells?) The predictive value of forecast models must be made more accurate..... but until they are made so, managers should make every reasonable attempt to err on the side of caution and CONSERVATION. Moreover, the available harvestable surpluses of a commonly held public resource should be distributed to maximize economic benefits to ALL citizens.

6) Maximize the delivery of marine-derived nutrients into riverine ecosystems by 1) setting greater escapement goals for wild-spawning fish whose carcasses are naturally distributed throughout the ecosystem, and 2) expanding programs to artificially distribute hatchery carcasses (or processed carcass analogs - i.e. salmon pucks) into nutrient-deprived systems. (HMMMM .... isn't that all of them?)

****

OK folks, there they are... take your best shot at the organization now. If you can't agree that these are worthwhile objectives, then the CCA is NOT the organization for you.

If you believe these are noble goals to pursue, then get on board. What are you waiting for?

And so as NOT to be confused with any so-called "$25 experts".... I am the fishNphysician, concerned sportsman, proud CCA member.... and I APPROVE this message!

I like what I'm reading, thanks for passing along the information Doc.

I'd like to encourage a G___ L_____ free discussion here folks. This is good stuff, let's stick to the topic?

Clear,concise and very well done FP, these are the principals that first attracted me to CCA.Great way to start discussion on the topics that should be discussed......Fishy

It might seem to me number 3 and 6 are at odds with each other. More hatchery fish tend to mean less wild fish. I am still reserving my opinion on CCA and truely hope they succeed in doing good. Just my quick observation.
JJ

I believe that # 3 can aid in providing nutrients for #6. With the hockey pucks food it is my understanding that it cannot cause disease that an out of stock carcass can and still provide valuble smolt food.

SCARBOO

Doc,

Thanks for taking the time to attend the meeting and pass on the information... It's to my liking so assuming the next Vancouver area meeting is on a day that I have off, I'll try and make it to get a few more questions answered and get involved...

Keith

Francis --- I hope that you will post this on Ifish too.

It was a good meeting, and now a few of the questions are answered. If you are curious, attend a meeting and see what's going on. The next Olympia chapter meeting is on June 2.

Nice job on the info and heads up Doc.Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

Thanks FnP. I'm in,

fb

fNp,

Thanks for taking the time to post this. I approve of your message too!

BTW, I recently talked with a former Florida fishing bud who is also a lifelong Florida sportfishing nut. He confirmed a lot of what I've believed about CCAs successes there. I'll be glad to share his positive thoughts when I have a little more time to do so.

Thanks for shedding some light on the CCA Doc.

I will be going to the Columbia County meeting tonight renewing my membership and buying my banquet ticket.

FnP - Thank you for the first and only real informative post about what the CCA is doing. Based on your message I like the stances they are taking.

1 question - is that only the Olympia chapter or are you talking for CCA NW?

Thanks in advance.

My initial post summarizes the issues in the Position Paper drafted by CCA-WA.

I'd like to see how many of you have been drawn into the CCA camp based on this new info.

Maybe time to bring that old "roll call" thread back to the top.

I think they also should be able to have a say in the allocations of sportfishing because of the growing numbers of sportfishermen there will be a need to have an increase in runs of fish and habitat to sustain the fisheries and the DFW sure needs help in that area. We need somebody at the table that has a good hand of cards!

Some one on the Ifish board asked what I meant about "$25 experts"... thought I'd share my response here.....

$25 Expert = one who has an "expert" opinion and has kicked in their $25 dues to CCA-National... then stamps the CCA "Good-Housekeeping seal of approval" on their pet personal position and spreads it all over cyberspace without ever consulting the organization for its official stance.

If a CCA member decides to post an opinion on behalf of CCA about significant fisheries issues, make darned sure CCA has taken an official position on said issue before disseminating it all over the web.

If someone asks a CCA member about the organization's position about a particular issue... don't shoot from the hip with conjecture or outright mis-statements. If you know the official position, say so. If you don't know the official position, then say "I don't know, but I'll do my best to find out"

If there is no official position on said issue.... that's OK, too. There's nothing wrong with saying the organization hasn't decided yet.

The strength of the organization rests in numbers, true.... but it's politically meaningless unless we are all singing from the same sheet of music. Unless we are all echoing the same sound bytes, politicians and fish managers won't recognize us as a cohesive voting block.

That's a pretty good post, Francis...

Fish on...

Todd

I believe that is addressed in the last sentence.

5) HARVEST MANAGEMENT: Hold managers accountable for their pre-season run-size forecasts. Commercial fisheries are often managed on the basis of fixed harvest/exploitation rates to harvest to the very last fish. When applied to an inflated forecast, the potential for a front-loaded OVERHARVEST is greatly increased (HMMM .... 2008 CR springers ringing any bells?) The predictive value of forecast models must be made more accurate..... but until they are made so, managers should make every reasonable attempt to err on the side of caution and CONSERVATION. Moreover, the available harvestable surpluses of a commonly held public resource should be distributed to maximize economic benefits to ALL citizens.

Im a turd I still have not become a $25 dollar expert, I will put it on my list of things to do this week.

FNP -
When it comes to fisheries limited by ESA impacts are not the recreational fisheries also managed down to the last fish/impact?

In fact here in Washington many of our recreational fisheries are happening before the commerical fisheries. Shouldn't your issue #5 also apply to the recreational fisheries?

To have any credibility what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Tight lines
Curt

Who are the officers? Enquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,

SL

fnp,
The six items sound very good. But when I go to the CCA-PNW website there is no mention of those items as an "OFFICIAL" position. Do you know why that is??

The website has not been updated yet. I will ask someone about it.

Duro...a press release is coming. I don't know when and then I would hope it gets on the webpage. Thanks for your patience Duro it is appreciated.

JimB

Thanks F4B and JimB

The size of the GR committee is not limited. Its a little late to complain about the decisions of an organization, that you were encouraged to join and become involved in.

Im simply amazed what it takes to get this far with a small organization. Leaders are few and far between. Thanks to all the commttee and board members who spent a lot of hours over the last ten months on this and other projects.

CCA's position on this pivots on Selectability. Gill nets, and to a lesser extent, tangle nets, retain everything unlucky enough to be trapped in the mesh. Barbless single hooks are presently the best method of live releasing a wild fish, or of making the decision to kill a hatchery plant. Therefore, recreational fishing provides the best chance of pursuing management goals.

Wild fish trapped in a gill net are dead, whether you call them incidental catch, or gravy. They are out of the gene pool forever. I find this (#5) to be a fair position on promoting selective harvest.

Don -
The issue of promoting selective fisheries was issue #1 on the list.

My comments were directed towards issue #5 which was talking about that without better forecasts there is a need for more consverative management -

To quote from the post -
"Commercial fisheries are often managed on the basis of fixed harvest/exploitation rates to harvest to the very last fish. When applied to an inflated forecast, the potential for a front-loaded OVERHARVEST is greatly increased (HMMM .... 2008 CR springers ringing any bells?)"

my point was that rationale applies equally with most recreational fisheries as well. The issue is a very valid one and I can see and support why folks may wish to address it. However those doing so for only one fishery (the commerical) and not another (recreational) would have little credibtily. The reality is that recreational fishers on the whole in this state have larger out front impacts than most commerical fisheries which tend to be more frequently in teminal areas.

It would seem to me that the logical extension of issue #5 is that until such time as there better pre-season forecasts that fisheries that have the potential to front load impacts (including most marine recreational fisheries) should be limited.

Is it you position that such limitations should be placed only on the commerical fisheries?

Tight lines
Curt

Smalma,

1. What is "out front impacts"

2. Where is the data?

3. What level of responsibility does the state and the commercial fisherman have, to create the results that you are concerned about.

4. How large is the "out front impact" of a 1500 foot ghost net?

5. FNP and DF don't speak for cca or the GRC. If you want an answer, you can send a letter or email to vancouver or the GRC Chair.

Restore FULL federal funding of lower Columbia River hatcheries to fully meet the legal obligatons mandated by the Mitchell Act. CCA STRONGLY supports the role that hatcheries play in conserving and sustaining salmon stocks. (Feeling better now, Keith and Jerry?)


Yes somewhat but does this guarantee that the hatcheries are going to still plant/raise the same numbers of fish on these sysytems?

Example: Cowlitz summer program cut over half in fish being raised.

Can't wait to hear the response from TPU and WDFW regarding their hatcherieson the LCR.

Lead Bouncer,

I have to agree with smalma on this one. Most fisheries in this state take place before accurate in-season data is available. Both sport and commercial fisheries are equally resonsible for having out front impacts when runs return less than expected. The columbia is a perfect example this year where sporties harvested more fish below bonneville than the commercials and now runs have returned less than expected. Pointing the fingers at gillnets is wrong in this case.

Another example is puget sound salmon stocks. From the ocean into puget sound they are harvested by sport fisherman before the state has any accurate in season estimates of what will make it to the river.

JoJo are the runs less than expected above Bonneville? Seriously I don't think the above I-5 fishery had any impacts on the springers heading for the Cowlitz, Kalama or Lewis.

Are the runs above Bonneville as bad? Yakima? Clearwater? Snake? Deschutes, ect?

Smalma,
In re-reading my response to your comments on #5, my defense of that position is pretty weak. Lead Bouncer is right on the money in that CCA should not be held responsible for statements by members that are hasty or ill informed.
I personally believe that selective harvest impacts the success of matching actual catch to projected returns under the present system. I can see how that can be discounted as hair splitting, and I apologize. In future, I'll let the better informed and politically adept debate policy.

Don -
If you re-read my posts in this thread you'll find that I never attributed any statements to CCA. Rather after FNP posted a second time regarding issue #5 I posted questions directly to him.

When you responded to that post (by the way I don't mind having those kinds of debates/discussions - it is the way we all learn) I directed my comments directly to you. Again never referring to CCA at all.

It was the first post that said -
"Where is CCA headed on pertinent local issues? Here are six areas where the organization has taken an OFFICIAL position, as outlined by distinguished Govt Relations Co-Chair Frank Haw."

If you or lead Bouncer have issues with that statement I suggest that you take it up with the FNP or Mr. Haw and not myself.

Lead Bouncer -
regarding your questions -
1. - Out front impacts
I don't recall using that term. I believe that the original posting talked about "front loaded" fishreies and I repeated the use of that term. In this case I took that term was used to describe those fisheries that were occuring prior to any in-season updates.

2. Where is the data?
Not sure what data you are referring to. However there is wealth of data on who is catching what stocks of fish from code wire tag information. In the case of the Puget Sound Chinook (ESA listed) and stocks I assume that a Olympia Chapter of CCA might have concerns about. The data is pretty clear that except for the Samish hatchery fish that we recreational fishers collectively have greater impacts on those stocks than the non-treaty commerical fisheries - the reason of course is that in Puget Sound Chinook have been given a recreational priority with no direct non-treaty commerical effort at those Chinook (except for the above mentioned Samish fish).

If you have specific question regarding particular stocks I probably can dig up specific data if you desire.

3. What level of responsibility does the state and the commercial fisherman have, to create the results that you are concerned about.

As alluded to above I feel that Tribal, non-treaty commerical and recreational fisheries all contribute to those problems. Experience has shown that doing much about the Tirbal piece is pretty tough., However that should not prevent us from addressing the other two pieces. I merely suggested that if we wish to hold the commerical idustry to a conservation standard that the recreational fisheries should be prepared to live with the same standard. If we take the time to inform ourselves about the details of these issues and the various fisheries coming up with standards that most folks can live with should be doable.

4. How large is the "out front impact" of a 1500 foot ghost net?

I have no idea what the impacts would be from such a ghost net. I suspect that it would range from near zero to pretty substantial depending on the condition and location of the net. I do however applaud any and all efforts to addrss dealing with that lost gear. Though I not sure what that has to do with a discussion on Issue #5.

5. FNP and DF don't speak for cca or the GRC. If you want an answer, you can send a letter or email to vancouver or the GRC Chair.

Again I did not ask either FnP or DF to speak for CCA; rather I asked them direct question regarding their posts. Nowhere did attribute anything to CCA - it was others that did so.

I do find it laughable that you refer me to direct my questions to Vancouver or GRC chair. If some one questions any thing in reference to a potential CCA postion that seems to be the stock answer. However if some sees some of the same "information" and decides they like it and sign ups for CCA I don't you and others saying wait a minute those are not official positions and they might want to contact Vacouver or GRC chair prior to enlisting to get a better clarification of their postions.

It all has the appearance of CCA supporters what to have best of both sides of the issue. Sorry but does not instill a lot of confidence.

Sorry but no where in this discussion have I made this about CCA. Rather I merely asked questions about the direction expressed in issue #5 and what such a position might mean for recreational fishing.

As always I have made my priorities -
#1 - the fish
#2 - increasing the information available to anglers so that they can form informed opinions and take effective actions
#3 - recreational opportunities

To date I have chased those priorities as an indepent and will likely continue to do so. Though I more than willing to work with others when our goals match up.

Tight lines
Curt

jojo

I have not read any comments regarding nets being the blame for the low run. Wdfw sets the rules about who fishes and when. The CR deal was negotiated in good faith. As long as we have ESA listed fish on that river, we are going to have concerns about accurate estimates. Not our fault.

Gary has been to Russia. According to him, they use fish traps and determine the escapement and then begin fishing. We cant do that yet. Noone ever had the guts to put limits on harvest or keep the rivers unblocked and healthy. They brought it upon themselves long before the dams were built.

There is nothing more important than selective harvest on a massive scale. Perhaps you should consult the Feb-March 07 issue of national geographic about the status of the oceans. Among other problems, sardines are being shipped to australia for the hatchery tuna facilities, (a result of overharvest) because its required for oil content. I find it ironic, that wdfw has gone to great lengths to dispute GL Cedar creek numbers and yet, wdfw is unable to accurately estimate how many fish are coming back.

Smalma Quote "The reality is that recreational fishers on the whole in this state have larger out front impacts than most commerical fisheries which tend to be more frequently in teminal areas.

It would seem to me that the logical extension of issue #5 is that until such time as there better pre-season forecasts that fisheries that have the potential to front load impacts (including most marine recreational fisheries) should be limited.

Is it you position that such limitations should be placed only on the commerical fisheries?" end quote.
****************************************************************************************************************************************
The quote speaks for itself and so do the questions directed at the position papers of CCA. Using FnP or Don Freeman is a lame excuse. CCAPNW wrote the position papers, so the question can only be directed to and answered by cca. The question in your mind is an issue of fairness but, you inferred that our (cca) credibilty was at stake. As far as Im concerned, if you werent at the table, after being asked to get involved, you have no room to complain about the results.

Now it seems that you want to play Dodge ball with the arguement. Complaining about members wanting to play both sides of the issue. Exactly one year ago today cca was asking and begging for volunteers to take on positions to form a state board and fill the committee positions. Based on your criteria for position papers, developed in a vacuum, we would still have 1000 members. Perhaps youve forgotten that our declaration of independence was written 13 years before the constitution and in the middle was a war and a lot of recruiting.

I also dont give a crap about the fairness. Im more than happy to list the unfair acts by commercial fisherman and the wdfw that have left the fish unprotected and the sportsmen holding an empty bag. We fish for hatchery fish we paid for (twice) and beyond barbless hooks which has been the law in many areas, Im not in a position to determine what other changes will reduce our incidental kill. CCA is a direct result of Fish managers and politicians unwilling to set limits that would preserve the original naitve fish.

Smalma is saying the same things today as he said 10 years ago--- long before CCa was a gleam in anybodies eyes in the Pacific NW. His questions about the publics perceptions of fish management objectives are as valid today as they were 10 years ago. He has been fighting this battle so long that I believe he can ask any question of any group or individual.

Maybe asking the APPROPRIATE CCA state board members these questions instead of just their members might get the answers one seeks.

I mean, you could ask me a few questions about the WSC, but I couldn't give you definitive answers about their stance on many issues either. I support their goals, and that's why I joined.

If you folks want the membership to know everything those on the executive boards know, you are barking up the wrong tree I'm afraid. It's unreasonable to expect the general membership to have answers to many of these questions.

LB,

If you indeed are looking for some sort of concrete number to back up a forecast before fishing begins, then kiss fishing goodby for everyone.

There will ZERO saltwater fishing...ever...and no fishing in rivers until enough of a run has passed your fish traps.

Of course, if what you really mean is that there will be no commercial fishing without those hard numbers, then this just goes back to where it's been all along...no matter how much you call it a conservation organization, what it really is is just an allocation organization who thinks they can ban gillnets and then go fishing every day.

Fish on...

Todd

Sounds good to me. Probably wouldn't hurt the economy of this state either..

It doesn't sound bad to me...only if that's what it's going to be, then just come and say it and be done with it...don't pretend to be a conservation organization, when what you really want is to take the commercial piece of the pie and add it to yours, and then go fishing.

That's what Smalma is saying above, too...if you want to have any credibility when and if you get a seat at the table, then you have to be honest about what you are doing.

If you say "there shouldn't be any fishing without the hard numbers" in order to prevent overharvest, but then say that it only applies to one user group and not the other, shows that overharvest is not really your concern, but that you get to harvest the fish and not the other guys.

Fish on...

Todd

Lead Bouncer -
Thanks for the clarification about the origin of the "issues" posted by FnP. You are correct I should have directed my questions to CCA rather than the FnP.

My comments to Don were in direct response to his comments and I think appropriate.

Just a couple of observations about the positions/issues from PNWCCA as expressed in the original post.

It definitely has a Columbia flavor. Issue # 1 is an example of that slant -
to quote -"Promote and advance harvest reforms that mandate the use of truly selective techniques" - I can certainly support that position for Chinook and even coho howver there are number of popular fisheries targeting species where selective techiniques are hardly practical - species such as pink, chum and sockeye salmon, halibut and ling cod.

Parts of issue #5 and #6 are in direct conflict. #5 calls for "...the available harvestable surpluses of a commonly held public resource should be distributed to maximize economic benefits to ALL citizens." Maximizing for economic benefirt means that the runs are being managed for MSY. That is not necessarily a bad thing however that is in direct confluct with the state objective in # 6; that is "Maximize the delivery of marine-derived nutrients into riverine ecosystems by 1) setting greater escapement goals for wild-spawning fish..."

I would be interested in how one can manage for maximum economic benefits (MSY) and increased ecosystem benefits from increased escapement.

While individually the issues sound pretty good it is clear that they are not full developed yet - hopefully that will come as the organization matures and becomes more familar with the complexities of some of this issue in different parts of the State. However as currently written some have concerns about the potential impacts to the recreational angler.

Tight lines
Curt

The Columbia has the most to lose or gain at this point. It also affects poplulations in three states. I also agree, this is primary framework.

peace.

Smalma,

I suspect that the "maximize economic..." language is not referring to MSY/MSH, but is instead referring again to an allocation issue, not a conservation issue...I'll wager what it means is that since sportfishing generates more dollars per fish than commercial fishing, that it ought to be the primary user of the resource.

Again, true, and even admirable...but doesn't contain much in the way of a conservation agenda, which is what I keep hearing the CCA is...a conservation group. It's another "end commercial fishing so we can go catch the fish instead" argument...

Fish on...

Todd

Todd -
I suspect that you are correct - that a fish caught in a recreational fishery generates more economic value than one caught in a net. However the position paper is less than clear on that point; which is my point.

Tight lines
curt

You guys........

Since when is the commercial fisherman guaranteed a job for life. Noone else has that. You make us sound like Dracula running the blood bank. When CCA began in Texas, they had 1100 fishing guides. After the nets were banned and the fish got the chance to spawn, more guide were hired. They had 3000 guides. I think the 53,000 Texas members might get pissed if they had to divide up the last fish.