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.

LB, I think you are completely missing the point.

Fish on...

Todd

Explain it while Im watching them fish for giant catfish on the Amazon

Thanks.

There is, or should be, more to the "maximize economic benefit" idea. As the cost of fuel goes up, it is going to get more and more expensive (economic value) to chase salmon all over the ocean than to fish for them in the river of origin. Looking beyond simply dead fish, maybe we should look at how many pounds of fish are caught per gallon of fuel. Is there a better use for fuel than chasing fish?

The same goes for meeting the ecosystem need for nutrients. We need more fish on the spawning grounds. In same cases, not killing one species of salmon will benefit another species of salmon. In some other cases, the benficiary will be bears, wolves, mink, or who knows what. To have healthy ecosystems, we are all going to have to give up something. We can't have it all, everywhere.

Seems to me todd explained it really well. Read what he wrote again. CCA isn't a conservation organization as most are saying but it is a recreational fishing allocation organization . Take away the commercials (which I am not saying is a bad thing) and give the allocations to the recreational fisherman. He seems pretty consistent on that as I read it. Interesting point would be that some people consider fishing guides commercial fisherman but that is a whole other conversation though.

One one seemed to answer my question about #3 and 6 being in conflict with each other. More hatchery fish means less wild fish which is one of my major concerns.

JJ

PS I do truely hope CCA does some good for recreational fisherman but I have to agree that it isn't a conservation organization from what I have read so far.

Will be honest I don't know much if anything about those organization spent 60 seconds on each website and would probably say they are hunting organization that do some good conservation work (though DU I would have to research a lot more). I am not saying anything is wrong with it and I would probably agree with the majority of what they (DU, RMEF, CCA) are pushing but I still wouldn't call them a conservation organization like NFS, WFC, WSC, etc.

Don't know anything about the commercial harvest of elk or duck and I don't see anything in the 2 minutes I spent on their websites.

JJ

I am looking at the "mission" statements of the WSC and nothing is about allowing angling or harvest or opportunity to hunt (again not a bad thing) like DU and RMEF. WSC one mission point that mentions angling is about reducing impact of anglers on wild steelhead. CCA says "CCA will continue to battle for the health and longevity of our coastal fisheries and for recreational anglers' interests in them." (again not a bad thing). They are looking out for recreational anglers and fisheries interest (again not a bad thing). You could have a point that the WSC may find a grey area though but in my book they put fish first and not fisherman so I will remove them from my list above.

Just because an organization is run by fisherman doesn't mean it is a fishing organization.

Aunty,

CCA on the east coast isn't the same as CCA in the northwest. If I can believe what is being said that the individual memberships decide the direction than you can't compare the two. To this day the PNW membership seems to be all for an allocation grab while masking it as conservation. I believe that your motives are conservation minded but I have less faith in everybody else that claims to speak the truth.

JoJo, I think the idea of "bottom up" decisions is that the grass roots locals identify the issues they consider most detrimental to the fish.
These issues are then escalated and decisions, in concert with national CCA, are made for the benefit of the resource.

It would seem both short-sighted and self-destructive for national CCA to allow any branch to indulge in a resource grab (re-allocation, whatever).

I'd suggest waiting to see the "official" stance and proposals once PNW CCA decides on a course of action. Sure, some members would love a resource grab.

Would you like to name a group, local or national, that doesn't have members who feel that way?

TTT

Todd,

I think I understand your point, but I think you're getting tied in a knot by the word "Conservation" in their organization title... Like any good PAC (which is what they are) they give themselves a sympathetic name, but that doesn't mean they're off message. Here's the single-sentence mission statement for the CCA, which I snipped from the front page of their national website -- which seems to me to be exactly the position they're advancing...

Through broad-based recreational angler support, a strong legal and legislative presence, more than 30 years of experience and an unwavering vision for the future of U.S. and global marine resources, CCA will continue to battle for the health and longevity of our coastal fisheries and for recreational anglers’ interests in them.

And of course I think nobody thinks commercial fishing is going away in our waters... NON-Tribal commercial? That's a different deal in my view.

For what it's worth, I'm extremely glad to see point #5 on the list Francis posted, I think the combination of "$'s per harvestable fish" economics argument plus the more widely distributed benefits reaped from a natural resource -- those are WINNER arguments over time.

JJ,

Saying that DU is not a conservation organization is a bunch of BS.

All the angling organizations in this country put together haven't done as much for conservation of fish as DU has done for duck habitat. They wrote the book on leveraging donations with public money to do habitat projects. They've been at it for 70+ years.

All these so called fish conservation groups, WSC, etc are a bunch of posers by comparison.

People truly intersted in conservation of salmonids should study what DU has done over the years and try to apply it to fish habitat.

Fish not for profit groups are clueless by comparison.

BTW, I'm not even a DU member, just a duck hunter and a fisherman.

Im surprised this came back to life. i dont know why, but the comments were interesting, since most of them were 18 months ago. I dont want to debate Geoduck on DU vs CCA, win or lose isnt the point. The 4 million bucks getting dumped into Puget Sound is a good start, although Im not pro gov spending, there was no way for a non profit to finance that scale of cleanup. It will be satisfaction enough to know that procreation of marine life will increase many times over.

Start with a penny and double it every day. In 30 days, you will have one million dollars. Its like compound mating.

Good point LB. Compound mating, mind if I use that?

Fishy