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