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.

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.

So JJ, then you do not consider Ducks Unlimited to be a conservation organization? How about the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation?

Maybe the resumption of commercial harvest of ducks and elk would be OK with you then?

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

When you included WSC, I would have to disagree with you that there is some big difference. I don't see your point.

Most WSC members fish. When they proposed eliminating "harvesting" of wild steelhead by other sport fishers, what is the difference between that action and what the CCA is proposing? Isn't the WSC action a "re-allocation" between direct harvest and indirect harvest via C&R mortality?

CCA wants everyone to selectively harvest. When the numbers are such that we can't support a commercial gilnet harvest, they don't want WDFW allowing said harvest because of the excess take of wild fish.

Any economic gains is just a bonus. If the WSC were proposing total fishing closures for steelhead statewide, would they be MORE conservation minded?

So where's the philosophical difference? There really isn't one.

CCA national has supported increased restrictions on sport fishing and supported total closures for all fishers in the past. They base it on scientifically established need. Not unlike the screwy situation you find yourselves in down there on the Umpqua. Which, BTW, I agree with.

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.

Exactly. The CCA was for the complete closure of striped bass on the east coast for everybody until they recovered. They were also for reduced sport limits on several other species until those species were truly recovered. If they put the health of the fish first, why wouldn't they be considered conservationists?

They aren't preservationists, wanting an end to any and all fishing.

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?