Fellow Ball Boarders:
I am amazed, aghast and appalled that this board isn't filled with posts about the new Washington Anglers Alliance, after an announcement a couple weeks ago! Jim Bain and a few other bright, sensible guys are putting together the sort of organization that sportfishers (and other wildlife advocates) have needed in this state for decades. Every single one of us should be supporting this cause.
No one is looking for money -- just go to www.gamefishin.com/waa and sign on the list. Numbers alone will give us most of the clout we need in Olympia. Ideally, we'll eventually have an attorney, biologist and lobbyist, but for now it's a large head count that's needed.
If you are part of a fishing organization, push for total club involvement. Either way, get into this as an individual supporter, and pass the word to others.
Let's get with it and bring ourselves up to the forefront in the state's fish management priorities, up from the third class status we now "enjoy!"

Right on. What can it hurt to sign on? I did and I've offered to help wherever I can.

Bruce

I went to the web site and the only agenda seemed to be large political force. Size is not all that matters in a group. There are lots of large political forces out there that have interest in fishing. I am willing to help support issues and projects that I feel will have long term benefits. As soon as I see something that I can sink my teeth into I will be happy to join. Until then I will not give a signed blank check. Please point out my oversight!!
tight lines

------------------
Marty
www.steelheader.net
marty@steelheader.net

I hesitated as to what message icon to put...but my biggest response to your post is a question...what large political forces are there in the state of Washington that have fish first? Am I wasting my time??

First of all my name is Jim Bain, I am 40 years old and a Washington Native...I have like many been able to watch our fishing go from phenomenal to dismal in about 25 years. WAA has formed to change the process. It will not be a projects or issue oriented organization...I have a saying that I believe in strongly...If we always do what weve always done, we will always get what we've always gotten. To the best of my knowledge the WAA concept has not been tried. Issues and projects consume time and divide people...I have had enough of that it doesn't work. It is not that projects don't work...many have and do. The WAA purpose is to provide muscle to these organizations. As I am sure you are aware...many projects have been tabled...projects that were and are needed. Picture this...Bob here had a release natives "petition" going here. Here is how the WAA will help. Bob could come to the WAA with the need..the Biologist will confirm that it is sound scientifically, the attorney will check the legalities of presentation and the lobbyist will do his work amongst the politicos to be...Bob now has a whole bunch more power and leverage when he walks into that commissioners meeting with the WAA Lobbyist, Biologist and Attorney, and the backing of 100,000 members. (remember each member represents 14 votes)

Marty and others,
I hope that this makes sense! Any advice, comments, recommendations and or questions are welcome...there are many working hard to make this make sense.

Thanks

Jim Bain

There are many different opinions of what is best for the fish and what is best for the sportsfisherman. Some I agree with and some I don't. It is hard for me to sign on, even if just by name, to such a vague concept as "if we do what we have always done, we will get what we have always gotten". What makes this such a hard nut to crack is,using your example, for every person for c&r of native steelhead there seems to be just as many against it. I know this is one of the more divisive issues, the point is everyone wants to "do whats best for the fish" but when it comes time to define what that means no one can agree. The devil is in the details. I'm not saying this is a lost cause, it just needs a little more definition of the direction this group is going to take.

So,
I dont see how you can have a political group with out having an agenda. How are you going to decide which issues to be supporting and which issues to be against? Will you support both "Bobs C@R petition" and say the Wildcaters wanting a bigger kill fishery?
I will happily join and be an active member of any orginization thet promotes protecting our wild fish.
I am a member of Trout Unlimited Rainshadow chapter. What I dont like about TU is the state and national level of the group is wishy washy on issues that piss people off, like the net ban, they took a nutral stance. The reason I stay is our local chapter consists of a group that is willing to take a stance on issues and voice our opinions even if the group as a whole won't. It brings funds and lobbying power to local issues.
Maby the WAA can have local chapters that would be supported by the state group.
I guess my biggest concern is giving more power to the forces that are currently ruining our fishery.

Your skepticism is understood and warranted, but I must ask you to think outside the lines here. The lines that we have lived in for so long haven't worked...if you think they have then our conversation ends here. I will not take on an issue, we do have an agenda and that is to build for the first time in this state a unified force that Bobs C&R people can use when necessary and if it is in line with scientific and legal requirements. The Wildcatters can also use the WAA if what they are needing falls in line with scientific and legal requirements. In order for the WAA to work the old hatchets must be buried, the warmwater people have concerns and will be able to use the WAA, the flyfishers...etc...all. Our agenda if you will is representation specific where the smaller needs and concerns can be represented. I do not know how many letters were written regarding Bobs situation, but I will guarantee that it didn't get the attention of any politicians that weren't already somewhat interested, no offense Bob, but big numbers is what is needed. Gentleman I appreciate your ideas, cander and opinions, and I understand that it is hard to move out of a box that we are used to...so I hope that you can understand that WAA is not designed to be issue specific it is designed to be fish specific.

Thanks for responses and keep them coming it can only make all of us better.

Thanks,

Jim

I'm tying to picture this. An organization with the goal of many members that will not take on any issues but can be used to support any other groups issues to be determined by unknown persons,lawyers and biologists. Please don't take this as a put down, I am just trying to get a handle on this organization.

Neanderthal and anyone else,
As you know, issues and agendas come and go sometimes faster than we can keep track of. However there are two salmon related issues going on right now where we the sportsman have no representation and are certainly arenas where the WAA would be present. They are:

North of Falcon; this series of meetings is where the majority of our salmon returns go through the grist mill and seasons are created. I will guarantee that the tribes are there with their legal and scientific help. The commercials are there with thier legal and scientific help. And the anglers are there listening hoping to get some crumbs.

Now on to the Columbia for the Spring Chinook fishery debacle...same scenario as above...in fact this scenario is played out over and over and over again every year over different issues. I do not believe that a large "umbrella" organization can just come out and say these are the issues, it would defeat the purpose. We have formulated a mission statement if you will.

An Alliance formed to promote and enhance the health and awareness of all fish related resources through an informative yet common sense political, legal and scientific presence.

Keep the posts and emails coming!

Jim

If WAA had a representive at the North of Cape Falcon meetings and meetings concerning the Columbia River spring fisheries what would he be saying to for the sportfisherman?

Neandrathal and anyone else,
Well first of all for the time lapse...busy weekend. The question of what would we be saying at North of Falcon and the Columbia situation.

First off both situations are year long process', the meetings themselves especially North of Falcon public meetings are for the most part going through the motions...the real stuff happens before and during those meetings behind closed doors...if you have been involved in NofF I would assume that you know what I mean. So the reality is that once again to placate us sporties they have the meetings (my opinion). As for the Columbia...lots of questions here with no answers...purely a legal wrestling match now with the biggest questions being...why did the tribes go through a different permitting process and why or how did they get 100% of the allocation. Serious questions needing serious answers, the key here again is representation...we have none. So as you are wondering whether or not to join...decisions are being made without any sport representation...isn't that enough need? Regardless of the outcome, most of us know that we don't always get what we want with representation legal or otherwise, but do I dare say that we never get what we want without...that may be a bit broad...but it is rare.

Thanks,

Jim

Seems to me we as sport fishers have been ignored for decades. Any organization That MAY help gets my support. What have we got to lose? Is fishing getting better? There are occasional better than expected returns but for the most part our fisheries are in a downward spiral. The inequities in the Columbia river Spring Chinook allotment by NMFS is enough to show me we need representation...Again I ask what have we to lose?

Jim, it's becoming increasingly clear why the sport fisherman has never had a voice. Please don't give up.

You want to fight the NMFS over trbal fishing. That's something. Maybe I'm the only non-sheeplike person around here. I can't sign on to some vague ideals no matter how good they sound. Like I said before, there are many issues in the salmon/fish arena and I,and I hope I'm not the only one, need to know some specifics before I get on the band wagon.

Neanderthal I think NMFS could be fought
on this one. As the're enforcing the ESA laws differently for the tribal intrests as for non-tribal. You're right about there being many issues in the Salmon problem, but my question remains. WHAT HAVE WE TO LOSE. If we do nothing we won't be fishing for long. Season are being shortened or closed as we sit here and debate. One could also withdraw if they didn't like the direction of an orgination....P.S. Lost two on the Cowlitz yesterday....

I understand the Columbia river situation and have my opinion on it. This is only one of many issues. The question remains, where does WAA stand on the major fish related issues? This is what I need to know before I can support an organization. I don't know how to make it any clearer than this. A big list of names that can be used by any sportfishing group means nothing to me.

Neanderthal, and other skeptics:
I won't try to answer for Jim Bain. He's doing well on his own, and has given the most thought to where WAA is and should go. But I know he honestly appreciates your thoughtful questions, knowing we'll need to play "devil's advocate" in order to develop WAA into a viable force for ALL sportfishermen.
Keep in mind WAA is really still in the concept stage, and seeking our collective suggestions on overall policy. Assuming you see any merit in the concept of uniting sportfishermen, what would you want WAA to be doing?
For now, I see great, even critical, gain in just banding together to demand more science (and common sense) and less politics in fish management. Sorry if that sounds vague, but we'll have to start somewhere. If we can't yet compete with the money doled out by other user groups, we can at least show that we outnumber them -- by far!
I dislike the term "special interest group" to describe anglers, but it may be necessarily appropriate. As I hear Jim, he's not out to be anti-commercial or anti-tribal, but rather to be pro-sport, and I like that approach.
Now, if the warmwater guys can quit calling salmonid anglers "slimers" and coldwater folks can stop referring to w/w types as "Bubbas," and if we can all just relax about whose gamefish is more macho than the others...

Neanderthal,
I have asked and even challenged you a bit to think outside the traditional box that we sport fisherman want to put everything into. There is no fish issue that I am aware of that isn't multi faceted and many are extremely complicated. If everyone (all users) would simply agree to not harvest that obviously would be simple, but I do not see that happening, so we must pursue and explore some nontraditional harvest methods to protect our wild stocks. This is in the works but has its complications...understand that we want to see all species of fish that are native to this state thriving...the challenge is huge and focusing on single issues with eyes and ears closed has not worked for 25 years and it will continue to not work. The winds of change are blowing, I would love for you to simply say...ok, but I can tell you are probably not going to do that...could you at least email me at runwildrivers@yahoo.com so that I have your email address...I would like to keep you informed as to what we are doing.

Thanks,

Jim Bain

PS If nothing else this little dialogue got you closer to being a returning adult in the Bob Ball River!!!

Have Fun!

Neaderthal, what do you see being done for the sportfisherman on the issues in the salmon/fish arena. Maybe being sheep like isn't such a baaaaaad place to start on a good idea. (Is being fed up being sheep like?)

I do see a need for a voice for the sportsmen. I appreciate any effort to this end and will join if can get an idea of the direction this effort will take and the direction fits my opinion of what needs to be done. I can accept Scaly's answer as this organization being in the concept stage. Vague mission statements,cliches like "thinking outside the box" and statements like "will not take on any issues" are not enough for me to change my support from one group to another, even though the ones I do support seem asleep at the wheel.

I have high hopes for the direction of the WAA. I am excited about a voice in my local area also. I may be dreaming, but my fingers are crossed.

Jim,

You've got my support, I signed on. That the winds of change are blowing is an understatement. I see the day in the not-so-distant future when a majority of our opportunities will be gone. It's already happening.

I've waited for years for some kind of angler alliance to take shape and this appears to be a good attempt. Like it was stated earlier, "we have nothing to lose".

This is what I've observed over time:

1) WDFW is not aggressively committed in increasing angler opportunity much less keeping what we have. They talk the talk but they aren't walking the walk.

2) Most fishing groups are limited in effecting real change because of limited numbers and/or internal disagreement on agendas. Look at the noose around Trout Unlimited's neck when they came out "neutral" on I-696.

3) Sportfishers are famous for crying like a baby when they get shafted and then doing nothing to change the situation. I believe part of the reason for doing nothing is not so much a sense of complacence but that alot of sport fishers have seen for years the attempts of smaller groups with no real effect so the "what's the use" attitude prevails.

4) The tribe's are playing their cards right(they seem to have most of them these days)and are simply going after all they can because they have the tools to do so. We cannot do the same until we have more cards in our hand.

We are running out of time. I am actually questioning whether to invest in the fishing boat I've dreamed of my whole life because I don't feel certain there will be real opportunity 5-10 years down the road. I can finally afford it and I may have to look for a new passion-it stinks!

Large numbers may not be the only way but it's a heckuva way to start. NOTHING else has worked on a long term scale for us.....just piddly little victories here and there to keep us subdued.

It IS going to take a new innovative approach and I for one am more than willing to put my name on something that wants to pepetuate what I live for.

Anyone else?

hey neanderthal, i have read this post and i see that you are being asked what or where do you think waa should look or head into a certain arena. a new group or voice needs input and not always positive, sound critisen is a positive. from what i have read from jim is he is asking to try to help lead this group with what points so we may try to be more orented towardss speficic's and build a common goal for all.
now i sent my name in last week and i hope i send back the email right. i have not belonged to a sportmans group since i was a little kid; (ha ha, never was little and a kid drinks milk funny). but i am interested in trying to help rectify our present situation, if only with may poor typing.
please, you do not have to committ to a life time support, but a voice like yours needs to be part of a new and growing group.

thanks elmtree

Elmtree is exactly right. The last thing an Alliance like this needs is a bunch of YES men. New approaches and ideas have to be tried or this is doomed to fail. I know for a fact Jim wants everyones opinion. We don't have a bunch of time left.....

thank you, yes we all need to step up and whether we are for or against is not the point, it is that we are trying to do something to help correct a bad situation. our only hope is that we can establish a firm open forum group with enough poeple to be seen as a group of knowlegdable concerned citizen's, not just me first fisher-people.

oh, yea i did not email back right the other day, but it went out 2 minutes ago.

thanks elmtree

I've been in this awhile. The bottomline is sportsfishermen outnumber the commercial and tribals combined. We have more economic impact than both. I see the main issue as the sportsfisherman are tired of being ignored and religated to third place.(hind t*tty) All I want is the voice in state fisheries policy we deserve.

[This message has been edited by Bruce (edited 03-27-2000).]

I've been scrolling through the Jim/Neanderthal debate and am usually reserved on my comments. I can see points on both sides. We do need some kind of alliance representing the interest of all sport fisherman, regardless of the species. But siding with Neanderthal, I too am reluctant to have may name used to represent an issue I don't necessarily agree with. I would have no problem joining WAA as a group, but also would like to reserve the option to back the issues I believe in.

Jim,
hello again. You have my support and all of my fishing buddies support, I will see to that! I am all up for anything to improve fishing! You have my number so if there is anything that I can do feel free to call, I have alot of contacts and would be more than happy to try to get Trout Unlimited or some other building to hold a meeting to incourage others... I am on my way right now to sign, I will pass the word on...

thanks,
Andy Matthews

I have been waiting since the first attempt to ban all nets failed for an organization such as this one that can possibly unite the sports fishermen and women together as one voice. Although Its true not everybody will agree on all issues I think its time for us to have a voice in the decisions that are made in Olympia as the commercial fishing industry (and those damn nets) and the native americans do I am signing up right now!
RAMPRAT


[This message has been edited by ramprat (edited 03-27-2000).]

I tend to agree with most of Neanderthal's comments. I am finding it difficult to jump on this new organizations bandwagon. Even with so many different ideas in the sportsfishing community, I find it hard to find one groups ideas that agree with, sportsfisherman unlike commercials or native groups can't seem to agree on anything. How can a catch a release philosophy join hands with a group such as the Wildats? When I talk to someone who tells me they killed a 18# wild hen for her eggs because they have another steelhead trip planned next week, that sportfisherman make me much more angry than any commercial or tribal fisherman. As far as the economic impact, the sportfisherman has a much larger impact. The sportsfisherman buys tackle, pays for a hotel/motel room at his or her destination, buys gasoline for the car and or boat, purchases food at the local grocery store or Macdonalds. The commercial/tribal fisherman kills the fish and sells it, impacting only themselves and the fishery. As far as a the Salmon fishery goes, I don't believe a catch and keep philosophy is feasible, not with the current population, not to mention the population growth in the entire Puget Sound area and the sad state that our hatcheries are in(not that an exceptional run or return can't be fished). I believe the heart of the problem is with the hatchery vs. wild fish debate. Problem being, the hatcheries have a adverse effect upon the wild fish, but without the hatheries there probabaly won't be a catch and keep fishery, let alone a commercial fishery. If the state could actually fin clip ALL of the hathery fish this problem might be reduced, but I understand that the tribes might have a problem with finclipping(hmm, I wonder why?)
Legal requirements? What is a legal requirement as far a fish numbers, sustainable harvest? How many fish a river can support, or the mininum #'s of fish a river can have and still sustain a viable population? Why not try to maximize these numbers instead of minimize them? For myself to agree with a club such as the wilcats will take a monumental effort by both parties. Writing is not one of my skills, I hope that I at least got one of my points across!
thanks for your time
--salmontackler

Some feedback comments. First of all, I had posted awhile back suggesting a WAA type of organiztion and then being disappointed in the seeming general complacency of Washington anglers. This WAA push & the resultant constructive comunication now taking place here is encouraging.-- What I here Jim Bain saying is that the WAA will be mostly about sportfishing general interest representation by needed fish bio.s/lawyers/lobbyists, and importantly backed by the POWER of great numbers of members. And that the purpose will be oriented toward what's best for salmon & steelhead recovery & health, rather than for divided fishermen's self interest issues. Great! But a little reality check should be forthwith. While I believe that a large part of "what's best for fish recovery" is fighting the status quo of Indian & commercial netting, there is much more to the equation. Getting more financial commitment toward fish restoration from the electric power industry & reversing habitat destruction by such as the timber, agricultural, cattle, etc. industries is also a big part of it. The reality check for sportfishermen and potential WAA members is twofold: 1- While member numbers are very important it is also going to take money (Jim was reluctant to address that issue because it will take a lot for significant change- bio.s/lawyers/lobbyists cost). However, the more the members the less the money per member! EVERYONE joining in will be a powerful force w/o having too much cost per member!! I suggest a member pledge drive to get the numbers high before asking for the needed financial help so costs will be low when asked for. 2- The other reality is that for the future of salmon & steelhead runs, sportfishermen are going to continue to have to make sacrifices. But they don't have to be that painful. Continued manditory C&R where appropriate. Bait bans & barbless hooks where appropriate. And quite frankly, this will likely have to be for a long while in many areas. BUT HEY, YOU WILL STILL BE OUT THERE ENJOYING FISHING IN THE OUTDOORS!! WITH FISH RECOVERING FOR THE FUTURE INSTEAD OF PERMANENTLY DISAPPEARING ALONG WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO FISH FOR THEM AT ALL! So quit worrying about selfish issues & agendas and get with the WAA. I will attempt to get support for those objectives from our Ifish website readers here in Oregon if & when it will benefit your causes. We will be faced with the same battles here, although not as urgent as native steelhead netting. Jim, after a successful WAA membership drive, how about considering an even more powerful alliance combining Washington & Oregon sportfishermen (how does Northwest Sportfishing Alliance or similar sound?). And don't forget about likely substancial financial help from NSIA (Norhtwest Sportfishing Industry Assoc.- read the Feb./Mar.STS mag. article by Buzz Ramsey- they sell tackle, not bait). Another likely candidate for financial help would be the fishing boat industry. There are other candidates. Good luck & keep after it. - Steve Hanson

[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 03-28-2000).]

I can understand the skepticisim of some of these post. Hopefully as the WAA moves forward it will prove to be an organization ALL can support. I'm sure you all know the web site the WAA is hosted at, at this time. Check in for meeting dates and try to attend. If unhappy with the dirrection, voice your opinion. With the intellegence on this and other boards, something good can happen...

P.S. Rumor has it a commercial fishery was asked for, and agreed to, in Willapa bay for 50% of harvestable Sturgeon...

see this is why we need a group like waa, sturgen fishery in willapa bay ok, 50%?
we need to be able to see what is coming, as an indivual hard, as a group with more ears and eyes and a common board we can let each other know what is going on or when to act instead of after the fact react.


my suggestion about the next meeting in lacy's library, 6:00 pm is a little early for some of us, when i do not close the shop until then. lets try to see if we can spread the meetings into the area's of most of the members. i month here, next month over near the oly/pen area. sure, i may not make it over across the water to attend, but i can still leave my input with someone and i can read minutes.

thanks elmtree

I am not a sceptic and for myself it's not about selfish agendas. I would just like to get a feel for the position WAA is going to take on a few of the big issues. It's as simple as that. Do all of you sign on to organizations without knowing what position they are going to take on issues you care about? Reel Truth brought up a few. What position is WAA going to take on these?

My guess is, and again I'm not speaking for the WAA, The organization would favor the direction the membership wanted, as long as it made good sceintific sense.(as well as common sense). One could be a Democrat or Republican and still not agree with everything a party does but sides with that party because they more closely align their ideals..Everyone will not agree with everthing, but if FISH are the focus, recovery, and/or enhancement, could take place. If for no other reason, having a voice at the "table" would be beneficial....Again just my opinion.....

Yes -- ReelTruth raises some excellent points, especially the need to influence Big Industry in all its forms, and the benefits of working with NSIA. Industries virtually "own" our politicians, so they continue to trash our waters to the extent that they can get away with it! That will continue as long as we sit around as individuals with no clout. (Or the tribes will have to use their clout, in the courts,under their treaty rights.)
I'd only differ with ReelTruth in the makeup of WAA. In my opinion, warmwater anglers should be included too. We have more in common than we have differences, and I see no major problem in cooperating. It's in all our interests to have a variety of sport fisheries in the state. Or would you prefer to have all anglers fishing your already crowded river for your already scarce fish? We should "celebrate the differences."
There have been some isolated cases of cooperation between the larger WA cold and warmwater fishing organizations, which worked well for both sides, but it should be an ongoing process. Call it "politics" if you like, but that's what makes this world turn.

Absolutely we need the collective clout of all interested participants. In numbers there is strenght and we need that 800lb gorilla......

I think this thread, or at least my part in it has started going around in circles. The only thing I will add is that the Republican and Democrat partys have a party platform as a base so people can get a fair idea of where they stand.

Jim, I have posted questions to Kurt Krammer one of our WA fish biologists about wild steelhead and thier future. All I get back is the run around and excuses. Will this new organization get through to these guys? If anyone is interested in reading Kurts response go to Johns guide service home page and check it out. thanks

A good reason to join this group is the ability to voice your opinion, and help be part of the decision making process on which issues to take on. This Is why I joined TU when they started up in my town, If you are part of the group you can make sure the issues that are important to you are heard.

Neanderthal, I must say that I have absolutely enjoyed your input and trust me I understand your thoughts. The WAA will evolve, and I believe it will evolve into an organization that someday will benefit you in some way. I certainly wish that you picture in your mind how this could happen so that your voice could be counted in countless other arenas, but for you and many others I am sure...I am willing to earn the right to be heard. And I believe that with the passion that I hear in your post you will at that point become a valuable member. It is interesting I think how views are different, it has been the fishermans downfall and is now my biggest challenge. You see, in my mind the mission statement should be enough for you, though it is not issue related it is fish focused.
Here it is:

An alliance formed to promote and enhance the health and awareness of all fish related resources through an informative yet common sense political, legal and scientific presence.

Hang on to your thoughts and feelings, you will continue to hear about us. You still haven't emailed me...I promise I will not pester you but would like to keep you aware of what is happening throughout the state. If you don't email me than this was probably all just rhetoric for you but it help sharpen my thought process.

Have a Great Day!

Jim

Skyrise,
A very good question! I certainly hope so is my reply! Remember that one of the goals of this organization is to be able to hire our own Biologist. As in you career you have your own language...whatever it is every job has it, we need someone who speaks the language. It is so critically important the commercials and the tribes do it, we are the largest user and have no scientific representation....drives me nuts! I have a very busy day, but I will try to get to Kurts responses tonight...maybe I can help, worth trying anyway. If I knew Kurt that would help...what office is he out of??

Think Fish!

Jim

For clarification:

The Washington Anglers Alliance will definitely include the warmwater guys. We will be present at the Lake Washington Bass tournament this weekend.

The name was specifically meant to iclude anyone who fishes, and believe me I got hundreds and hundreds of email ideas. WAA seemed to encompass all that we intend to do and represent.

I personally like to fish for anything, yesterday was springers and sturgeon today is smallmouth.

Think Fish!

Jim

Jim, FYI, Curt Kraemer is WDFW's head biologist for Region 4. His (Region 4)office is in Mill Creek, south Snohomish County.

The warmawter guys are ok with me, they have been releasing fish a lot longer than most coldwater fishers.