First let me start off by saying I am not trying to offend anyone with this post! I am simply interested in your opinions, and to find out of my own curiosity if anyone has ever attempted to unite existing Sportsfishing Groups. It seems to me that there are many, many sportsfishing organizations up and running in this country, and this region. Many are directed at specific habitat, specific species, etc. Has anyone ever attempted to unite all of these groups and their special interests in the fight to give one unified voice to our State and Federal fisheries departments? It seems to me that this would make more sense than to continue to create small pockets of specialist groups. I'm certain that if Trout Unlimited, The Wild Steelhead Coalition, and all others joined forces, that we would certainly outnumber Tribal and Commercial fisher(people) and once and for all get fair treatment, and our say in how things are run. Is my mind just too simple? Am I missing some political voodoo that keeps this from happening?

[This message has been edited by Kyle_A (edited 01-13-2001).]

I think a couple of things that work against sportfishers organizing are,1 The group is made up of people ranging from Earth First types to CEO's of extraction industries,too many opposing views, too much to disagree on. For some reason, it seems sportfishers are prone to petty bickering and narrow mindedness when put together in groups, just my observation. 2 For many,it seems, the rewards of putting time and/or money into a political cause that is basiclly to promote a hobby are not worth the price.

Many groups have started with the idea of bringing all the sport fishers together. As of now they have failed. Groups are many times pushed to take sides on an issue that is divisive by nature. Other groups just loose there way. The groups that tend to continue are those which have more club like with fishing events and outings. Unfortunately these groups tend to be specialized and unable to accomplish things politically, not because of lack of effort, but because of lack of numbers.

It has gotten to the point that the only numbers that really count are votes. Votes are a form of currency, you buy politicians with them. You get politicians to recognize those votes and their value by having lobbyist. This is why I am helping to start the Washington chapter of the Recreational Fishing Alliance(RFA). For years, well before the Boldt decision, the voice of the commercial fishing industry has been the ONLY voice heard in the halls of congress, federal regulatory agencies and costal state legislatures. In Washington DC they have over 30 lobyists, recreational anglers have 3 (RFA has 2 of them). We need more members so we can get more lobbyists, and we also need lobbyists in this state. Nation wide, RFA has about 75,000 members, we have 100 in this state so far.

RFA is NOT a replacement for other groups or Clubs. In fact we encourage people to become members of other clubs with values they believe in. There is even a club affiliation membership to RFA (send me a message if you want details)so we all can become united.

RFA generally will not take up issues of sport fishing regulation. That not what we are here for. We are here because it has been shown over and over that the commercial fishing lobby will push for harvest quotas that do not result in sustainable fisheries. And when the fisheries collapse, its us that take the brunt of the regulation. The Washington chapter is forming primarily for 2 reasons. First, we need to be the contacts for the national RFA so they know how to lobby on our behalf. And second, tribes get half the fish and that's not negotiable, but recreational anglers outnumber commercial fishers in this state 300 to 1 so we had damn well better get the majority of that other 50%. That's just not the way it is right now.

Some of you may be wondering why I am talking about so much of this being a national issue. Many people are not aware of the numbers of fish that are caught outside Washington waters and many of the fisheries are controlled federally. Here is an example:

Chinook (number of fish)landed off the Washington Coast
Year/Commercial/Sport
1999/45000/10000
1998/20000/2000
1997/22000/4000
1996/14000/less than 500
1995/11000/1000
1994/5000/0
I can go on but I think you get the idea.
This also does not include the number of Washington fish commercially caught in SE Alaska. I can tell you that the number of Chinook caught in SE Alaska in 1999 was 195000 fish. I don't know the percentage of Washington fish in that catch, the the word I have heard used is "significant"

This is why we need the RFA. No other group has really done (or been able to do) what we are doing. That's not intended as a smack in the face to other groups, but even larger groups like Trout Unlimited (who I have tremendous respect for) do not have the right non-profit status to both lobby and endorse politicians. You have to be a 501(c)(4)to do that.

Mike Gilchrist
Executive Board Member RFA Washington Chapter www.gamefishin.com/members/rfa