Very scientific......

H20

Kind of hurts really bad doesn't it!


Oh well, you'll get over it. . . . . well maybe!

Cowlitzfisherman

Not in the slightest.

I should have posted some icons or something to indicate my sarcasm.

I thought thread title alone would suffice but I guess I need to throw some icons in there next time....

Your poll was skewed from the get go is/was my point. Not even worth casting a vote, which by itself makes it as far from scientific as it gets.

Enjoy yourself though...

Stlhdh2o, I have to echo your sarcasm. The poll had NOTHING scientific about it. This board is not a reflection (IMO) of the average fisherman or even a broad range of thought on this issue.

It would be as laughable as if I went over to the other board I'm on (ALL flyfishermen) and conducted the same poll and then declared that's how people felt on the issue. No, that's one segment of fishers, but it definitely would not speak for all or even a majority.

CDubgirl

Between the two of us, our opinions amount to almost a nickle......

....wanna split a piece of gum?

It's not worth getting exercised about these types of polls. They don't measure:

1) the opinion of the board, as only those who are interested participate

2) the public, as they aren't accurately represented by the population of the board

3) or correctness. Popular opinion has little to do with wisdom. Remember, a poll conducted some hundreds of years ago would have concluded that the world is flat.

This does not represent an opinion one way or another on the poll in question - I haven't read it.

OK "kids", I know that you are still mad because I posted something earlier that neither of one you wanted to hear concerning your "WOMD thread debate, but you got to get over it!

If you can get over that for just a couple of moments, can you please explain to the rest of the board how either one of you can now "claim" that this was supposed to be a "'scientific poll"? It's beyond my comprehension how you guys came up with that one! Other then the two of you, who ever said that this was a "scientific poll"? It just must be the facts that came from this "poll" that you just can't stand!

There have been numerous facts that have been stated by me, Salmo, Smalma, and Cohoangler concerning these issues. Ever single one of my questions on the poll was related directly to all of the different facts and opinions that had been stated. So where was the "slant"? Was it in the answers that you didn't like? Was the poll going in a different direction then you liked? Was it "fixed"? Tell us, what was slanted. Are you saying that the people who took the time to read the questions and vote didn't know or understand what they were voting on? Did some one force our members to vote?

What didn't you like about the poll? Probably just the final results, I suspect! You have long standing members like Dogfish, who made some very constructive comments, and I did my best to answer his comments. Was that also to slanted for you?

Did I not do enough to make both of you happy? If you didn't like the way that the pole was worded after you have claimed to have read all of the "different" facts, why then didn't you jump in earlier and say so? I would truly love to debate the history of Cowlitz River and its fisheries issues with each of you. Do want to do it?

The poll was not about wild fish! It was strictly about the Cowlitz River fishery and its future.

PS; The poll did measure the opinions of the members who wanted to vote! What more can a poll do?


Get over it and move on!


Cowlitzfisherman

Here's what I have a problem with because its just not the whole truth..... The topic of your post is "Cowlitz poll reflects what fishermen want." That implies your poll incorporates a whole lot more interested groups than just a few meat fishers on Bob's board.

This was the name of my poll; "Cowlitz River production poll for steelhead"
The final results of my poll was posted under this name; "Cowlitz poll reflects what fishermen want"

I know that you love to debate, but really, aren't you going just a little overboard on this issue? Can you be just a little bit more pacific about your claim that my poll and its results are not the truth? You said;" "… I have a problem with because its just not the whole truth. . ."

Well, we are all ears! What wasn't the truth about the poll or its results? In the extreme limited space that we are given to post a little of a thread, what did you want me to write? I thought that you guys were always preaching about our "rights" of free speech. Are you suggesting that I run my polls across you or H20 to be edited first before I post them? That would probably work out really good for both of you, but what about the rest of Bob's board?

If the issues in my poll were not truthful, why didn't you put me on the spot to prove so? It's still not too late you know! It has always been my personal policy to back up whatever I say about the Cowlitz River fishery. Since you have insinuated that my poll or its contents are not completely truthful, that is an insult to the members who took their time to vote! It would behoove you to let our board know what or where they have been mislead! Now that’s a debate that I would really enjoy having!!


Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitz -

I think you are taking what at least I am trying to say the wrong way.

I don't mean to question you or your integrity. Only the grandiose conclusions you claim in the results of your poll.

'This board has spoken' for example is pretty fair mischaracterization of the results of your poll because it assumes that everyone that has an opinion expressesd it in your poll.

I highly doubt anyone here that is familiar with your posts would doubt your sincerity or integrity on the matters which you polled the board. I for one applaud your passion and commitment.

Drawing conclusions about the opinion of the board based on your poll is well, just a little presumptious of the people who saw, read and discounted voting in your poll.

People like myself...

H20
I know that we do not agree or see eye to eye on many issues, and that's OK. But I just don't understand your logic on this one. I was under the impression that a "Poll" was used to get a general feeling of how our registered members feel about a subject, issue, or topic.

On this Poll, that was all that was done! The people who wanted to reply did so, and the people who did not want to reply also did so. Now if they didn't like or agree with the poll, they had every opportunity in the world to write their opposing comments below my Poll thread , be it good or bad. Dogfish did the correct thing and I attempted to answer his comments.

It's really no different here then when you or I go to vote each time in our general elections! Every year there are millions of registered voters. Do all of them vote? You know what the answer is. But what really counts is that the ones who did take the time to vote did so, and their votes are really the only ones that are counted! It really doesn't matter if you liked the person, or issue at the ballot. All that matters is the votes that are caste. Like I said, if they didn't like the poll, they could have written a "write in" as comments which is very similar to our voting Ballot.

Frankly, I was surprised at the amount of members who did take the time to cast their votes. I am also impressed that so many members did caste the votes in the direction that they did, and I think that was a tremendous complement to our board. They (the members) knew the difference between a true wild fish, and a make believe wild fish. One bad "make believe" "wild" fish should not be allowed to ruin the true recovery of our real "wild" fish! I truly believe that once our members were given the opportunity to sort through the facts, they quickly realized the fiascos that are currently being attempted on the Cowlitz and its fishery.


Enough people realized the poll was NOT about pro or con of wild or hatchery fish. Since even "Salmo G" pretty much agreed that there were no "true" wild steelhead left in the Cowlitz, the issue of "wild" becomes moot.

Clearly the poll has shown how the people who fish the Cowlitz wants the Cowlitz to be managed! I don't hear any of the people who voted asking me to cancel their votes . . .do you?

Besides, I don't have monopoly on writing a poll! Anyone can do so if they can live with the results. There's old saying; "If you don't want to know the answer . . . don’t ask the question"!


Cowlitzfisherman

"I was under the impression that a "Poll" was used to get a general feeling of how our registered members feel about a subject, issue, or topic."

That's also my impression. To conclude though that the results of the poll somehow describe the entire board's viewpoint would be erroneous. To further suggest that the conclusions of your poll should be taken into consideration by the game management agencies and individuals in this state as 'a collective voice for salmon and steelhead fishermen' is...well....like I said, have fun with that.

Peace

H20
I am quickly coming to the conclusion that you just like to argue even though your argument is pointless!

Our board members are not stupid. You did understand the boards "general feeling" right? If I had held this pole at any other fishing board, or down in Lewis County, you would probably loose control of you bladder when you read the results!

Finally, you said;" To further suggest that the conclusions of your poll should be taken into consideration by the game management agencies and individuals in this state as 'a collective voice for salmon and steelhead fishermen' is...well....like I said, have fun with that."

My pole results support exactly what over 100 people relfected when they met with Koenings!
Read it for yourself, and spin away! It sounded like a pretty "collectively" opinion to me!

By John Henderer ,
The Chronicle, 06-16-2000

An overflow crowd turned out Thursday evening in Chehalis to hear state Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Jeff Koenings explain his efforts to improve depleted Cowlitz River fish stocks, and to provide fishing opportunities.

Fishing groups reacted angrily to the director’s signing last month of a preliminary settlement document governing Tacoma Power’s Cowlitz dam operations. In an editorial, Fishing and Hunting News accused Koenings of agreeing "to kill sport fishing on the Cowlitz River."

Provisions to phase out the hatchery program supporting the early winter steelhead runs especially angered fishing groups.
But Koenings told the group he took over the department’s late-stage negotiations in May because he had their concerns in mind. "The thing that I found lacking was some appreciable (fishing) harvest over the next 40 years," he said. Koenings and several high-level department staffers told the crowd of nearly 100 people they are laboring under a dual mandate: to restore threatened fish runs, ultimately resulting in their federal delisting, and to provide fishing opportunities.

The settlement, which must be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by July 15, would allow Tacoma to continue operating its dams for 40 years, and would require the utility to mitigate its effects on depleted and diseased steelhead and salmon runs.

The anglers yelled, "No," groaned and murmured their discontent, however, when officials said details governing specific fish runs could be hammered out after a settlement is signed. Officials later explained they would try to ensure these details are legally binding.

"I hear what you’re saying, but a cold reading of this really doesn’t give me confidence the safeguards (exist) you say are there," said Frank Urabeck, Northwest Marine Trade Association director of fishing affairs. "This document does not say what you said, in my interpretation."
"Let’s put this in writing," said Hal Boynton of Trout Unlimited. "Let’s put that in page 8 of the agreement with Tacoma, and then we’ll be happy."

Fishing groups urged Koenings not to eliminate the early winter steelhead program, arguing it has been a part of the Cowlitz River since long before Tacoma built its dams in the 1960s.
Three Cowlitz stocks are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, however, said Lew Atkins, assistant fish program director: late winter steelhead, spring chinook and fall chinook salmon. These stocks have priority for production and recovery because of the federal listing. By placing priority on the late winter steelhead, fishing opportunities may increase later in the year, they said.

In the short term, the department plans to continue the early winter run, but at a reduced level to keep spawners from interfering with late winter run spawners, where they may overlap.
Department officials said they managed to negotiate a better deal than Tacoma offered. It will upgrade the disease-infested Cowlitz salmon and trout hatcheries, and produce better juvenile fish for release into the river, they contended.
They also plan to change hatchery operations to produce larger fish, releasing them a bit later to try to improve survival.

Koenings vowed to take the anglers’ concerns into consideration as the negotiations continue over the next few weeks. Officials offered no guarantees any specific number of fish would return to the river, however.
Anglers expressed disgust at how poorly Cowlitz fish runs have fared compared to other rivers, but despite occasional outbursts, the crowd remained peaceful.

As word of the meeting spread, the department changed the hearing room at least twice, searching for larger quarters. Friends of the Cowlitz, which coincidentally had scheduled its annual meeting for the same time, canceled its meeting to hear from the department.
Some at Thursday’s meeting expressed concerns at the urgency to sign a deal with Tacoma, fearing it would release the utility of obligations to help fish. "We don’t need to be stampeded into a bad agreement that sells all these guys’ fishing rights down the river," said John Squires, Packwood, Cowlitz Plan for Restoration-Fish (CPR-Fish).

"We’ve got moss on the rocks we’ve never had before," said Toledo fishing guide Victor Dalosto, referring to low, controlled flows that don’t mimic a natural river. "How are we going to raise natives? We might raise frogs, but we’re not going to raise natives."

Others urged the department to negotiate for more money from Tacoma, suggesting a percentage of the utility’s sales or profits, saying it now pockets "a huge windfall." "You need to squeeze ’em till the juice runs," said Corky Smith, Friends of the Cowlitz founder.
Department officials repeatedly explained they are only one party to the settlement negotiations, and do not have authority to order Tacoma to do anything on the river.
Atkins urged the anglers to trust Fish and Wildlife to make good decisions based on sound scientific research.

None of the three Lewis County commissioners attended Thursday’s meeting, but county Prosecutor Jeremy Randolph explained the county’s role is limited regarding fish matters. "These (state and federal fish agencies) are the three gorillas," Randolph said. "We’ve got a couple bananas. ... We are not, nor do we have expertise, in the fish business."
Commission Chairman Dennis Hadaller has signed the agreement. In a prepared statement, commissioners expressed their continued support for a negotiated settlement.

Some criticized the department for not mandating fish ladders over the dams, and for setting a difficult standard before they ever could be built under the agreement. But Koenings said he looks at the issue practically. "I want the option and the flexibility to do whatever is necessary to rebuild those runs," he said. "If we get locked into one approach, that flexibility is gone."
Dave Becker, Friends of the Cowlitz relicensing coordinator, harshly criticized the agreement. "This was a railroad job by Tacoma to shove this through," he said. "They just made an end run to sign because they couldn’t get consensus."
Koenings disputed allegations the deal was crafted "in a back room," pointing to several years of public discussions leading up to the agreement.

Cleve Steward, a fisheries biologist hired by Tacoma to represent environmental groups, also criticized the deal as "letting them off the hook. We aren’t establishing goals that are based on fish. We’ve established goals that are based on Tacoma’s bottom line."
Tacoma Power hopes to submit a comprehensive settlement to FERC as the centerpiece of its application for a new license. Its existing license expires next year.

For the past four years, it has pursued a settlement under the alternative relicensing process, conducting its own environmental assessment, hiring a mediator, and shepherding state and federal fishing agencies, tribal and environmental groups through the process.
Public meetings ended last December with no settlement, but since then a flurry of meetings and negotiations behind the scenes produced the preliminary agreement.

Koenings invited public comment on the issue but said it must arrive within days. His office mailing address is 600 Capitol Way North MS 43135, Olympia, Wash., 98501-1091.
---
John Henderer covers county government and environmental issues for The Chronicle.
He can be reached by e-mail at jhenderer@chronline.com or by calling 807-8239


Cowlitzfisherman

"Cleve Steward, a fisheries biologist hired by Tacoma to represent environmental groups, also criticized the deal as "letting them off the hook. We aren’t establishing goals that are based on fish. We’ve established goals that are based on Tacoma’s bottom line."
Tacoma Power hopes to submit a comprehensive settlement to FERC as the centerpiece of its application for a new license. Its existing license expires next year"

Hello............. This is the key statement in this article. Every management policy suggested is based on this statement and is doomed to failure. What really pisses me off is we can debate facts, exchange ideas, and put an incredible amount of effort into a succesful plan for salmon recovery, only to be shafted by our politacal leaders. Folks, this is ALL ABOUT $$$$$$$$$. I cant believe anyone involved in making these proposals is representing the fish's welfare, or the fishermans intrests.

And by the way, if I didn't like the results of a poll, I would take another look at my perspective, just to be sure. I wouldn't attempt to discredit the poll. Having no actual facts , only inuendo, I would sound like a whining liberal. Every vote counts. The exact margin for error is fractional at best. CFM did not unfairly influence it's outcome. Nor did he misrepresent the results. Hope that works out for ya.....

One of the first things you learn in a statistics class is that poll results are only as good as the sample population that produced them.
A poll on this board can't be used to represent all Washington anglers.
As is often the case, this one has gone over someone's head.

It's not over anyones head. It's more, your not going to spin factual results to lessen thier degree of credibility. Not one person stated the poll represented all off WA anglers. Or that it was accurate to any scientific process. It was a poll amongst forum members. No more , no less. Your minority position is reflected in your arguement, which continues to support a poor position. The whole point of discussion is to make an informed decision. If your not willing to accept that your position may be less than acurate, polls and other forums where other peoples responses are welcomed may not be for you. Most of all, if you gripe about a poll that you didn't respond to (probably because of the way it was going), you may want to consider responding to the poll. If your not willing to do the work, you dont carry much weight as a critic.

Kinda curious how the same poll would turn out if you asked the hundreds of fisherman that are on the Cowlitz right now.
Spread the poll out over a few weeks so you could get more input and votes.
Do you think it would reflect the same results CFM got or do you think they would be skewed a different way.
I think it might even reinforce the results he got.But to a higher degree.
I live near the Cow.I see boats launching at 4:30 am and pulling out at 10pm.They are there for 1 reason.To catch fish.And I'm bettin on the Cow the more the better.
I see polls all the time on the T.V or Radio that have the input of a few thousand people.(what is the pop of the U.S.?)What that shows me is that you can only go by the amount of people that are willing to give input,or that you have access to..and use that for a reference.I think thats what CFM did.
So I feel that given the context its in.CFMs poll could be as accurate as any other.
It seems to me that some people believe to accurately reflect what the public wants you have to poll everybody.Thats obviously not possible.