The Wild Steelhead Coalition is an option and participation from your organizations in the Steelhead Summit Alliance (SSA)

Double haul, in no way am I knocking any other orginzation, but what all the clubs and assocs dont have is large numbers of members. If I have read it right, the CCA in washington already has over thirteen hundred members, and CCA NW totol of over 3000. This outfit is just getting off the ground. Guys like you if you are not already should be a part of it. You can be a member of two orgs. The CCA very likley will not do anything you do not like, it will be the members that direct it. Tight lines

NWP,

The problem withthat is this: The vast majority of existing CCA members are of the opinion that gillnetting is what is responsible for limiting our fish runs and fishing opportunities. They also think that they can end tribal fisheries.

A handful of CCA members here can't even be convinced to spend five minutes researching the problems to see that there is almost no commercial fishing even going on around here in inner Puget Sound and that it has very little bearing on fish runs...how do you expect a few educated people to convince your "thousands", especially when they aggressively do NOT want to be educated?

So long as the vast majority of the CCA thinks that, then that's what the CCA will focus on, and the CCA will enjoy very limited success, for several reasons.

First, even if they did get a "win" (remember, a win is a win, right?), they won't win jack around here in Puget Sound...commercial fishing just doesn't have much to do with our miniscule run sizes.

Second, the CCA will have virtually no impact on tribal fisheries, period.

Why would I want to waste my time and energies? On the flipside, why would anyone else? Vast numbers of members advocating for the wrong things won't help, and in fact may detract from the work being done on the actual issues here in Puget Sound.

Fish on,.,.,.

Todd

Sauk closure impending [Re: N W Panhandler]
Todd Todd
River Nutrients


Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 4892
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA NWP,

The problem withthat is this: The vast majority of existing CCA members are of the opinion that gillnetting is what is responsible for limiting our fish runs and fishing opportunities. They also think that they can end tribal fisheries.

A handful of CCA members here can't even be convinced to spend five minutes researching the problems to see that there is almost no commercial fishing even going on around here in inner Puget Sound and that it has very little bearing on fish runs...how do you expect a few educated people to convince your "thousands", especially when they aggressively do NOT want to be educated?

So long as the vast majority of the CCA thinks that, then that's what the CCA will focus on, and the CCA will enjoy very limited success, for several reasons.

First, even if they did get a "win" (remember, a win is a win, right?), they won't win jack around here in Puget Sound...commercial fishing just doesn't have much to do with our miniscule run sizes.

Second, the CCA will have virtually no impact on tribal fisheries, period.

Why would I want to waste my time and energies? On the flipside, why would anyone else? Vast numbers of members advocating for the wrong things won't help, and in fact may detract from the work being done on the actual issues here in Puget Sound.

Fish on,.,.,.

Todd
_________________________





Todd, I understand your concern, and it is mine also, but think of what good such large numbers can have when it comes to allocation, and management. Surley with that many people we should be able to cause some change for the better. Forcing better comanagment would be one of my first goals. I believe Billy Frank once said after one of his meetings, LET US LEAD YOU OUT OF THIS MESS , those are not exactly his words at the time, but seem to be what has lingered on in my head. Sure my thoughts were, let the fox in the hen house, he will take good care of them. Seems like most of the hatchery steelhead run up at Forks, wound up in indian nets this year, what ever happened to 50/50, and now the talk of all the miscounting going on by the tribes. I do expect the cca will go after nets on the columbia, and maybe willipa bay, but ;I am hoping for more than that. One more time, the members of cca will be directing the nw cca, and members with your knowledge are sorley needed to push in the proper direction. I am not looking down on anything anyone has been doing, and i dont want to detract from their efforts by any means, I just believe that large numbers of members can better influence our government officials such as they are, maybe even Hatfield.

Yep no research here. Recently read that some of our rivers habitat has been trashed to a point of not being able to sustain a run.
Any ideas on what it will take to restore a river in a growing metropolis? Holding ponds for storm runoff ? Buy back of stream side property ? Set aside wet / moist lands ? Spawning channels ? If enough people know /care maybe restoration can happen.

TB,

Probably all of those, and a whole lot more...the biggest issue with fish runs in metropolitan areas is that it takes more than just projects to save the fish, it will take the political will of the people to agree first that it is worth it to save fish, and second that it is worth it to change our social constructs to do it...it will be expensive, time consuming, and will require an incredible change of mindset and actions to get anything real lasting value done.

NWP, that's why I'm still in "wait and see" mode with the CCA...I think that they will rapidly have to get off the "it's all about the harvest" kick, or they will perish...when that time comes, then I'll reassess where I'm at with them...until then, I've got plenty of other groups that I work with who are getting at those more important issues right now.

Many of us have been working on reducing, with the hope of finally eliminating the inriver commercial fisheries in the Columbia River. That issue automatically comes with bycatch, allocation, and economic issues, ones that I think the CCA can be helpful on, and I hope they put some serious thought into joining the fight there.

Besides that issue, I spend most of my time worrying about Puget Sound steelhead runs, and they don't have the luxury of waiting around, so that's where I'm going to continue putting my efforts...when the CCA wants to get involved with it (other than the nonexistent net issues here in PS proper), then I suspect we'll have a chance to work together here, too.

Fish on...

Todd

They told Billy Mitchell it wouldnt work either.....


http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/mitch.html

And George W. Bush told you it would work.

What the hell does that have to do with the CCA?

I get the feeling that the CCA bandwagoneers don't like my responses, so maybe this is the first thing they should learn...stop asking the exact same questions over and over, and I'll stop telling you the exact same answers, over and over.

Like I've pointed out before, I've probably done more in the past year or two than all the new CCA experts have done combined in their careers in fisheries politics...maybe they should just all worry about themselves a little more, and stop asking me why I'm not joined up?

A wrapup:

1. It's not about the harvest, especially to the exclusion of virtually all of the rest of the problems, most of which are so much more important than the harvest element as to render harvest almost irrelevant in 90%, or more, of the fisheries.

2. Stop, against all evidence to the contrary except in a few select areas, telling me it is.

3. Stop asking me if I've gone to hear Gary speak...I have, twice, and he's still not right, just because he keeps saying it over and over again. Saying repeatedly that WDFW setup a fishery intending to harvest "his" fish is purely made up out of thin air, even if the lot of you accept it at face value.

4. Stop saying that what has been done has not worked. It shows just how ignorant you are. If there hadn't been the groups and individuals who have been working on fisheries issues on behalf of the fish and the recreational angler for the past fifty years there wouldn't be any fish, or any fishing, at all. Get yourself educated and see just how much work has been done on your behalf, whether you know it or not.

5. Stop telling me to join up to affect the direction of the CCA...they are so harvest-oriented that there is no affecting any of their policies right now...they will have to figure it out for themselves.

6. When they do, and suffer the purge of membership when tribal netting has not changed one bit, in spite of the great expectations to do so, then I'll see where they decide to go from there. If I feel that it is in a meaningful direction, then I'll see about joining up.

7. Until then, I will do what I have always done...work with the several groups that I think are addressing the actual issues that affect fish and our fisheries, and help out when I can.

You will not find one time, anywhere, where I have chided someone for joining up with the CCA...to the contrary, I have consistently told all the newbies to the fisheries poltiics world that I'm glad that they have finally decided to get involved.

The next person to chide me for not joining the CCA will get an earful, that I promise.

Now, how about we get back to the topic of this thread, which, believe it or not, is not the CCA?

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,

So what complimentary group should I *also* join which covers:

a) clear focus on habitat and hatchery related issues
b) has a similar approach to the political issues/process?

I'm very interested in supporting people on multiple dimensions of the problem, but I really don't want to support folks who don't have a realistic view of how many members, and how much $$$ it's going to take to get ourselves to the table on these issues.

Amen Todd. That post will be too much like Right for a lot of people but not me.

JJ

"Todd,

So what complimentary group should I *also* join which covers:

a) clear focus on habitat and hatchery related issues
b) has a similar approach to the political issues/process?

I'm very interested in supporting people on multiple dimensions of the problem, but I really don't want to support folks who don't have a realistic view of how many members, and how much $$$ it's going to take to get ourselves to the table on these issues."

Irish Rogue,

A similar approach to political issues/process to what?

What's a "realistic view"of how many members and money it will take?

With less than 500 members, and using very little money, the Wild Steelhead Coalition was one of the few authors of the new Statewide Steelhead Management Plan...and was the group that forced the State to even come up with a new plan to begin with.

The fact of the matter is that there are times when confrontation is inevitable...and there are times when working cooperatively will get a lot more done, at much lower cost.

Working cooperatively, however, requires actually having an idea what the issues are, and having ways to deal with them...that's how you get a seat at the table, by knowing what you are talking about.

It doesn't matter how many members you have, or how big your war chest is, if the method you choose to shove down peoples' throats is wrong, and the goal you are after is impossible to meet even if you achieve your "win".

In spite of what Gary says, a "win" is not a win...aiming at an issue that is relevant to the situation, and making change there...that's what win looks like.

This is going to sound like a broken record, but since you asked, you get wins by being educated.

If you're looking instead to join up with a group and let them handle it for you, that's fine, too...but then they have to be educated; they need to know what the issues are, and how changing them will affect the fish and fisheries. They also need to put their resources to bear on issues and activities that do affect the fisheries in a meaningful way...and then get wins.

Fish on...

Todd

Irish, that depends if you want to raise fish or just tell everyone else how to raise fish.

Fishfirst.org

So Todd, why haven't you joined CCA?



Sorry, the devil made me do that.

I used my last $25 to buy four gallons of gas.

Fish on...

Todd

Okay, Todd. I'm in. I just read the majority of the publications on the WSC website. Not much new info from the last year, but the comments last Feb on the statewide plan seem excellent.... WSC got my $40, and my support for their efforts.

I do not in any way feel the need to be the intellectually smartest guy in the room here, there are many others who've clearly demonstrated their command of the issues. I want to marshal support for those people. I want to see them succeed.

I think while you may criticize CCA's specific plans (which you're describing as harvest-only), but I'll certainly commend them for getting out, speaking and raising awareness. Maybe they're just the flavor of the month, but maybe, just maybe, they have something to teach the WSC as well... They (CCA) seem to really understand the membership drive and fundraising aspects of any strong political action committee... I read in Adipose/Nov07 that WSC is shooting for 350 members as a high water mark for 2008. I wonder if this is an order of magnitude too conservative.

No knock considered, I have been working my rear off the last 8 years with Todd and other individuals that have proven to me how dedicated they are to create change for wild steelhead. And we have all heard many nay sayers from day one and many critics, but the bottom line is we have been there and in my honest opinion we have been creating positive change for the plight of wild steelhead. The organization maybe not huge, but our resolve is.

I am interested in what happens with the CCA, but what I have come to realize is that there are two general directions/philosphies of organizations:
1. Work to put the fish first and by their abundance will create your opportunity
2. Work for your opportunity/share first and then the fish.
Too me the jury is still out regarding where the CCA stands, I can't afford to get involved because of my investment the WSC. I wish the CCA luck and hope they take direction number 1.

I sincerely invite the CCA leadership's participation in the Steelhead Summit Alliance, (SSA), where they will learn and increase their education in steelhead science and issues and be a truly productive conservation group, or part of a true coalition of groups if you will, for stronger voice for steelhead in the Northwest.

Todd you should find another GAS station

Do you support the WSC as member, Aunty?

Phew. I thought for a moment that I was going to have to join the CCA.



That's a fair trade, right? You renew your WSC membership and I'll join the CCA.

Deal. I'll post back to confirm my CCA membership.

Ok, let me find the link to the CCA. Oh wait, I bet all I have to do is look up one post to see Aunty's .sig......