To all boater fans, (who arent banned) Start your own friggin organization and raise your own money.

Im taking a different approach than you boater. Some of us recognize the effort to completely eliminate non tribal commercial fishing on the columbia has a low probability of success. State Law provides support for that group of fisherman. It took many years, just to acquire a commission that prioritized conservation over harvest. We simply will not change the way the tribes fish, unless we take the lead and show them, we are willing to play by the same rules. The NTC fisherman will not take the lead, so sportsmen must. If we can reduce the allowable ESA kill from 15% including the tribes, through selective gear, its a first step. If you eliminate Harvest as a primary reason for wild fish extinction, we can force the federal govt to deal with the other causes. Since Habitat and Hydro are both wrapped up in the Snake river dams, its a good bet, our position will be strengthened. Fortunately, several Tribes have already expressed interest in saving wild fish from extinction, through the use of selective gear.

The organization I support WILL NOT take on a fight, it doesnt think it can win. There are plenty of groups, who have proven they will.
Meanwhile, every year, there are less wild fish.

Make up your mind and go do something constructive.

CCA is not fighting an allocation battle. It only looks like an allocation battle on springers. Gillnets kill wild fish at a much faster rate. Thats why they get a smaller allocation. Its pretty arrogant to assume that your approach is the only sensible approach and that your approach is achievable. Start your own group.

How about looking at it from the standpoint of Wild fish conservation, rather than the "how many more fish can I kill than the other guy" position. Or the "they are taking MY fish" stance. Getting the commercials off the Columbia (and more so out of Puget Sound) is good long term goal, more short term is to get them to quit killing the wild stock so that there are fish to hit the gravel.

As stated before, if we want the Tribes to clean up there acts, we have to set the example. Only then will we have any leverage .. ..

Along those same lines, habitat improvement needs to happen so when there are more fish to hit the gravel, they have someplace to go and mature ...

good idea.

CCA is not fighting an allocation battle. It only looks like an allocation battle on springers. [/quote]

I think that this is a point of contention, when the commercial fleet adapts to a less lethal capture method, they will in turn want more of the allocation.
Saying it isn't so, doesn't necessarily make it so.
As a person who has been directly participating in the allocation process on the CR, on behalf of the fish and the sportfishers, I would have to say that CCA's plan will lead directly to more allocation for the commercials.
The only stake holder that would prosper under this plan is the commercials, sports and the fish will lose.

i agree with common sense.

That is EXACTLY where I come from.

But we are talking about the harvesting of hatchery spring chinook and how to best do that.

And there's plenty of us here that want to maximize that fishery, including more fish for the guys ABOVE BONNEVILLE (remember them?). Our local economy really needs the boost.

And there's options to accomplish that without sacrificing sportfishing by allowing the commercial fleet to take even more - which is the near certain outcome of the CCA selective harvest proposal.

Think back just a couple years....anglers pissed off about the commercials taking so many springers (yes, and the wild bycatch) and the organizing that happened surrounding those impact-allocation battles is precisely what caused CCA membership to skyrocket.

Its not enough that this self appointed queen twisted the arm of the owner of Steelheader.net to remove me from the super secret cca forum, (which is a subscription site) now she isnt happy with my freedom of my speech on the open forum on a completely different forum.

Im a private citizen. You are a hypocrit. Kiss my ass.

Lead Bouncer - I think I actually did help to "start my own group". I wrote a bunch of checks to, and did other stuff, for this group that was getting started and organizing around the Spring Chinook battle with the gillnetters. It's called CCA.

But I didn't stop thinking after I signed the checks, and have been around politics long enough to recognize bad policy when it comes along.

I think that this is a point of contention, when the commercial fleet adapts to a less lethal capture method, they will in turn want more of the allocation.
Saying it isn't so, doesn't necessarily make it so.
As a person who has been directly participating in the allocation process on the CR, on behalf of the fish and the sportfishers, I would have to say that CCA's plan will lead directly to more allocation for the commercials.
The only stake holder that would prosper under this plan is the commercials, sports and the fish will lose.
[/quote]

Freespool,
You continue to look short term. You mention fish, but you dont specify hatchery vs wild. Sportsmen have already lost big time. Our winter season is going to be cut to the middle of February instead of the end of February, so that you guys wont target wild steelhead on Puget Sound rivers. One of the WSC members actually wanted the season to end at the end of JANUARY. Dont know his name. I was there and I heard it. So was Jerry Garcia and Curt. I may swallow the middle of February, but not January. In fact I see no reason hatchery water should be shut down the middle of February. let us clean out the late fish. Ive caught hatchery fish at Lewis Street Bridge in the middle of February, only a few years ago.

WSC isnt the fall guy here,(its one opinion) Im just making a point we have been getting bent over because of bad management, lopsided commissions and overharvest and dams and blah blah. blah. We are lucky to have a commission.


I fully expect the commercials to ask for more fish. It doesnt stop the PSA from lobbying for more allocation, based on larger economic impact for the lower Columbia businesses. We would save a lot of wild fish, if selective gear was adopted immediately. You are dismissing any increase in hatchery fish from the future tribal hatchery around Okanogan. We are losing more fish to closed hatcheries, so selective gear is not my boogy man. Lets not forget, the columbia was closed to us for a long time. While we may lose some CR harvest for a period of time, we will also gain ground on wild Salmon, Steelhead and sturgeon for the long run. Doing nothing to preserve our hatchery allocation at the table, is not a long term plan.
As for your position on commercial take at the ladders? You will need more money, than the guys who sell boats and equipment for the commercial industry.

As I see it ending all LCR commercial fishing is the best option, SFS would be my second choice.
Would there be adjustments in hatchery production? Yes there would, most likely production would decrease.
However with no commercial presences sport opportunities would not necessarily decrease, especially in the spring and summer chinook fishery.

Thats a lie.

There was no threat to any cca member. You got pissed off in the fall of 2007 because I wrote an email to you concerning the amount of power that one member had in his control and I had concerns about the direction of that power.

Then, you told me, in either the responding email or the cca forum that you intended to go to the board meeting in January of 2008 and make an issue of it, in order to keep me off the board of directors. FACT. You and hubby were at that meeting.

I also wrote and told you, that I came clean with said member of CCA and apologized, He was at the board meeting as well. I also told the Exec director at the time, what your intentions were, and that if anyone intended to bring up my name for the board position to cancel it. January 2008

I was removed from the forum around August-Sept around the time of my renewal date of my subscription. Nine months after the board meeting.

Not only are you petty, You are a liar.

i probly will join salmon for all and help fight the change to selective commercial gear in an effort to save decent sportfishing.

No doubt......

Keith

There was no threat to any cca member. You got pissed off in the fall of 2007 because I wrote an email to you concerning the amount of power that one member had in his control and I had concerns about the direction of that power.


Thats not an admission of a threat.

I really dont care about this dirty laundry. There are hiccups and elbow scrapes in any organization when its being developed. In his defense, he was taking on a lot of duties, because we did not have a Exec Director and he was qualified to do that job and many others. Everybody there, wanted to be involved an move it forward. Not everyone can be in charge. I was a rookie, working on a particular project and we had a different approach. My approach was not the best, but I lobbied for it. I was wrong. I have since worked with the individual and we have no bone to pick.

You get pretty brave on the internet, I dare you to tell someone in your chapter to shut up.

Ya, I hear there are some gillnetters in that group.

From Google/aol

Salmon for All is an association of gillnetters, fish buyers, processors, and associated businesses. Today's Columbia River gillnet fishery provides salmon, ...

www.salmonforall.org/ - 12k - Similar pages

http://www.salmonforall.org/
Salmon, All About Pacific Salmon, History of Salmon, Salmon ...
Salmon, All About Pacific Salmon, History of Salmon, Salmon Recipes. ... The Indian tribes of the Northwest look upon salmon with great reverence and have ...


Salmon for All — NW Energy Coalition
Founded in 1958, Salmon For All is a non-profit, non-partisan trade association for lower Columbia River, non-tribal commercial fishing families and seafood ...
www.nwenergy.org/members/oregon/salmon-for-all - 20k - Similar pages
http://www.nwenergy.org/members/oregon/salmon-for-all

salmon bake makes the cca sound like a friggin cult

Ya, i better quit, othewise people will get letters saying Im a tweeker.


no proof required.

OTC,

We're on the same side. 9,000 members is a good start. The vast majority, like myself, send a check and don't actively participate. As membership grows, the number who participate in policy setting increases, and CCA action will shift toward the majority opinion, which is always subject to change.

An unfortunate reality, not acknowledged by all, is that allocation battles ARE the future of salmon fishing, forevermore. Even if CCA is misguided at this time on LCR selective fishing, I still think it's the best mechanism to make improvements to recreational fishing opportunity.

LB,

Boater can be a pita, but that doesn't make him wrong on the LCR chinook allocation issue. Under present law, regulation, and policy I'm sure he is right. Selective non-treaty commercial fishing on the LCR will reduce sport harvest of spring chinook. It is a point of contention, but it's not arrogance to try to make the argument. CCA may not want to get in an allocation battle, but they will find themselves in it nonetheless as the recreational share is reduced. You say that selective fishing will save wild fish; you do you reach this conclusion? I ask because you are wrong. I'm happy to discuss this at length with you if you like.

FR,

This is not a conservation issue. It is an allocation issue. NMFS has determined that it is OK to harvest up to 15% of wild CR spring chinook. You can bet the states and tribes will do everything in their power to harvest them. No party with authority is going to try to put any part of those 15% wild chinook on the spawning grounds. They are available for incidental mortality while fishing for the much greater number of hatchery chinook. The only question regarding this issue is who is going to "take" those 15% wild chinook, treaty tribes get 13%, with non-treaty commercial and sport splitting the remaining 2%.

AuntyM,

Some people think I'm a PollyAnna, not a chicken little. Here's something you need to know. The states do not fund CR hatcheries. They are federally funded under the Mitchell Act and Lower Snake Compensation Act to mitigate fish losses caused by the federal dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. While the original emphasis was commercial fishing, because sport fishing accounted for a small part of the CR salmon harvest. Further, the major part of the salmon harvest will continue to be commercial harvest - by treaty tribes - even if the non-treaty commercial sector disappeared tomorrow. The federal funding of the hatcheries will continue to mitigate dam-caused losses without the non-treaty fishery because of the treaty fishery obligations and the social and economic benefits of the recreational fishery.

I support selective fishing, but I don't support selective commercial fishing as a means to justify a commercial fishery that has become an historical anachronism or to increase the commercial harvest at the direct expense of sport harvest. Remember, the treaty fishery assures that 86% of the spring chinook will be commercially harvested anyway. Why share any more of the run with commercial fishing to keep the LCR hobby commercial fishery in business?

LB & Aunty,

Having your squabble here only serves the interests of those who would divide sport fishers, and we ain't gonna' improve sport fishing by your having it here. Please take it off forum.

Sg

Here's the real deal... No matter how you cut it when NMFS determined that 15% of Wild CR Springers could be harvested they willingly knew that there's not near that % of actual true wilds or "natives" being handled. If and when they actually regulate and mandate "ALL" hatcheries clip their hatchery spring chinook then we'll truly understand the % of natives we are handling. It's a double edge sword though, if we ever get to the point of actually knowing what our true Native population is we're doomed as sportsman.

Ever notice those fish with all their fins that make that funny beeping sound when they waive the wond over their head?

Keith