Funny you would consider SAFE Areas as status quo, I can tell you from experience in the Legislature, commercials don't think that at all.
You seem to advocate a none scientific solution, with very real possibilities it will hurt sport fishing, with no scientific modeling that shows this plan will in reality help ESA listed species.
It appears to be nothing but a gut feeling plan, with no scientific bases what so ever.

The lack of interest in the annual spill regime, zero organizational presents in Judge Redden's court room, that's just off the top of my head, I'm sure I can think of more.
Those two facts shows either CCA is run by a bunch of idiots, or they don't really care what happens to CR stocks, and so far their agenda seems to be a stalling tactic on any real recovery efforts.

BIAW is one of our state's most powerful lobbies. Comparing it to boat builders and fishing companies is absurd.

Furthermore, none of those others is as rabidly anti-conservation as BIAW is.

Why would CCA associate with an organization that is completely and fundamentally at odds with CCA's mission? :

***************
"According to an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the BIAW is Washington state's biggest lobby against climate change, open space, and other environmental legislation. According to the same source, the group's newsletter has gone so far to equate environmentalists with terrorists. [33]"

"The BIAW is unlike other business groups in Olympia according to environmental lobbyist Clifford Traisman. "They are to the far right of most business in Washington state," Traisman says. "They believe the free market should rule supreme." [34]"

In 2005, the southern resident orcas were designated an endangered species. In 2006, the BIAW along with the Washington Farm Bureau sued the government to remove orcas from the endangered list. [35]
The legal challenge was thrown out of U.S. District Court. [36]

In 2007, the group challenged the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that protects threatened and endangered salmon across the West. [37]

In 2009, the BIAW has been fighting environmental legislation such as solar water heaters in new homes. [26]

****************

There's tons more about BIAW out there...

There's plenty of responsible businesses and organizations that CCA can associate with. Instead they choose BIAW; raising a lot more questions about CCA than how many $2 transactions CCA earned at the event.

If you want to look at this as an anaology to cars, look at it this way...the problem we're trying to prevent is the problem that cars with no steering wheels and no brakes tend to go off the road and slam into telephone poles, killing those in the car...unfortunately, the solution we're talking about here, following the analogy, is to try and solve that problem by putting a cool license plate holder on the back...looks cool, but doesn't even approach the problem, much less solve it.



The problem, SBD, is that the entire point of the commercials going selective is exactly the opposite of what you just wrote...the entire point is to put more hatchery fish in the totes on the decks of the commercial fleet...not less.

Fish on...

Todd

how bout this idea ??, it should not effect sportfishing,

If we were to place fish traps at the mouths of our rivers and a processing barge next to the nets, it would yield a much higher-quality product.

http://www.salmonuniversity.com/CCA_Loomis_1.htm

Russian's fishing selectivly. I know some guys that helped them get their King Crab fishery off the ground, it was like how much Crab do you want? Ok that will cost you 2 suitcases full of greenbacks and that was to the fishery's managers..

I've got an inside feeling CCA's gonna crash.... And in a hurry..........

I'm not certain that I've met as many stupid people as I have with an organization..... It's sad really. Either CCA dissapears back to TEXAS or sportsman are doomed on the CR..........

Keith
Keith

You don't think I would forget about the real world.
Sent e-mail awhile back.

At this time I could say how stupid some of the people in SOS are, or share CCA accomplishments to compare to yours
Take your pick.

Any other type of fish I could understand this but salmon are the homing pidgeons of the fish world. They can just move the target lower river hatchery stock down to the terminal fisherys and be done with it..

not realy, they still need some to return to hatcherys so they can raise them before they move them to the net pens.

Guess I ment whatever extra they want to give to the commercials, not the whole shabang..

what i cant figure out is what the average sportsman who supports this selective commercial fishing thinks will happen to sportfishing ??, if people dont like to fish after gillnets with the measly amount of fish they catch how do they think fishing will be with new selective methods that take more fish plus still having the gillnets, this is a recipe for disaster when this happens and if it spreads to willipa and grays harbor, why is this so hard to figure out ????

One point that sticks out from this thread is “what’s written on IF or PP won’t be the deciding factor on what happens on the CR”.

So what I understand is you have been;
1) writing before commercial selective gear was tested
2) writing while commercial selective gear is being tested
3) and you will be writing after commercial selective gear has been implemented.

I do need "a clue", as in -- I don't have a clue how charity that touts itself as a "conservation organization" would associate itself with a business organization that is proudly anti-conservation.

The same business organization that was recently sued by the State of Washington for fraud.

It just doesn't make sense. It's so plainly weird that you have to wonder if the CCA people that made the arrangement with BIAW, knew about BIAW's background and anti-fish lobbying? Or is CCA's leadership so personally wrapped up in Dino Rossi that none of that matters, and they'll use CCA to leverage his political campaign?

Either way, there's no shortage of good businesses to work with and CCA made a bad choice that reflects poorly on them.

Because everybody on this forum agrees selective fishing in a mixed stock fishery is good for both fish and harvest, and it will be an integral part of future sustainable fisheries. I think supporters of these proposals believe there will be some benefit, even if it's hoping their good faith efforts will reward them. There's an obvious confusion between a tool (selective harvest), and the derelict use of the tool (putting it in front of other less efficient fisheries), an entirely different problem.

The more I think about that the more I like it. Outstanding.

you dont have a clue, do you even fish ?

You seem to have quite an imagination coupled with your theories that I think I’m going to call “the bogey man theories.”

What you can’t see will definitely hurt you.

Most kids grow out of that stage, why haven’t you?

i guess basic understanding of the issue`s isnt one of your strong points ?