Kitzhaber Might Not Like It, But Voters Could Still Ban Gill Nets

http://www.opb.org/news/article/kitzhaber-might-not-like-it-but-voters-could-still-ban-gill-nets/

Let's hope the voice of a rational majority rings loud and true on Nov 6.

Go Oregon, GO!!!!!

I thought the CCA wants you to vote "no" on the gillnet ban now...?

Fish on...

Todd

http://community.statesmanjournal.com/bl...ballot-measure/


Hopefully this will also mean the end of Sen Fred Girod who's also been supporting alot of Oregon LNG legislation..

I don't think you will find to many CCA members voteing NO. Suspect they would all like to send a message to encourage the gov to keep his end at least. 81 is on the ballot, who knows how the wind will blow.

A burning question I've had through this whole process is what will happen to the governor's proposal if 81 passes? I've not heard any definitive answers.....especially from said governor's office. Are they going to pout, stomp their feet and throw the proposal out the window if 81 passes? I hope not.

Why not go forward with the particulars of the proposal regardless of the vote? The media gives the impression that if 81 passes, all bets are off the table with the governor's proposal. Really?

I'd like to see a govt agency chime in on some scenarios we will be faced with either way the vote goes.

Voters Pamplet spells out what the effects would be if Measure 81 passed, quite different scenario than what the sponsers were presenting. So I guess a goverment agency has chimed in.

Passing 81 would make the Gov's proposal a no-go.



Seriously...isn't the CCA telling its member to vote "no" now?

Does that make them part of the "irrational minority" now?

I already thought they were...seems like you do, too, now, Doc?

Fish on...

Todd

CCA has stopped supporting (throwing money at) Measure 81 in favor of supporting the Governor's plan. I may have missed it, but I have not seen any press from CCA urging members to vote against the measure. It's a fine, perhaps negligible distinction, but one exists, nevertheless. If I had a vote, I'd vote yes, regardless.

It certainly appears that CCA and most of the Stop Gillnets Now coalition got duped into backing out, but as I've maintained throughout most of this process, I think (hope) they are "playing the game" as best they can. When the government starts leaning toward your side of an issue, you had better acknowledge them, or they will run you out of town. I don't like it, but until it becomes clear that CCA blew it, I will continue to watch patiently and trust that they know what they're doing.

In the meantime, go Oregon, go! Let's do what needs to be done to ensure all the hard work that got us this far can't be wasted!

The position has not changed since the September, http://www.ccapnw.org/databaseshowitem.aspx?id=79439 .



I have not received any communication saying there has been meaningful head way made at the earlier meetings. The WA Commission will be briefed at the Nov 8-9 meeting. The next Bi-State meeting is scheduled for Nov 15.

http://www.ccapnw.org/databaseshowitem.aspx?id=79439

The fact of the matter is that it is 100% impossible to support the Governor's plan and to support 81...they are mutually exclusive.

CCA is "backing down from supporting 81"...

The Gov's plan does not ban gillnets, Prop. 81 bans gillnets. You can not support both.

If the CCA is supporting the Gov's plan, and its members are continuing to support Prop. 81, then something really wonky is happening.

Fish on...

Todd

No, supporting one thing or the other is not wonky...supporting the Governor's plan and supporting Prop. 81 is wonky, as they are mutually exclusive propositions.

Fish on...

Todd

Yes, the compromise is not something that I support. The Gov undermines the move towards reform. I'm asking my millitary friends and former coworkers to vote for 81.



A couple of years ago we had the high water. I called in a commented about being careful with the gillnets in the SELECT areas during a CRC meeting.
Staff never even considered it IMHO . Turned out the upriver impact was reached early that season... Go figure???

One more thing. Sturgeon on the Twin Harbors are managed based on the lower CR.

Non-treaty Gillnets should IMHO, be outlawed there as well because the population is crashing coastwide.

Francis, now that Marsha has got her irrelevant rant out of the way...

Who is the "rational majority"?

Is it those who vote for Prop 81?

Does that make those who don't support Prop 81 the "irrational minority"?

Is the CCA somehow excluded from the "irrational minority" for some reason, even though they recommend not voting for 81?

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I still am a member of the "rational minority", those who think that having a non-tribal commercial fishery at all on the LCR is an exceedingly useless and stupid idea.

Apparently, you can take a lawyer out of the practice, but you can't take the practice of convenient misrepresentation of intent out of the lawyer.

I know you're calling out eyeFISH here, and I'm not speaking for him, but I can't resist (God help me) pointing out that the above post is nowhere near as damning as you intended it to be. If you read the whole piece from the CCA link, you'll not find anything in it that urges members to vote no on Measure 81. It explains to potentially confused members the events that led to CCA's decision to back off support for (stop throwing money at) the measure as a show of moral support (not costing any money) for the Governor's alternative proposal, which was only made after the Governor had been sufficiently convinced that an outright gillnet ban (something some of his financial supporters DIDN'T want) might actually become a citizen-mandated reality.

The Governor was pressured (by most notably CCA, as he, himself, acknowledged) into an attempt to play ball. CCA, being well-versed in politics, knows that it's foolish to put all one's eggs in a single basket when trying to make political headway. Just as there was significant support for Measure 81, there was also significant opposition, and past campaigns suggested that the opposition might well win the day. For that reason, it made sense to acknowledge the Governor's efforts to compromise. If the measure passes, there will be no tears shed at CCA headquarters, I assure you. If not, with the compromise in place, progress (less progress, but progress, nevertheless) can still be made, and all the time and effort put into the campaign will not go wasted.

Personally, I agree with your position that non-tribal commercial fisheries should be laid to rest, 100%. I can't think of any sport fisher I know who disagrees. Unfortunately, the reality is that there is nobody in a position of power who will make that call. To do so, at least in the current climate, would be political suicide. With that, the best we can do is to try and build momentum against the status quo, even if that means a drawn-out battle, wrought with compromise. (Actually, we could do better by pooling our resources together and fighting fire with fire, but because sportsmen are divided by our personal hang-ups, to our shame, that won't happen.)

As an individual CCA member (not a CCA spokesman) who has no vote in Oregon, I urge Oregon's voters, CCA members or not, to vote YES on Measure 81. Should the measure fail, I will hope, recognizing that is all I can do, that the Governor makes good on his proposal. Sort of like insurance; you hope you never need it, but if you do, you're glad it's there. Regrettably, an insurance company is probably more likely to come through than a politician (man, is that saying a mouthful...), hence the vocal support for the measure.

Todd, CCA is not going against the initiative they are just not backing it financially anymore. The reason being the money they were promised from big backers went away. The reason given was that the governors proposal gave them 85% of what they wanted. CCA no longer has the money for TV commercials.
I went to the bi-state meeting on the 18th. There were a lot of CCA members there. I was able to look through the sign in sheets out front and it seemed as though half the people there were CCA. They had to bring in extra chairs which was good. If you want to get anything you have to show up. We need butts in the seats.
When I got up in my motel room there was the governor of Oregon in an ad trying to get people to vote against two other initiatives. He hates all initiatives they take away his power.
I talked to some rank and file members and they said everyone on the river is still voting for the initiative. It is as I have said before the commercials will bring in the big money and run a lot of TV ads against it. On the 18th the Oregonian ran an article titled " Gill-net fishing is in throes of change". It was a very interesting article. It stated that this governor tried this 4 years ago and his commision voted it down 4 to 3. There is only 1 member left on the commision from that time. The governor appoints the commision they will do what he says. Do I think CCA got sttrong- armed? Maybe who knows. Maybe some would not call it that. Maybe this is just strategy. They say that governor is a extremely good politician and gets what he wants. I think he could sell refigeraters to eskimos. Maybe to get what we want CCA had to back his proposal. We could actually back both and hope at least one succeeds. CCA had seats up front at the big table and a lot of members filled the hall. Hopefully this will get us what we want.
The commercials were there and said the same thing as always. Their gill-nets were absolutely wonderful and they would go bankrupt with this proposal. I could see some of these proposals disturbing them. Like the one givig 80% of the mainstem non-indian quota to the sports. This governor is actually talking about making a sports priority on the Columbia. CCA chapters are putting out an alert to attend the meetings on this proposal and I hope enough people show up. This is most of what I know. If anybody dosent agree with me I dont care.

Mutually exclusive means NO common elements... two big circles that sit completely apart, never intersecting.

The guv's plan and M81 are emphatically NOT mutually exclusive.

Any thinking man that wants to move the status quo in the right direction can see that BOTH plans move the needle in the right direction. One just does it better than the other.

Either is a step in the right direction. Combined, they would be even better... get rid of gillnets AND confine the commercials to off channel areas.

NSIA and ANWS leadership are fools to actively promote a NO vote on M81.

I hope the good folks of Oregon send them both a collective F.U. by passing M81 next week.

I appreciate the efforts, but a ban on gillnets and a plan by the Governor to save gillnets from being banned are not even close to being in the same ball park.

After all the reading I've done, the interviews I've heard, and the various reasons given by dozens of folks on all the different websites (all different reasons, too, mind you), I still have no idea exactly what the CCA was thinking by abandoning 81 and supporting a plan (Safe for Salmon) that they weren't supporting all along because it...drum roll...used gillnets.

You cannot, no matter how much you twist it, support 81 and the Governor's plan.

Fish on...

Todd