Fellow Ball Boarders:
I am amazed, aghast and appalled that this board isn't filled with posts about the new Washington Anglers Alliance, after an announcement a couple weeks ago! Jim Bain and a few other bright, sensible guys are putting together the sort of organization that sportfishers (and other wildlife advocates) have needed in this state for decades. Every single one of us should be supporting this cause.
No one is looking for money -- just go to www.gamefishin.com/waa and sign on the list. Numbers alone will give us most of the clout we need in Olympia. Ideally, we'll eventually have an attorney, biologist and lobbyist, but for now it's a large head count that's needed.
If you are part of a fishing organization, push for total club involvement. Either way, get into this as an individual supporter, and pass the word to others.
Let's get with it and bring ourselves up to the forefront in the state's fish management priorities, up from the third class status we now "enjoy!"

Right on. What can it hurt to sign on? I did and I've offered to help wherever I can.

Bruce

I went to the web site and the only agenda seemed to be large political force. Size is not all that matters in a group. There are lots of large political forces out there that have interest in fishing. I am willing to help support issues and projects that I feel will have long term benefits. As soon as I see something that I can sink my teeth into I will be happy to join. Until then I will not give a signed blank check. Please point out my oversight!!
tight lines

------------------
Marty
www.steelheader.net
marty@steelheader.net

I hesitated as to what message icon to put...but my biggest response to your post is a question...what large political forces are there in the state of Washington that have fish first? Am I wasting my time??

First of all my name is Jim Bain, I am 40 years old and a Washington Native...I have like many been able to watch our fishing go from phenomenal to dismal in about 25 years. WAA has formed to change the process. It will not be a projects or issue oriented organization...I have a saying that I believe in strongly...If we always do what weve always done, we will always get what we've always gotten. To the best of my knowledge the WAA concept has not been tried. Issues and projects consume time and divide people...I have had enough of that it doesn't work. It is not that projects don't work...many have and do. The WAA purpose is to provide muscle to these organizations. As I am sure you are aware...many projects have been tabled...projects that were and are needed. Picture this...Bob here had a release natives "petition" going here. Here is how the WAA will help. Bob could come to the WAA with the need..the Biologist will confirm that it is sound scientifically, the attorney will check the legalities of presentation and the lobbyist will do his work amongst the politicos to be...Bob now has a whole bunch more power and leverage when he walks into that commissioners meeting with the WAA Lobbyist, Biologist and Attorney, and the backing of 100,000 members. (remember each member represents 14 votes)

Marty and others,
I hope that this makes sense! Any advice, comments, recommendations and or questions are welcome...there are many working hard to make this make sense.

Thanks

Jim Bain

There are many different opinions of what is best for the fish and what is best for the sportsfisherman. Some I agree with and some I don't. It is hard for me to sign on, even if just by name, to such a vague concept as "if we do what we have always done, we will get what we have always gotten". What makes this such a hard nut to crack is,using your example, for every person for c&r of native steelhead there seems to be just as many against it. I know this is one of the more divisive issues, the point is everyone wants to "do whats best for the fish" but when it comes time to define what that means no one can agree. The devil is in the details. I'm not saying this is a lost cause, it just needs a little more definition of the direction this group is going to take.

So,
I dont see how you can have a political group with out having an agenda. How are you going to decide which issues to be supporting and which issues to be against? Will you support both "Bobs C@R petition" and say the Wildcaters wanting a bigger kill fishery?
I will happily join and be an active member of any orginization thet promotes protecting our wild fish.
I am a member of Trout Unlimited Rainshadow chapter. What I dont like about TU is the state and national level of the group is wishy washy on issues that piss people off, like the net ban, they took a nutral stance. The reason I stay is our local chapter consists of a group that is willing to take a stance on issues and voice our opinions even if the group as a whole won't. It brings funds and lobbying power to local issues.
Maby the WAA can have local chapters that would be supported by the state group.
I guess my biggest concern is giving more power to the forces that are currently ruining our fishery.

Your skepticism is understood and warranted, but I must ask you to think outside the lines here. The lines that we have lived in for so long haven't worked...if you think they have then our conversation ends here. I will not take on an issue, we do have an agenda and that is to build for the first time in this state a unified force that Bobs C&R people can use when necessary and if it is in line with scientific and legal requirements. The Wildcatters can also use the WAA if what they are needing falls in line with scientific and legal requirements. In order for the WAA to work the old hatchets must be buried, the warmwater people have concerns and will be able to use the WAA, the flyfishers...etc...all. Our agenda if you will is representation specific where the smaller needs and concerns can be represented. I do not know how many letters were written regarding Bobs situation, but I will guarantee that it didn't get the attention of any politicians that weren't already somewhat interested, no offense Bob, but big numbers is what is needed. Gentleman I appreciate your ideas, cander and opinions, and I understand that it is hard to move out of a box that we are used to...so I hope that you can understand that WAA is not designed to be issue specific it is designed to be fish specific.

Thanks for responses and keep them coming it can only make all of us better.

Thanks,

Jim

I'm tying to picture this. An organization with the goal of many members that will not take on any issues but can be used to support any other groups issues to be determined by unknown persons,lawyers and biologists. Please don't take this as a put down, I am just trying to get a handle on this organization.

Neanderthal and anyone else,
As you know, issues and agendas come and go sometimes faster than we can keep track of. However there are two salmon related issues going on right now where we the sportsman have no representation and are certainly arenas where the WAA would be present. They are:

North of Falcon; this series of meetings is where the majority of our salmon returns go through the grist mill and seasons are created. I will guarantee that the tribes are there with their legal and scientific help. The commercials are there with thier legal and scientific help. And the anglers are there listening hoping to get some crumbs.

Now on to the Columbia for the Spring Chinook fishery debacle...same scenario as above...in fact this scenario is played out over and over and over again every year over different issues. I do not believe that a large "umbrella" organization can just come out and say these are the issues, it would defeat the purpose. We have formulated a mission statement if you will.

An Alliance formed to promote and enhance the health and awareness of all fish related resources through an informative yet common sense political, legal and scientific presence.

Keep the posts and emails coming!

Jim

If WAA had a representive at the North of Cape Falcon meetings and meetings concerning the Columbia River spring fisheries what would he be saying to for the sportfisherman?

Neandrathal and anyone else,
Well first of all for the time lapse...busy weekend. The question of what would we be saying at North of Falcon and the Columbia situation.

First off both situations are year long process', the meetings themselves especially North of Falcon public meetings are for the most part going through the motions...the real stuff happens before and during those meetings behind closed doors...if you have been involved in NofF I would assume that you know what I mean. So the reality is that once again to placate us sporties they have the meetings (my opinion). As for the Columbia...lots of questions here with no answers...purely a legal wrestling match now with the biggest questions being...why did the tribes go through a different permitting process and why or how did they get 100% of the allocation. Serious questions needing serious answers, the key here again is representation...we have none. So as you are wondering whether or not to join...decisions are being made without any sport representation...isn't that enough need? Regardless of the outcome, most of us know that we don't always get what we want with representation legal or otherwise, but do I dare say that we never get what we want without...that may be a bit broad...but it is rare.

Thanks,

Jim

Seems to me we as sport fishers have been ignored for decades. Any organization That MAY help gets my support. What have we got to lose? Is fishing getting better? There are occasional better than expected returns but for the most part our fisheries are in a downward spiral. The inequities in the Columbia river Spring Chinook allotment by NMFS is enough to show me we need representation...Again I ask what have we to lose?

Jim, it's becoming increasingly clear why the sport fisherman has never had a voice. Please don't give up.

You want to fight the NMFS over trbal fishing. That's something. Maybe I'm the only non-sheeplike person around here. I can't sign on to some vague ideals no matter how good they sound. Like I said before, there are many issues in the salmon/fish arena and I,and I hope I'm not the only one, need to know some specifics before I get on the band wagon.

Neanderthal I think NMFS could be fought
on this one. As the're enforcing the ESA laws differently for the tribal intrests as for non-tribal. You're right about there being many issues in the Salmon problem, but my question remains. WHAT HAVE WE TO LOSE. If we do nothing we won't be fishing for long. Season are being shortened or closed as we sit here and debate. One could also withdraw if they didn't like the direction of an orgination....P.S. Lost two on the Cowlitz yesterday....

I understand the Columbia river situation and have my opinion on it. This is only one of many issues. The question remains, where does WAA stand on the major fish related issues? This is what I need to know before I can support an organization. I don't know how to make it any clearer than this. A big list of names that can be used by any sportfishing group means nothing to me.

Neanderthal, and other skeptics:
I won't try to answer for Jim Bain. He's doing well on his own, and has given the most thought to where WAA is and should go. But I know he honestly appreciates your thoughtful questions, knowing we'll need to play "devil's advocate" in order to develop WAA into a viable force for ALL sportfishermen.
Keep in mind WAA is really still in the concept stage, and seeking our collective suggestions on overall policy. Assuming you see any merit in the concept of uniting sportfishermen, what would you want WAA to be doing?
For now, I see great, even critical, gain in just banding together to demand more science (and common sense) and less politics in fish management. Sorry if that sounds vague, but we'll have to start somewhere. If we can't yet compete with the money doled out by other user groups, we can at least show that we outnumber them -- by far!
I dislike the term "special interest group" to describe anglers, but it may be necessarily appropriate. As I hear Jim, he's not out to be anti-commercial or anti-tribal, but rather to be pro-sport, and I like that approach.
Now, if the warmwater guys can quit calling salmonid anglers "slimers" and coldwater folks can stop referring to w/w types as "Bubbas," and if we can all just relax about whose gamefish is more macho than the others...

Neanderthal,
I have asked and even challenged you a bit to think outside the traditional box that we sport fisherman want to put everything into. There is no fish issue that I am aware of that isn't multi faceted and many are extremely complicated. If everyone (all users) would simply agree to not harvest that obviously would be simple, but I do not see that happening, so we must pursue and explore some nontraditional harvest methods to protect our wild stocks. This is in the works but has its complications...understand that we want to see all species of fish that are native to this state thriving...the challenge is huge and focusing on single issues with eyes and ears closed has not worked for 25 years and it will continue to not work. The winds of change are blowing, I would love for you to simply say...ok, but I can tell you are probably not going to do that...could you at least email me at runwildrivers@yahoo.com so that I have your email address...I would like to keep you informed as to what we are doing.

Thanks,

Jim Bain

PS If nothing else this little dialogue got you closer to being a returning adult in the Bob Ball River!!!

Have Fun!

Neaderthal, what do you see being done for the sportfisherman on the issues in the salmon/fish arena. Maybe being sheep like isn't such a baaaaaad place to start on a good idea. (Is being fed up being sheep like?)

I do see a need for a voice for the sportsmen. I appreciate any effort to this end and will join if can get an idea of the direction this effort will take and the direction fits my opinion of what needs to be done. I can accept Scaly's answer as this organization being in the concept stage. Vague mission statements,cliches like "thinking outside the box" and statements like "will not take on any issues" are not enough for me to change my support from one group to another, even though the ones I do support seem asleep at the wheel.