Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Gertie's Pa, Aug 19, 2008.

  1. I'm thinking of joining the cca. I like their political posture and their results in some of the southern and eastern states, especially when it comes to the net bans they've initiated. My big concern is their connection to Valero. It appears Valero is a motivated player in conservation and community issues but I still see them as an oil company. I see big oil as a necessary evil for our present lifestyle but the move to get away from an oil-based economy is critical to our success as a country and a world. I feel enslaved by the big oil bastards each time I reach into my wallet whether I'm buying gas, paying my home energy bill or buying lunch. I'm having issues sending a membership fee to an apparently great group like the CCA when they're shaking hands with someone I consider the enemy. Your thoughts and feedback would be greatly appreciated.
  2. So do nothing and keep looking for the perfect organization like many people and you can tell you grandchildren about the few wild fish we had. Or pick a couple of the best organizations and make a difference. You may never find the perfect organization but timing is critical.....NOW. As a member you can also express your views and try to make it better. I joined last year. Seeing how passionate that Gary Loomis is and this is the group he picked to go to battle with speaks volumes to me.
  3. I would consider Valero a “medium” oil bastard as they are a refining and marketing company and not involved with exploration and production. They buy crude oil on the wholesale market and refine it into various products. Their profit is largely determined by the “crack spread”, the difference in the cost of crude, whichever grade, and the price they can get for the refined products. If it makes you feel any better, while integrated “big” oil companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron are seeing record profits, Valero is taking it in the shorts this year with both their earnings and stock price down over half.
  4. From everything I've heard (and i've been to a number of meetings and a banquet), the local members decide on the issues and in conjunction with the legal weasels and national leaders decide which are highest priority and can be accomplished.

    They'll "rub elbows" with whoever it takes to get the job done. I know the an East Coast chapter worked with our anti-environment President to get the Striped Bass declared a gamefish. That was a hugh win, as the commercials had really reduced the populations migrating the New England coast each year.

    One comment I heard Gary Loomis make related to Democrat or Republican. He agreed that some politicians are "friends" of conservation and some are not. But his argument was that when you have the necessary votes and backing of key organizations in their jurisdiction, ALL politicians will fall in line whether they agree with you or not. The instinct for political survival is common to all. Apply the right leverage and they'll fall in line just like GWB.

    My long-winded point is that I trust the intent of the organization - to improve the conditions for our Salmon and Steelhead so that more can make it back to the rivers to spawn. To promote protection of viable wild stocks and the environments that support them. Their 'specialty' is in making specific changes thru the legal/legislative system. If they can achieve their goals, I beyond caring who they need to cuddle up to to do it.

    Just my .02,

    CCAPNW member
  5. Well, its not like Valero is Boeing. Think of a different ways for the world to end....will Valero be there or Boeing??

    Judging companies on their environmental records is difficult because of the media bias and ignorance on environmental and scientific issues.

    For example, Plum Creek LP has been portrayed as the Darth Vader on environmental issues. Ted Turner is one of the good guys.

    Yet, Plum Creek has worked with the Nature Conservancy and other environmental groups to make sure that their best lands pass in public ownership and away from development. Ted Turner on the other hand, has announced that none of his lands (and he owns more "good land" than Plum Creek will pass into public ownership. You can imagine what those lands are going to look like after Turner passes on to his "reward".

    I have found that a good way to judge a corporation is to see if they are affiliated with Ducks Unlimited or the Nature Conservancy. Those two organizations are more concerned about doing good than looking good. If a corporations rubs shoulders with those two groups they get the benefit of the doubt in my book.

    You might even find Boeing there....but no matter how many indulgences they purchase I'm not sure I can forgive them for their environmental sins.

    Corporations are like people, there are good ones and those that need to be saved.
  6. Hey Brian - I looked on their web site and it looks like the local chapter is in Vancouver. It is one thing to write a check, and quite another to writea check and become engaged with the organization.

    In your experience, who does one become active? Is there a large group in the Metro Seattle area? Maybe interest in a Seattle Chapter?
  7. marty, I've heard they are supposed to be starting a pugetsound chapter, maybe Tacoma. I do believe there is one in Seattle/North Seattle already.
  8. Yep, the one I attend (SnoKing Chapter) meets in the Woodinville area. There is also one in South Seattle (Seatac Chapter)that meets in Des Moines.

    Each of the local chapters is very active in the larger goals of CCAPNW and would welcome your participation.

    Tight Lines!

  9. Thanks - I drilled down deeper and found more chapter info.
  10. Good read guys. Thanks

    My thoughts and feedback: the world is an imperfect place. If we concentrate on making improvements rather than achieving perfection, we’re all better in the long run.
    -- Larry
  11. i'm not concerned about valero, but about the position statements of ccapnw and the focus of the organization.... namely primarily harvest.

    seems to me the primary focus is on harvest. this is fine, and will likely be popular with their target audience, but will not imo bring about wild fish recovery. the position paper is pro-hatchery and the only habitat mention is putting hatchery carcasses in streams. they do propose pushing for higher escapement goals, which is a positive... but from my read, their focus is on harvest, harvest, harvest.
  12. I'm still waiting for CCA to respond to my inquiry about a chapter in Kitsap County. I just can't see myself going to the King/Snohomish chapter or South Seattle. Both would require a lot of gas and ferry ride which just forces me to keep funding the big oil companies that are part of the ongoing problem. Anyway, CCA, if you are out there, I'm the guy that logged onto your site, hit "contact" and sent a message about a Kitsap chapter, I'm still here and I'm still interested.
  13. Thanks so much for your replies. When it comes to issues of conservation and trying to make a difference you guys really kick it up a notch. Your comments have been thought provoking and valuable. It's like trying to choose a political candidate. None of them fit perfectly. You just make your best choice and then watch them like a hawk.:thumb::ray1:

  14. I live in Spokane and we do not have a local chapter. I have even recruited members from Montana as well. It seems that they are going through some growing pains, maybe growing faster than expected. So join, the more members in your area the faster you will get a chapter.
  15. Chapters don't just "happen" because people join. If you want a local chapter, someone needs to take the lead and become the person responsible in your area for organizing one.

    Up here in Bellingham that person has been Jason Cross. He has busted his ass over the past 6 months to get people out to meetings, create the committees that are required, and worked hard at local events to get the word out about CCA. He is a dedicated guy who puts the rest of us lazy jerks in Bellingham to shame.

    Short version: If you want a CCA chapter in your town, someone has to make one. CCA doesn't do it for you.
  16. Topwater,
    Amen to that. From what I read and asked they are more interested in harvest and increasing hatchery fish and when I have asked them about how hatchery fish aren't good for wild fish that they don't resond.
  17. Weren't the CCA folks the anti-net group??

    I will support anybody that will get rid of commercial harvest and nets!!!
  18. The impression I've gotten from the meetings are that hatchery fish are for harvest and since we've paying licensing dollars for access to them we should get as fair a shake as the commercials. Maybe more, considering the $$$ generated by the sportfishing industry.

    Wild fish and their supporting habitat needs to be protected. There has been no discussion of anything but C&R for wild steelhead. Wild salmon as well, if the stocks are below escapement.

    The focus on harvest is because we're (sports fishermen) paying for the hatchery fish that are then being (in the case of salmon) relegated disproportionately to the commercial fishermen by the WDFW. Like it or not, many members would like to keep a salmon for the table and there is a high level of frustration with the way hatchery stocks have been managed in the past.

    I don't think this is a mutually exclusive position - there are times to fight for allocation (harvest) and times to fight for habitat and protection (native fish). If you look at the history of the National CCA, you'll find plenty of examples of them fighting for habitat and restrictive harvest where necessary.

    Just my .02 - your mileage may vary. :rolleyes:

  19. It's really gratifying to read all the kudos for CCA in this thread.

    I can respond to a couple of the questions raised here. As president of the Olympia (Capitol City) chapter, I am on the state board and am privy to some of the policy discussions. It is the practice of CCA not to make position statements on issues until all the homework has been done. There are currently six or seven formal positions that have been taken and published. You can read them on the ccapnw website. These have been subjected to extensive peer review by scientists and others to be certain that we can go to the mat on these specific issues, and defend them at any level. We are repeatedly cautioned against making statements that we might not be able to back up later. In the marines, we referred to this as "letting your crocodile mouth get your canary ass in trouble". If a CCA official didn't respond to a specific question, he or she simply might not want to have to retract it later.

    Next, there are a lot of problems affecting our runs. These are being prioritized according to the most dire threats, and the best chance for success when implementing change. Just because there isn't a position published, doesn't mean that the government relations board hasn't heard of the problem. Some of those guys have been in the fisheries forum for nearly 50 years.

    There is now a formal position on hatchery reform. Lee Blankenship of the state hatchery reform research group addressed our chapter last month on hatchery reform and practices. It was a 45 minute, highly professional lecture and I was amazed at how little I know about an issue I thought I'd understood.

    The first Monday of each month, we have a speaker bring us up to speed on the background of each of our formal positions. You are all welcome, 7:00 pm at Lacey Fire Dept at 1231 Franz, across from ST Martins University.

    If there's not a chapter in your area, you can start one. I was so perplexed that there wasn't one here in Olympia with the legislature, agencies, etc. right here within a few blocks of each other, that I contacted Gary Loomis and asked why they had omitted such a critical venue. He told me there wasn't a chapter, because I hadn't started one. I took the hint, and the organization was very supportive in getting us going.

    I won't drag this out by listing all the positions, policies and history of CCA. You can look that up on their website. I hope you do. You can also check a current thread in the Salt section of this forum, entitled "Where are the fish", which I kinda hijacked. A gent named gt raises some very valid critiques of CCA and advocacy groups in general. We welcome skeptics, especially informed ones that ask incisive questions.

    If any one here wants information more specific than is appropriate in a thread like this, pm me, and perhaps I can put you in touch with a chapter near you, or answer simple questions.
  20. i've read the position paper on hatchery funding and reform... and the focus seems to be more on funding than reform.

    "Washington CCA supports the important role hatcheries have to play in conserving and sustaining salmon stocks as well as efforts underway to improve the efficacy of these programs."

    you state this is science based but i am unaware of any science that states hatcheries have been successful in conserving or sustaining salmon or steelhead stocks.

    "Funding has remained flat for over a decade without increases to address inflation, inadequate maintenance budgets, or newly required programs such as mass marking. This has
    resulted in reduced smolt production from over 110 million migrants per year in 1993 to
    less than 65 million currently. Washington CCA urges the federal government to fulfill
    its Mitchell Act commitments."

    the focus seems to be on restoring larger plants of hatchery salmon. there is nothing about segregating hatchery fish from wild fish on the spawning grounds. nothing about wild fish sanctuaries. nothing about what i would consider hatchery reform, except reforming them to plant more fish.

    no statements on hydropower, no statements on protecting riparian zones.

Share This Page