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

  1. This was a post from Smalma a while back. I felt it was so well written and explained so much that I saved it. It tells a lot about the history of Deer Creek as well as what we can expect in a number of other instances. Curt, thanks again for attempting to educate my feeble mind. The same goes for you too Sg.

    “For 50 years (since 1938) Deer Creek itself has been closed to all fishing. Since 1982 the Stillaguamish basin has been managed as a wild steelhead release water during the summer season. Since 1983 there has not been a summer gill net season on the Stillaguamish basin (less than 10 summer fish a year had been caught in the Tulalip marine fishery -mostly hatchery or Snohomish basin fish). Other than a single attempt of wild summer steelhead brood hatch planting in the late 1940s the upper Deer Creek basin has not been planted with hatchery fish. Significant sampling and observation of adult summer steelhead in the basin during the 1980s and 1990s failed to identify any hatchery summer fish from either scale samples or adipose clips. In other words Deer Creek has been managed as close to what many would consider appropriate or proper wild fish management (WSR, no hatchery fish etc) as any basin in the State yet the population collapsed.

    The entire upper basin (above the lower canyon) is timber lands - USFS, State and private and has been extensive logged. In fact the only significant activity in the basin has been timber harvest. Haig-Brown when he visited the basin he found cool water with deep green pools with those wonderful summer steelhead. I visited the basin some 60 years later I found warm tepid water (day time temperatures in the 70s and down at its mouth into the 80s a warm summer afternoons), that more often than not was a muddy brown or gray with its channel filled excessive bed load materials. Anyone familiar with the needs of cold water salmonids can not escape coming to the conclusion that the Deer Creek summer fish were and are in trouble due to habitat problems. Further the deterioration of the freshwater habitat can only be placed at the foot of timber practices (the only thing happening in the basin).”
  2. A further thought . . . CCA should not try to get a seat at the NOF table. NOF is about dividing up the spoils, not about making the highest and best use of a scarce natural resource. Should CCA get a couple significant wins under its belt, I think the preferred alternative would be to capitalize on that and rev up the political horsepower to change the mandate and rules under which NOF operates. That would be far better than joining the group at the table to see who gets to catch the last fish of a particular stock.

    Is that realistic? I think it is if CCA attracts enough members. Membership is the leg that creates the strength of the legislative and legal legs of the tripod I mentioned in an earlier post.

    The complaints I constantly read about as reasons for not joining are that people want to see results before they commit to joining (a totally backasswards line of thought) and they want to see the CCA action plan before joining. The problem with going public with an action plan before it can be executed is that it creates enough time for the opposition to prevent it from being executed. A plan that intends to use legislative and legal ammo needs to fire and hit before the opposition is aware that the movement is seriously afoot. I expect commerical fishing industry representatives to join CCA and volunteer for leadership positions expressly to keep abreast of the direction CCA is heading, and to attempt to ward off legislative and legal strategies that undermine commercial fishing. CCA will need a secret handshake (jk).

  3. Ahhh...Wisdom.


  4. so just how many THOUSANDS of dollars have you donated to organizations who claimed they were going to turn the tide, salmo g? my donating is now based on results, nothing more, nothing less.

    i don't ever have an expectation of learning about the inner workings or the strategies being proposed by the governing bodies of any organization of which i am not a working part, never. i am sure CCA is working up their own plans and will make their strategic move when they are as certain of success as they can be.

    but for me, this is not ass backwards, i will back a winning horse when some local track record, of at least trying, is out in the light of day. right now, this is all conjecture and hope. ACTION that starts to change the tide will benefit from my dollars.

    i 'bet on the cum' for years with organizations who were promising to take on these same issues, no more. you choose to approach this differently salmo g? thats fine with me and you will note that i don't choose to piss on your shoes for your decision.
  5. All, this has been very informative, so thank you for shedding some light on many areas that I'm unfortunately not up to speed on. I can appreicate the diffrent opinions and through those see passion and tension. That only makes it easier for me to comprehend how regardless of our own personal agenda, there is an underlying them. I'll hit my first CCA meeting this week and see where that path leads me.
  6. A valid question. However, the corresponding question would be "How many of those other groups actually had any previous wins to back up their 'turn the tide' claims"? CCA may not having anything to show for it in the PNW. But you've got the gulf coast and the NE who can thank CCA for making a big successful change. It's not the PNW results that you are looking for, but it's more success than most any PNW fisheries group can claim.
  7. yes josh, the organizations, no i am not going to name them but everyone would know them if i did, had track records in areas other than anadramous fishes. so i willingly played 'venture capatalist' on their behalf. those days have gone by and so, even for a measly twentyfivebucks, i no longer will contribute without results on the table.

    your points regarding CCA's successes on the atlantic and gulf coasts is certainly worthy of consideration, and commendable in terms of achievements. but as everyone here knows this is a new ball game with issues that were not in play in either of the other two coasts.

    now, personally, i hope CCAPNW is THE group and actually succeeds. if we all see these efforts bear fruit, i will, once again, willingly contribute some financial support.
  8. It would be a real bummer if they were about to achieve a victory but failed because they were $25 short. I reckon I can scrounge up a little dough.
  9. Mumbles/Kerry -
    I'm not sure what you mean about folks having to leave the public part of the NOF meetings. I have been to a number of those meetings and I can not remember anyone being asked to leave or not given a chance to express their ideas or opinions. Now occasionally either the State or the recreational or commerical group will ask for a chance to "caucus". At such times folks may be asked to leave the room.

    Also during the State/Tribal meetings in recent years there has been observers from the public allowed to sit in on those meetings to hear the discussions and to report back the recreational or commerical groups. Part of the deal of being an observer is that they are just that and at times they have been asked to step out of the room for one reason or other. Again I don't see that as being excessive or a reason not to become involved.

    This whole discussion about the potential of CCAPNW becoming involved in NOF is just another illustration of how much the general public needs to learn about the complexities of fish management here in Washington in order to become successful players in achieving change. Until the leadership of CCA gets up to speed on some of these issues and how to prioritizedifferent regional needs they may struggle to become successful.

    BTW -
    While contributing money to your favorite organization is always a worthwhile effort and in the case of CCA it may well allow them to become a player in the lobbying field to key to become successful in forcing change is a committment of time from folks. Ultimately success will depend on folks taking the time to get their interests on the table, attending meetings, and successfully writting letters and sending emails in support of those issues.

    Tight lines
  10. well smalma, i can state without hesitation that the summary my local observer provided to our chapter of PSA is at odds with your characterization of the processes as conducted at NOF.

    understanding how to manage fishery issues is indeed a complex equation, but the results from NOF speak for themselves. i suspect taking rules the day and as everyone here knows that hardly relates to 'management' of any resource.

    i, for one, would welcome a major upheaval of the NOF process with equal representation, AT THE TABLE, of all constituencies.
  11. I think that gets back to one of the major issues that CCA is trying to rectify: The fact that sport fishermen have no representation anywhere. Every other group at that table has advocacy groups, lobbyists and lawyers. They may hate each other on the street for one reason or another, but commercial fishermen support commercial fishermen when it comes to stuff like this.

    Sport fishermen just sit around and argue. There are millions and millions of us out there. But we spend all of our time bitching about bait-chuckers, fly-pansies, and any other people who don't fish like we do.

    Or we just post over and over on threads like this (as I myself am doing).
  12. my recollections of nof match with smalma's. the problem with nof isn't lack of sportfishing input... it's that all the allocation is allready in a framework (i'm only familiar with nof in areas 1-4). this means once the harvestable number of fish is decided the % of catch is already decided between marine areas, commercial vs. sport. getting any changes in the framework is imo impossible. you have the ability to make changes within your quota, for example the sportfishermen representing area 4 (neah bay) could make decisions on when to start the season, where the fish could be caught (inside or outside), and changes in size limits. these decisions can be made within the constraints of the quota given.

    sometimes with agreement between different user groups fish can be moved around, but it's never about less harvest, but being able to maximize the harvest without hitting one quota that shuts down the fishery before another quota is used up.

    the problem with nof is what's wrong with all fish management in washington state, which is that harvest rates are too high. divvying up the fish to catch is what north of falcon is about, not conservation.

    when the options for harvest rates come out, i have never met anyone involved not pushing for option 1 (the highest harvest of coho and chinook). of course, the sportfishing side on the coast is dominated by charter boats, resorts, and ports that depend on sportfishing revenue... and more fish to catch means longer seasons. i'm as guilty as the charterboat associations when pushing for higher quotas for MY port. it's the whole point of nof.
  13. gt -
    Please note that I said nothing about NOF being either a successful process or very workable. Only that at those meetings that I have been to folks were not asked to leave. It has long been my postion that the NOF is a very painful process that at times manages to make watching paint drying seem exciting. I'm sure that it could be reshaped to be both more effective and efficient. However to do so would likely require more of us fishing folks doing home work prior to the meetngs and a willingness of the other players to accept changes. In the mean time it is what we have and I for one attempt to work within that process while I accept the small steps being made and I continue to work towards more substantial progress.

    Josh -
    The fact is that while the sport fishing community is poorly represented is at NOF and most other fish management forms there are individuals actively involved. Those dedicted folks that have long been involved at NOF fighting on behalf of the resource and the recreational fishers include representatives from TU, PSA, a variety of industry interests and other groups as well as a number of independent folks. To say that the recreational fishers are not represented belittles the considerable efforts those folks have put in on the behalf of the rest of us.

    It is not the fault of those folks that the rest of the recreational community is so apathic that they leave addressing their concerns to that dedicated group. Unless or until CCA manages to lit a fire under more of the fishing public to invest some time they will be like most of the other groups - a bit player in the fish manage wars.

    Please note that does not mean that they can not be effective players in the lobby game for legislative changes.

    Tight lines
  14. Of course there are dedicated people who have put in years of work on behalf of the fisheries. But this forum thread isn't an Oscar acceptance speech, I'm not out to recognize every person who has put in effort. Particularly when the vast majority of sport fishermen can't even be counted on to write a $25 check, much less write a letter to their elected officials.

    On the one hand you say that I am ignoring the efforts of groups like TU, PSA, etc, but on the other you say that unless CCA can 'light a fire' they will be like the other groups...bit players. Well which is it? Are the groups like TU, PSA, etc doing great work that I am ignoring? Or are they 'bit players' who aren't getting the job done?

    The fact of the matter is that there is no umbrella group for sport fishermen. Period. TU does great work, but how many of your bait fishing friends or think of TU as a group that supports what they do? Sport fishermen waste time dividing themselves up into little cliques. CCA is the only association in recent years that I can remember who is making a serious attempt to be that umbrella group.

    As I see it, the only thing that will get this stuff fixed at this point is a large enough group of voters who can say "Here is what we want, make it happen, or we are voting your ass out of office and/or sending in the lawyers/lobbyists/etc". That is what all successful advocacy groups do. Politicians don't listen to the NRA because they are interested in the rights of gun owners. They listen because the NRA has a huge hammer that they can wield. Votes + money + lawyers = power. Sad but true.
  15. Curt, another poster listed that those not formally at the NOF table have at times been excused as the table discussed some issues. I did not scroll back to directly quote it, but someone here said it. I have no experience with NOF nor did I know until yesterday what NOF stood for. I also have no experience with CCA, but I hope to hit the Kitsap Chapter Thursday evening at Sportsman's.
  16. thanks smalma, appreciate your expansion on your views.

    josh, PSA has a local chapter so it was pretty easy to become involved with this group. they were founded, tada, to present a voice for the sport fishing community. members do sit at NOF and a number of other meetings that are convened to discuss management topics. unfortunately, the way these meetings, and the incumbent decision making processes are organized, no group is in a position to institute change. so i can assume that you also belong to PSA?

    can CCA go beyond the inroads PSA has made? i don't know but will continue to watch and wait. until then, i will continue to provide input at my local PSA meetings, email the officers of this local group with ideas and concerns, contact ALL of my elected representatives and continue to be a single voice out here advocating and letting them know a bunch of folks are watching their actions.
  17. Mumbles -
    I merely was reporting what I had actually observed at the NOF meetings that I had attended.

    gt -
    Guess I'm confused (a natural state?). I do not recall every saying you were ignoring what others had done (I did point out to Josh that others have been attempting to represent sport fishing interests).

    I agree with you that the NOF process is very awkward process that is in desperate need of re-vamping.

    Further I agree that more folks need to become involved if there is going to be any sort of meaningful changes in how the resource and the fisheries it supports is managed. However it remains my opinion that successful involvement is going to take a lot more effort on folk's part than just sending in their yearly dues.

    Can CCA be successful here in Washington? Certainly though it will take considerable effort on its leadership (and membership) to get up to speed on the complex issues of fisheries management here in the PNW. In addition it would appear to me that when they have been most successful is whether they have taken on narrowly focused issues.

    Will CCA become that "umbrella" group to lead the sport fishing community? I doubt it. Given the huge divesity in angler interests and differences in region issues, needs and priorities it would be very difficult for a single group to become that umbrella. That does not mean that CCA involvement in processes like NOF would not be welcomed; in fact it is needed. The more diverse the reprentation is at such processes the better it will be for all. What is needed is the leadership of the various groups to be willing to pull together when appropriate - much like the recent efforts to increase selective fisheries in Puget Sound.

    The fortunate reality of the current mess we are in is that improvements will likely be measured in baby steps rather than gaint ones. Folks need to be in it for the long haul with clear direction (so those baby steps move us closer to the "target").

    As always all the above is just one man's opinion and I expect at least some folks to have different takes and desires. I'm good with that and in fact welcome different ideas and priorities.

    Tight lines

Share This Page