Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Rich Simms, Jan 3, 2014.
Wonder how we'll ever accomplish anything when fishermen themselves can't come to agreement and a unified plan of attack.
Was once a CCA member but quit when they bailed out on the gill net ban initiative in Oregon after many years of hard work to get it in place for a vote. Then their "new" plan fell apart. The whole episode made me very suspicious.
Meanwhile back to the trenches.
Ridicoulous. I had no idea the CCA had changed its position on the Gill Net Ban. Now this?! I am certainly done supporting the CCA.
The opponents of steelhead reform are so damn good at confusing anglers to keep the status quo limping along.
CCA seems to be about allocation rather than conservation.
So what is cca's actual position on the gene banks?
Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
I'm just a little unclear on what happens once these gene banks are in place.
Will there be any fishing on these gene banks? C&R? Retention?
Or - are they just going to become a petting zoo without the petting?
I can't seem to find an answer in the links I follow. But perhaps I missed it...
Fishing is possible. From this document, http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01559/wdfw01559.pdf
"Fisheries can be conducted if wild steelhead management objectives are met as well as any necessary federal ESA determinations"
If I have to look into my crystal ball, I would guess no fishing for the foreseeable future. The runs are not suitable for direct harvest.
The one catch is if there is evidence of hatchery strays. In this case you could have something like the upper columbia tribes where anglers are used to remove stray clipped fish (low limit, mandatory kill?)
Given the past history of WDFD practices, difficulty in policing and the perception that participation would be low I don't see a C&R only fishery. But that's probably irrelevant, as the other goal of this project it to supplement fishing elsewhere to "move the opportunity" from the Gene Bank rivers to other places.
I think this plan is the Bees Knees. They should have closed the Toutle in 1980 and left those fish alone.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story...
CCA volunteers were part of the gene bank processes and participated in the selection of the E. Fk. Lewis and N. Fk. Toutle (articles in the Columbian during the process identified one of the supportive advisory board folks as a CCA member) as gene bank streams. There is a small group that is apparently unhappy about the N. Fk. Toutle selection, and favor the Coweeman instead. The ads and posters simply stated the announcement that WDFW put out. I have found no one in CCA who is opposed to the gene bank concept, but some who want to set science aside, and put stream selection to a 'vote' which is not going to happen. The upcoming meeting is informational for folks to express their opinions on the process. I have heard no plan to subject the decision to any kind of vote. Although the ads and posters did carry the CCA logo, it was done without CCA knowledge. The latest round of ads and posters going out now will not carry the CCA logo.
Re: "...their "new" plan fell apart..."
The initiative was dropped in favor of the administrative solution which has been adopted by both Oregon and Washington (not just Oregon where the ballot measure was proposed) at a cost of millions less than it would have cost to run the ballot campaign. We are now in year 2 of the 5 year phase out of gillnets on the lower main stem Columbia River. It is costing CCA to assist the attorney's general offices of Oregon and Washington to fight the suits filed by commercial fisherman against the gillnet bans in both states... if you care to donate to that legal defense fund, it would be appreciated.
It's too bad the bloggers hadn't contacted CCA directly to verify any of the gene bank issue talk. CCA chapters across the state have been doing great things in their communities working on derelict net removal, habitat and nutrient enhancement projects, kids fishing/fly tying/educational events, and of course harvest reform activities.
Please take the time to at least read the position statements on the CCA Washington webpage here. Thanks!
Thank you for posting this.
Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
Thanks for posting, aplTyler. For some reason my internet hasn't let me on to do so earlier. I believe the facts and record will fully support your post. It is unfortunate that some feel the need to criticize the hard work of others when they won't engage themselves...
Always good to ask, before assuming. I contacted the CCA about this and the response made a lot of sense. And reaffirmed why I thought the CCA was so cool, and was excited to see them in the NW.
And this conversation is why I finally got off the bench, gave $ and joined.
Good mission, good staff, good enough for me.
I used to be one who defended CCA for the beneficial projects carried out. Perhaps I need to do some research on the status of gill-net removal. Perhaps I have incorrect information. I could not understand why after so many years of hard work the initiative was abandoned.
nothing in the blog post about ads featuring any cca logo, only radio ads.
Thank you for the clarification, Tyler. I was going to call to find out what the heck was going on but hadn't had time. Much appreciated.
There were apparently fliers up too.
The Toutle from "Wild Reverence"
"I used to be one who defended CCA for the beneficial projects carried out. Perhaps I need to do some research on the status of gill-net removal."
To date, 87 derelict nets have been removed from the Nooksack river because of local efforts and CCA's willingness to apply pressure. This has spawned significant awareness throughout Washington state relating to this significant problem.