CCA email on PSRC plan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gentlemen and ladies.

The Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation plan is out for review, and comments will be taken at a series of meetings. Locally there will be a meeting Wednesday, Nov. 4 – From 7-9 p.m. in Olympia in room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=oct1909a



Key issues of concern in this plan are the potential use of widespread marine reserves throughout Puget Sound, and lack of attention to impacts by marine mammal predation, disparity between commercial and recreational impacts on fish, and other issues. There is no definition of Marine Protected Area in this plan, so that could possibly be interpreted as not only a prohibition on ground- or rock-fishing, it might end up being a prohibition of all fishing in those areas.



Please alert your chapters and mobilize members to attend these meetings over the next few days. This plan will have a significant impact on your fishing opportunities and on the recovery and conservation of depressed rockfish and ground fish in Puget Sound.



Andy Marks

Its been a while since I paid any attention to CCA, or cared for that matter, but... It seems to me I remember reading that Marine Sanctuaries was something they supported on the East Coast?

CCA’s Position on
Marine Protected Areas/No Fishing Zones

CCA will fight to protect access for recreational fishermen to all public fishing areas unless…

…there is a clear indication that recreational fishermen are the cause of a specific conservation problem and that less severe conservation measures, such as gear restrictions, possession limits, size restrictions, quotas, or closed seasons will not adequately address the targeted conservation problem.

…the closed-area regulation includes specific, measurable criteria to determine the conservation benefit of the closed area on the affected stocks of fish and provides a timetable for periodic review of the continued need for the closed area at least once every three years.

…the closed area is no larger than that which is supported by the best available science.

…provision is made to reopen the closed area to recreational fishing whenever the targeted conservation problem no longer exists.

Sounds reasonable and well thought out to me.

I especially like this:

…provision is made to reopen the closed area to recreational fishing whenever the targeted conservation problem no longer exists.

You wont get anywhere with that old "reasonable, well thought out" trick, Bruce. Not with Bobby, Bobby Jr., little Bobby, todler Bobby, and baby Bobby.


"Momma says CCA is the DEVIL".

remove your lips from bruces ass HLA... speaking of "just like the old days.."

CCA would have to do something to get that strong of a response twit. everyone is still waiting for one of those infamous CCA lawsuits that send fisheries bigwigs into a corner to cringe and piss themselves. When and if they do something that actually makes a difference they might get some sort of response. At this point, they are a party planning committee.

I doubt the "showdown" as you put it will happen. The CCA's stated all along it's more of a "chip and peck", "one bite at a time". That's how you eat an elephant. Continue on with your criticisms, that's your right and to be honest someone should question every aspect. But don't ignore the good stuff bro. There are lots of examples of common sense positions from the CCA. Right is right, even if its the devil Bobby!!


Nobody has it all right, not even LOF. (but he's closest to the pin)

Ok then, I'll go with you elephant analogy. So when they going to stop setting the table and actually take a bite then? I hear a lot of talking about the menu, floral arrangements, and basically a lot of fluff. The million dollar question is ARE THEY EVER GOING TO DO ANYTHING?

Until then they will remain insignificant and basically a joke to 95% of fishermen in the PNW.

Let's consider the special interest obstacles we face in order to recover fisheries. Commercial fishermen, tribal fishermen, recreational fishers, processors, agencies, politicians, power companies, farmers, developers, ranchers, stop me when you've read enough...

The best meaning groups simply cannot compete with the well funded, vocal special interests. It takes numbers dude. Big numbers of people in an org., to wage that battle successfully. Until a org. is large enough to have the pull, they've gotta take small (achievable) steps to have any affect at all.

Bruce's quote (along with the other bullet points) " …provision is made to reopen the closed area to recreational fishing whenever the targeted conservation problem no longer exists." is a proactive measure with profound logic. It's based on real numbers, real science, real data, and it calls bullshit on what we all know. MPA's in this scenario are a feel good effort at best. They're the panacea for agencies whom have let the resource be poorly managed for generations, and don't have the gnads to do what it takes.

More important is the position "we are going to call your pseudo science bullshit what it is." "Stop trying to apply your made up bullshit to our fisheries policies". The day an org can expose this kind of management abuse (with better science), and has the numbers (votes) required, is the day we'll see improvement on a scale like your "showdown". Until then, it's hunt and peck.

Elkrun wrote:remove your lips from bruces ass HLA... speaking of "just like the old days.."

CCA would have to do something to get that strong of a response twit. everyone is still waiting for one of those infamous CCA lawsuits that send fisheries bigwigs into a corner to cringe and piss themselves. When and if they do something that actually makes a difference they might get some sort of response. At this point, they are a party planning committee.

+1

:140:

Let's see......

You'd have to be a fool to believe that all of the really big decisions will be made here by the PNWCCA

Those decisions will be made by the Corporation who is located outside of either of these states. Read there dam by-laws if you think that I am wrong. If mommy doesn't give the "kids" there approval, it ain't going to happen.

The real question is; do you guys really want some outsiders making the final decisions on YOUR fisheries here from some other damn state? Do you think that Garry Loomis gives a dam about our rock fish? I mean really?

Now if you were talking coho..... especially Lewis River Cedar Cr. coho, you might have something going for you.

I don't have the CCA's old BS list that was once floating around about all of the CCA's so called "claimed" wins and victories, but it was so full of crap that one had to be wearing hearing ear plugs up there nose to stop the smell!

Maybe one of you CCA supports will post a list of what they have actually accomplished both here and in Org. since they have been conceived almost 4 years ago? Other then writing a few of there famous "letters", what have they actually done to improve our fisheries?

So far this has been there "claimed" achievements...

• Actively support the Northwest Straits Commission in attaining a $4.5 million federal grant to remove 3000 derelict gill nets from Puget Sound.

Wow!!! They supported a grant that was already in the making!! Wow!

• Introduced legislation in both Oregon and Washington to legalize the use of alternate methods of commercial harvest and prioritize its use.

Wow! Man that's fantastic! And what did that get them? What did that achieve?

• Six of fifteen members on the Columbia River Recreational Advisory Panel are active CCA members.

Wow! Six out of 15 guys who were already on Advisory Panels are members of the CCA! We should all be impressed. What's a "active CCA member...one who bought a banquette ticket?

• Represented conservation on the Columbia River Visioning Panel.

Wow...again! That's a real accomplishment!

• Represented on, and successfully influenced, the Columbia River Fish Working Group process, which recommended a major shift towards selective fisheries.

Wow! Really? What did they " successfully influenced" in that process?

• Participated in the North of Falcon Process resulting in the largest increase in mark - selective fisheries in Puget Sound in years while supplying a voice for conservation when adopting harvest and escapement goals as a region.

Wow! A couple members attended the NOF meetings and now they claim that they were the ones who were responsible for increases in mark-selective fisheries in PG? It couldn't of been the results from NMFS listing chinook and steelhead...could it? Why not take credit for what someone actions have done? After all, they did attend the meeting...right?

• Advocated for conservation buffers during the Columbia Spring Chinook fishery that prevented us from over fishing our ESA impacts, which would have put future seasons in jeopardy.

Wow! They "prevented US... from over fishing! What did they do to "prevent" the tribes or the commercials?

• As a group we have systematically developed and put into place the foundation that will enable us to have a lasting positive impact on fisheries issues in the Pacific Northwest.

Wow! Take us for our word!! We are the greatest thing since apple pie...just ask us!

• Established 25 local chapters in Oregon and Washington

Wow! That means that the mother corporation will be receiving 25 times more money then they had before. A large share of every new or renewed membership monies goes directly to "mommy" Corporation every time a member renews.

Yes sir, those are some mighty big accomplishments to brag about!
:140: