Game Fishing Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I didn't see much of a presence by CCA folks at yesterdays meeting in Olympia. Are they going to be a player this year?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,294 Posts
yelloweye said:
I didn't see much of a presence by CCA folks at yesterdays meeting in Olympia. Are they going to be a player this year?
How many were there....ie what is not "much of a presence"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
Heh-heh... CCA is everywhere. You never know when you're in the presence of members. Most wear a disguise. They look just like....

Sportfishers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Well there were only about 60 people there that weren't agency folks, and that includes commercials. I guess I thought CCA would be bringing truckloads of folks to these kinds of meetings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
I've not read or heard anything that would indicate to me that CCA has a desire to argue over who is going to have the largest negative impact on wild/native fish. That doesn't mean there aren't several state board members in attendance, observing the process.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,542 Posts
FS -
You seem to be implying that if folks are interested in how the federally approved allowable fisheries impacts on Puget Sound Chinook are used to support various local fisheries that they need to get involved individually or find a vehicle other than PNWCCA to lobby for them. For example from what we heard on Tuesday it is likely that a "weak" stock this year limiting fisheries will be Stillaguamish Chinook and the allowable impacts allowed at their predicted status will likely not support all the fisheries seen last year. I expect that a major task in NOF this year will be how various fisheries will be "re-shaped" - what will be the priorities for the use of those impacts; supporting access to hatchery Chinook during the summer, hatchery Chinook during winter blackmouth fisheries, and/or in-river Stillaguamish coho fisheries. Experience would indicate that the results of this year's NOF discussions and decisions will be of significant interest to many readers here and the angling community in general and it will be a sure bet that whatever the result there will at least some level of dis-satisfication within our angling community

For those wild/native coho, chum, pink and sockeye stocks that are expected to exceed escapement objectives do you personally feel that recreational fisheries that impact those stocks would be acceptable or not?

From what you have read or heard is there anything that would indicate that CCA will at some point what to engage in the discsussions on how those fisheries targeting non-listed ESA stocks develop? or will they consider such fisheries inappropriate? No need to answer this as I realize that you or no one else speaks for the CCA. But at some point addressing those issues will be needed to change the status quo.

I like Yelloweye had hoped to see more folks jumping into the NOF process and was looking forward to seeing/hearing some new interests, prespectives and ideas. It looks like the difficult task of attempting to equitably allocate the limited fishing opportunities available will once again fall to the same core of folks that have shoulder the task in the past.

Tight lines
Curt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
You seem to be implying that if folks are interested in how the federally approved allowable fisheries impacts on Puget Sound Chinook are used to support various local fisheries that they need to get involved individually or find a vehicle other than PNWCCA to lobby for them.
I happen to belong to 3 groups now Smalma, as do a whole bunch of other CCA members. Covering all the bases, as it were. I could waste my money buying trinkets that I'll throw away in a few years, or I can support the efforts of those three groups, or maybe others, if I catch them in the act of doing good stuff!
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top