Recreational Fishing Alliance - time to check this one out

There are many good sportfishing advocacy groups in the Northwest; such as the Assoc. of NW Steelheaders, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Assoc. (NSIA), and Wild Steelhead Coalition. These entities carry varying degrees of political clout, and are doing a lot of good things for our sportfishing causes. We would be in worse shape concerning fishing rights without them! There is more help on the way. The nationally based Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) has started a Washington state based chapter to help in our fight for fairer fishing rights for sportfishers. They work a little differently than these other organiztions. We definitely are going to need all the help we can get. I suggest you have a closer look for yourselves and decide how you might be able to help these causes. Their URL is www.gamefishin.com/members/rfa/ . I have only had time to skim thru the basics and it looks like a good organization too; that likely will have stronger political influence for us. Check it out. Thanks. -

Steve Hanson

[Krome Brite]

Yeah, looks like a sweet organization. I sure hope with all these different groups, some precidence will be established soon, concerning our rights as fisherman and sustainability of our fisheries for the future, as the RFA mission statement said.

[Jim]

Steve and all,
In the past I have not spoken favorably of this organization...I must say it is and was because of a basic dislike for one of its board members...I do not know if this person is still acting on the board but...IT DOES NOT MATTER!!

I joined the RFA several months ago and have been impressed...they honestly don't know much about our situation here in Washington with tribal netting and all it is a real mess but...I thoroughly appreciate that when they have an issue they are going after they send you the letters or postcards addressed to the appropriate politicians...you just sign, stamp and put it in the box. So far I have sent letters or postcards to Alaska regarding Halibut allocation issues and to California regarding a commercial netting issue. I look forward to the Top Dawgs (yes as in Huskies) [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img] Jumping into one of our problems where we get to inundate our politicians with letters or postcards from all over the country...I think [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img] It may speak volumes...I hope!!

See ya on the water!

Jim

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

I'm an RFA member, and I pretty much got burned because I wasn't in the Wild Steelhead Coalition. It's not that I don't believe in the WSC. It's because I know that if anything is done to the nets, it has to come from the federal level. The RFA has a strong national backing.

Mike Gilchrist has posted on this board several times, but I haven't seen him in a while. He is full of information, and if you have a question about angling laws in WA, I suggest you shoot him an email.

In the near future, WSC will receive my patronage because I believe in their goals.

[Mike Gilchrist]

I am still around. I don't allways have time to post (takes alot more time to post than read) but I lurk around. There have been alot of issues that I have relayed back to the east coast that the only reason I know anything about them is this board and other simmilar message boards around the pacific northwest. So keep posting the issues, it helps.

I expect to be fishing the Columbia end of next week. Will be hanging around the Chinook and Nasselle area if anyone wants to know more. There is allways e-mail as well.

I've checked some more into the RFA and found it to be a good entity for our causes. I just joined via the above website URL. I hope you all will give this consideration too. We need all the help we can to overcome unfairnesses to sportfishers! And they make it much easier to mail our reps - essentially doing the work for us and all we need to do is sign our signatures and mail it off. And likely be there to sign future initiative petitions. Thanks. - RT

[will_e_fish]

Does the RFA have Chapters in Oregon? I have seen the Gamefishing.Com site and it is good for information as I fish in Wa. and go up to Hood Canal a couple times a year. I have bookmarked the site for numerous reasons and use it frequently for a resource. Kudos to them for good work! It appears to be a positive happy bunch of folks.
will_e_fish

[Mike Gilchrist]

RFA does not have a chapter in Oregon yet. Anyone volunteering to start one? We have only some members and contacts in Oregon right now.

Hi Mike.

Yes, kudos to you and WA chapter members for all your efforts on our behalfs. ...

Because of intrusive Indian gillnetting of virtually all salmon and steelhead rivers in Washington, and the accompanying issue that the WDFW allows legal killing of native steelhead in some rivers, the RFA is needed more in WA than in OR. But there are certainly issues that could be helped by an Oregon chapter though. The primary issue for Oregon sportfishers is of course the gillnetting by commercials and Indians in the Columbia River and some tributaries. ...

As I told you recently, I wish I had the time to organize an Oregon chapter but I don't. Maybe someone does? If not, I suggest that you consider expanding the Washington chapter of RFA into the Northwest chapter of the RFA. This could cover primarily Washington and Oregon sportfishing issues; in addition to helping with the good national agendas of the RFA. I think you might get more members and support with such a move.

Steve

[CATCH AND EAT]

Whatever you guys do stay away from Trout Unlimited. Way to extreme. They will have you fishing in a bath tub after registration.

[Mike Gilchrist]

A multistate chapter might be a good way to go. It would still take active people willing and able to shoulder some responsibility. Its a tough thing to ask because politics are not for everyone.

In the mean time, if issues come up in Oregon that are better served to be delt with in DC (FERC relicensing, NMFS, etc), let me know. The catch would be that national RFA would need somebody to be a focal to work with and get all the info and then to follow through.

[garyk]

Hello Mike,

Just wondering where RFA stands on habitat issues? Does RFA have an official position on the issue of removing the Snake River dams?

Thanks.

[Mike Gilchrist]

garyk,

RFA is pro-angler so we are pro-fish. It makes it simple (most of the time) to figure out what we support and what we don't.

We support any habitat improvement that helps fish. We have been working to improve the licensing agreement for the Cowlitz river and this is essentially one huge habitat project. But what I don't see us doing is taking the lead working level habitat restoration projects. We will be active with habitat legislation. The IRS non-profit status we have (501C4 non-profit) excludes us from obtaining grant money that the more common 501C3 nonprofit status can obtain for habitat projects. Its a trade off in that we don't have the limitations on how much money we can spend on political lobbying and we can endorse and support polliticians.

Concerning the Snake River dams, because of our mission statement, there is no way we could be against dam removal as there is no doubt that removal would help fish. The determination has not been made as to how hard we will push for it. I know we are supporting the Salmon Planning Act which (if passed) keeps our options open and studies the "how to's" of dam removal. What I don't know at this time is if the RFA people back on the East coast feel that the political environment such that we should be expending a whole lot of time on it.

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: thinker-Mike Gilchrist ]

[Pete]

Some of the thorniest fish issues in this region pit fish against fish. For example; wild fish versus hatchery fish, fish today versus fish in the future, species versus species. I'm curious how RFA addresses these regional issues. Is there a web resource that details this?

How about alliances and affiliations? Steelheaders, Trout Unlimited, Oregon Trout, Native Fish Society?

Mike, you say RFA is "pro-angler so it is pro-fish", but that isn't always how the issues play out. For example, hatchery fish provide current catchable fish in many areas, but there is a likelihood that these fish may interfere with natural spawning wild fish which are important to the long term sustainability of the resource. How does RFA resolve these issues?

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Pete ]

[Mike Gilchrist]

Pete,

No there is not a web resource that details this at the moment. Obviously we have to do whatever is required for the long term health of the fish. In general, anglers have allways been willing to accept cutbacks if it is required for conservation. In that way it still comes down to what is best for the angler is what is best for the fish.

What we at RFA do not accept is allways accepting the lions share of the burden when it comes to conservation. Many times we have taken cutbacks in the name of conservation just to cover for the commercials inability to do the same. It happened again this year with spring chinook where we conserved while the tribes took 13% of a listed species. It happens with hydro power when we conserve to protect the profits of a PUD. There are places in eastern Washington where people were specifically told NOT to plant orchards becasuse they could not guarentee enough water to them. Now there are fights over that water the fish need.

The issue of hatchery VS wild VS native is a tricky one. The one thing that can not be done is throw a blanket statement that all hatchery fish are bad and all native fish are perfect.
The mosty agreed to goal is that we want healthy self sustaining stocks of wild fish. I have read about rivers that have a unique genetic native strain that is adapted perfectly to that river. There are also rivers where the hatcheries have created a condition that you don't know what you have got so your only option is to reform hatchery practices and let nature correct itself. I have even come across situations where it has been proven that the "most geneticly pure" stock is now the least likely to become self sustaining because the river has been altered to the point where a hatchey mix stock now survives better in the wild.

We need the anglers that live in their local watersheds to have the power to make the required changes. RFA fills the roll of the messenger once we once we all work together to get them that power. There are too many variables for us to come out with a possition statement on it. It also has to be taken into account that much of fisheries science is still guesswork and what you think you know today may not be true tomorow.

Alliances are something that is allways welcome. We hope groups will be willing to sign up for our affiliation memberships so when we are lobbying on capital hill (states or national) we can claim that membership as people we represent. It does not replace actual membership, but it does help to get things done.

[garyk]

Mike, I have to keep it short here, but thank you for the reply to my question. I actually like that you're 501c4 -- the battle is a political one and so you do need to be a political entity. As for habitat money, most money-intensive projects are a waste of money; typically treating the symptom rather than the root cause.

In my opinion, fish organizations have been less effective than other resource advocacy because, for a wide variety of reasons, they've been reluctant to take on the vested, powerful economic interests (visualize dams, clearcuts and cows in streams)that have driven so many fish stocks to the brink.

The cheapest hatcheries to run are the ones we started with - healthy rivers.