How Bad Do You Want It?

JustCallMeDave · 10-14-2005, 08:43 AM

The following is a conversation which wasn't held between two Ifishers after Wednesday night's meeting:

Ifisher 1: Wow, what an awesome turn out to the meeting yesterday! I haven't seen that kind of domination since Mo Malone played the game.

Ifisher 2: Yeah, it was great. I'll have to admit that when we had only a couple dozen show up at the pre-game dinner that I was worried. Glad to see that we filled up two parking lots and had overflow parking.

Ifisher 1: You think that they heard us loud and clear?

Ifisher 2: Yeah, but maybe not in the way that we wanted them to. They saw that we were able to whip the masses into a lather enough to get them to show up for ONE meeting with the bios. It showed that we are at least interested, and can get riled up a bit if need be.

Ifisher 1: That's enough, isn't it?

Ifisher 2: Not hardly. As it was pointed out last night, there weren't any commissioners there. I don't think that they were avoiding us, although I wouldn't blame them if they did fear that mob. That was only a meeting where the bios give us the info that they have, and we can therefore take it, digest it, and do what we want with it.

Ifisher 1: Ah okay. So then we need to write to the commissioners via email and let them know how we feel.

Ifisher 2: Nope. Do you know how many emails I delete regularly from spammers that I don't want to hear from? What keeps them from doing the same to your email? I'm not saying that they will or won't. What I am saying is that if we show up in person at the commissioners meeting and let them know POLITELY and PASSIONATELY how we feel on this, that it is there in public record and we can't be ignored.

Ifisher 1: Cool, then we'll give it to them with both barrels at the commissioner's meeting.

Ifisher 2: Yeah, after we go to the next meeting in Cathlamet.

Ifisher 1: That one, too? It's just going to be a repeat of the first one's information.

Ifisher 2: Sure it is, but that's where I expect to see the most gill netters. If we let our appearance on the 13th end up to be a one-off situation, then it's not going to be near the impact it would be if we came at them just as hard (if not harder) on the 20th. Our attendance in numbers on the 13th was so rare that the NEWS MEDIA covered it. While it's cool that we were covered, it's sad that it was such a big deal that we showed like that when we should show in force EACH TIME.

Ifisher 1: I see what you're saying here. If we don't show up every time, then we aren't heard.

Ifisher 2: Exactly. Us sports anglers outnumber the gill netters roughly 375 to 1. I heard that they had 11 netters there on Wednesday, so we should have had over 4000 anglers there to be equally represented. Sure we can't expect those numbers, but if we have 250-300 people show up at every meeting, they can't help but see and hear us.

Folks, this is searious stuff here. If you showed up on Wednesday night, then bravo. Tell your friends about the meeting, and tell them that they need to go WITH YOU on the 20th. If you didn't go on the 20th, get together with your buddies and go. It's going to be more of the same info as before, but we HAVE TO, HAVE TO, HAVE TO! keep the pressure on them. I guarantee you that the gillnetters went home that night knowing that we won't show up in force again, and it will be their word and not ours which is heard loud and clear on the 20th. We have to keep our message coming at them, over and over, until they have to see the writing on the wall and know that the current allocation is wrong.

If you think what is going on is wrong, and you believe strongly enough, then do everything in your power to change it.

txaggie · 10-14-2005, 10:38 AM

ttt

reeldick · 10-14-2005, 10:50 AM

I went to a town hall meeting last night to talk to my state senator and state representative. They both asked for more information and said they didn't know this situation existed.
Have you talked to you senator or representative about this allocation and gill netting issue? Let them know this is serious!

RiverMan · 10-14-2005, 11:19 AM

I still think we should start an online resolution that outlines our thoughts concerning commercial fishing in the Columbia River. The resolution should include a summary of our thoughts concerning the economic value of sport fishing, the value of sport salmon fishin to the community, the number of sport fisherman relative to commercial fisherman, etc. We would then ask that sport fisherman sign the document. We print the document and mail a copy to the governor of each state, state representatives, and the fish and wildlife agencies of each state. We could literally collect thousands of signatures!

RM

JustCallMeDave · 10-14-2005, 04:30 PM

ttt

crazed fisherman · 10-15-2005, 12:38 AM

I'm no braniac but has anyone considered to ask at one of these meeting why it is that our liscence fee's and tax dollars for hatcheries is being spent so comercial interests can make money off of it?
I'd like to go to these meetings but I work swing shift and they always seem to have them at night during the week. My vacation time has been used up on unscheduled time off from work or
i'd use that and go!

Abalone · 10-15-2005, 10:25 AM

I heard the next meeting will be held in Florida....

Actually: Consider this..

Why not envite the Commission to do an online forum on IFISH to discuss how their decissions are being made ? Answer some of your questions and get an understanding of how our government is working for us.

Have they selected a new commissioner yet ?

What better time to approach them on the subject ?

Pete is very knowledgable about the Compact but even he admitts from time to time that he hasn't figured it out yet.

OK we go to the meetings in big numbers but are we organized ? What do we represent ? What are our arguments in favor of Sportsfishing ? Why should Gillnetters be eliminated and priority be given to Sportsfisherman ?
That Ladies and Gentlemen is going to be a very hard sell.

I get the feeling from some of the posts Pete has made we are up against a huge buocracy with layer up layer of Government all competing to win something.

I donno ! It all seems so futile........

When the fish are all gone we will say " We shouldn't have done this and we should have done that "

Abalone · 10-15-2005, 10:27 AM

Quote:

I still think we should start an online resolution that outlines our thoughts concerning commercial fishing in the Columbia River. The resolution should include a summary of our thoughts concerning the economic value of sport fishing, the value of sport salmon fishin to the community, the number of sport fisherman relative to commercial fisherman, etc. We would then ask that sport fisherman sign the document. We print the document and mail a copy to the governor of each state, state representatives, and the fish and wildlife agencies of each state. We could literally collect thousands of signatures!

That's been done already and as you can it's results.

How many petitions did I sign like that ?

Dozens.....

RM

Pete · 10-15-2005, 10:44 AM

The process is pretty straight forward ... the staff of ODFW and WDFW spend a great deal of time collecting data and conducting studies about the resources they manage. They also study and communicate with the principal user groups through a variety of processes. They formulate a range of recommendations and provide their scientific support and they present it to the Commission for decision. I believe this is where we can have the most impact, but it is very time consuming. For example, if we think there's a better way to predict run sizes or estimate catch rates, then it's our burden to present credible, defensible evidence to support our recommendation. If we believe the spirit or letter of a law, regulation or policy isn't being followed, it's our responsibility to raise the issue. There are several people that take this approach and are very effective at it.

The first step is to understand the playing field. That means carefully reviewing the materials published by the departments, asking questions about it, understanding the regulatory constraints, and knowing who the people in the departments and what their responsibilities are.

I'm not sure having the Commissioners explain their decision process would be very productive, if it's possible. People each interpret and understand data differently. (The sky is red, what does that mean?) Often there are factors involved in a decision that may not be easily quantified. How can you explain the reasoning behind, "It's the right thing to do"? But that's why the Commissions have a variety of people, with a variety of backgrounds - their collective experiences provide balance.

Lots of people are off to a good start attending the workshop earlier this week. Now comes the homework part - review the documents presented at the meeting, the documents and research on the web site, calling the departments for additional information or explanation. Grab an oar! I don't think there's much question about where we want to go, but it's going to take all of us pulling together to get us there.

Abalone · 10-15-2005, 10:53 AM

Very good Pete:

But aren't we talking about two different things really ?

I think it is important to state our purpose and I read some confusion here on some of the post I read.

Yes ! If we are talking about how the Commission is going to divy up the numbers then the Commission is the right place to go but If we are talking about eliminating Gillnets as many seem to think is necessary then that is more of a Political issue.

I believe we are at times talking about two different things.

Abalone · 10-15-2005, 10:58 AM

As far as having a forum is concerned I was thinking more on the lines of the Gillnet issue. How do they rationalize
the obsolete practice of using non Selective Gillnets to harvest fish when there are so many issues with endangered fish ? What keeps the Gillnets in practice ? That 's what I would like to know. Maybe that is a question that cannot answer ?

Pete · 10-15-2005, 11:11 AM

Certainly, the political issue would have to be addressed differently than the allocation issue. I think the issue is very delicate.

All fishing methods have an impact on threatened and endangered fish. The departments have worked hard to adjust net sizes, season timing, set times, resuscitation boxes, fishing areas, steelhead excluder panels and run composition monitoring to minimize the negative impacts of nets. The flexibility of those management tools means that nets are far more discriminatory than older practices like setnets or fish-wheels. Similarly, sport methods are also relatively indiscriminate, so using that as a basis for challenging the nets could bite back.

My own feeling is that addressing current management tools (catch estimation methods, run size prediction modelling), equitable access (the commercial ocean fisheries provide plenty of high quality fish to market) and the cultural and economic importance of sport fishing in the lower river are the levers we need to pull.

The other issue which trumps everything is the health of the resource. If we could bring back the threatened and endangered runs, we would have enough fish for everyone. It is critical that we address the principal limiting factors in run size that are in our control: spawning habitat and operation of the dams.

Abalone · 10-15-2005, 11:37 AM

How do you see larger turnouts by sportsfisherman having any effect on the process ?

In your opinion do you see it having any influence over the allotments ?

Before anyone says " It can't hurt ".

Tell me how it helps. And remember I have been at this a long time.

Pete · 10-15-2005, 11:49 AM

I think it's the quality and unity of the input that matters. Recommendations and requests should be reasonable, well supported. If the clear message is well supported and presented respectfully, then numbers add weight to the process.

Two years ago, when I was the only sport fisher at the Commission allocation hearing, I felt the 15 Columbia River commercials presented a well crafted set of testimony that worked to their favor. I don't think there was anything I could have said that would have influenced the Commission's decision.

Natester · 10-15-2005, 08:16 PM

Quote:

I think it's the quality and unity of the input that matters. Recommendations and requests should be reasonable, well supported. If the clear message is well supported and presented respectfully, then numbers add weight to the process.

I think that you definately hit the nail on the head with this reply.

We need to develop a paper or memorandum that we all can agree upon and support.

We too often have disagreements within our own group (sports fishers). We have so many requests or ideas with no unity in our message that OR and WA fishery management do not know what we want.

WE need a clear message that is supported by all sportfishers!

Nate
<'))))><