It looks like your own rage prevents you from writing a coherant sentence.
Have you gone public??????? I have...............ON THE RECORD!!!!! I would think it is clear and coherent (spelled correctly)
I am on the record publicly, here on the NOAA meetings and in the paper . Simply the science sucks and against a closure. Anyone and everyone knows exactly what my position is.
I guess, that is the best I can expect. For a guy who hangs around so many presidents,
It would seem that if a person would like to get accurate information go to the top. My discussion with the two at the end of the Friday Harbor meeting, was observed by many who are watching your predictable rhetoric now. I don't hang out with them as, the only interest we seem to have in common is fishing.you dont seem to know very much about our rules. The rule is, you dont speak for cca,
So how can you so ignorantly state that CCA did make a statement at the Friday Harbor meeting. I understand the rules very clearly as I pointed out earlier. Hi I'm Bob and I'm a CCA member and in my opinion 
Members speaking is not to be confused with the CLUB making a statement.............I'm not confused BUT YOU MUST BE IF YOU BELIEVE CCA MADE A STATEMENT AT FRIDAY HARBOR.unless you are given permission to do so. Authorization only comes from one place.
The place where no comments come from..........corporate. That protects the organization from the wild man rants, false information etc.
False information............really I can prove my statements.........on the record can you or CCA for that matter??? Web banter is not authorized and frowned on.
I can see that presenting information that is verifiable should be feared and stopped................WHY??? Most of these conversations turn into a pile of manure.
Only when you try to feed us MANURE.
MPA's were not limited to San Juan Island.
Finally a true statement..........TODAY. At the time of the NOAA meetings the rockfish closure had not been even been whispered of. So your point is what??? The rockfish recovery plan also recommends that 20% of areas 5-13 be designated MPA. Ive been to three of those meeting and we are asked to sign in as cca members, even if we dont speak.
Not only did CCA members speak out against MPA, during the meetings, we also asked for a longer public input period beyond November 19.
Lots of people spoke as individuals...........sadly CCA memebers are forced to also speak as individuals............Why I ask again did CCA not authorize a statement???( at NOAA meetings) We were granted that and they scheduled three more meetings which many attended and testified. The dept asked cca to sit down with them and other orgs. to work thru the details of the plan. The proposed meeting turned into a work group, CCA has two members, who will represent the organization in those meetings.
Will this be like North of Falcon meetings...........Where rep's from 3 states and 2 countries are gathered and CCA single handed made for more fishing. Don't get me wrong, yes they were a part of that but not solely responsible or IMO even instrumental. The meetings already began in December. When the process is complete, something will be written up for the members and perhaps a news release.
I wonder, have you expressed your outrage with NSIA or NMTA or the ASA for a lack of representation at those meetings, or do you have a special affection for cca?
I have not been aware that any of the groups marketed themselves as a political FISHING CLUB. I think the reality, you will have to get use to, is that its not reasonable to expect, cca to be at every meeting about every issue.
I don't expect anything from CCA that is NORTH OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER. No other organization is expected to do that.
That is what is needed, a political organazation who simply defends ALL sport fisherman. It doesnt stop individual members from testifying, but they cant represent the organization in those meetings, unless they are given permission.
We already knew this but thank you for making it clear...........for what it is worth. Since members can't inform on the web or speak for the club.
Had you bothered to look, you would easily have found the positions of the National organization.
Have them book marked. The club mission really leaves a thousand holes to not help with almost any problem. That is why I question the CCA position if they don't make a statement. Saying nothing is a silent vote for, not against. With 5000+ members in Washington,
Let us put that number into view......
less then the population of the little hick town of Duvall 5years ago. it would be suicide, to support such closures,
And it is not suicide to do nothing, speaking of NOAA. See because as in your own words , " its not reasonable to expect, cca to be at every meeting about every issue.
Well I guess this meeting was not to expected even though in your own words suicide that are unnecessary and not beneficial to the members or to the general public.
DO you really think any members or the public could find a San Juan closure beneficial??? Because not going on record against is asilent vote for.
Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) CCA Pacific Northwest - Coastal Conservation Association of Washington & Oregon
Represented recreational anglers and their rights during the marine reserve debates. Successfully modified HB 3013 to avoid large arbitrary closures of our coastal waters before it was passed into law.
http://centralpt.com/upload/502/News..._final-web.pdf
Linear Mode
