Mentioning this. I met Gary Loomis last night. He visited the South Sound Fly Fishers to deliver his CCA spiel. Having read so many emotional posts about CCA on this and other forums, I was curious.
His delivery was more crude than polished - more redneck than sophisticated. That seems to play well with the relatively uninformed audience in a charasmatic way. He uses and twists facts in an interesting way. He stated and his powerpoint presentation stated that dams are not the problem, but then was careful to mention that dams are not good for salmon. He and the powerpoint stated that habitat is not the problem. Harvest, and specifically gillnets, are the problem. He cherry picks his data, but then so do his opponents.
I spoke briefly with him afterward and said I disagreed with some of his facts but agreed with some of his conclusions. He seemed sincerely interested about my comment regarding his facts and asked me to call him or email. Afterward I thought about it, and except for the habitat statement, I had a hard time pinpointing errors of fact. Of course I might if I could look up some that he presented, but that's not my point. Rather it was the way he combined, spinned, and presented facts in contexts that changed their meanings.
For example, he had a slide of a Columbia River bowpicker catching spring chinook. We know the meaning is that wild ESA chinook and steelhead are being taken concurrently in that fishery. But he followed that with the well known slide of the Muckleshoot nets in the lower Duwamish last summer/fall that raised a lot of dismay and disgust to many, but didn't bother me at all. I know that fishery was for hatchery Green River chinook, and that satisfactory escapement is made every year. Powerful appearances, but deceptive in my estimation because the environmental impacts are so very different.
And to say that habitat isn't the problem, when in the case of Puget Sound, all scientific evidence indicates that higher natural spawning escapements wouldn't increase run sizes at all is misleading to say the least.
He avoided entirely the subject of reallocating fish from commercial harvest, yet spoke as if there were no inconsistency that there would be more fish for us (sportfishers) to catch when commercial catches are reduced, and more fish bound for the spawning grounds. I don't know if the term "mixed metaphor" is applicable here, but it seems like it might be.
Having thought it over, I wouldn't recommend that he change his presentation much, except possibly ommitting the most glaring errors. The field he's playing on is an interesting one. There are two contests, or wars, if you will. The first is the court of public opinion and policy. That war will not be won or lost on facts. So his emotional and charasmatic appeal seems perfect for the task. The second is the legal war. That will be won and lost partly on facts. Legislation via politics needs a few facts and a lot of positive emotion. The legal war in the courtroom will be decided on facts, and CCA will need a technical team to prepare a better factual case than Gary has.
Just thought I'd share my impressions even at the risk of beginning another CCA thread headed for lock up.
Sincerely,
Salmo g.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
I'm probably gonna' regret . . .
Edit
Reply
Quote
