Agreed. Pretty middle of the road, non-committal testimony, but I gotta think they are pro. The legislators surely had contact with them prior to submitting the bill. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I'm surprised they didn't just sit this one out, at this stage anyway.
Tribal testimony surprise me, in that they are against the bill. I thought they would have preferred to be the sole gillnetters in the state, but instead I think they fear holding that title. Will make it easy for pro 5617-ers to point the finger at their non-selective fishery.