I doubt many NT fishermen exist whose sole income is only from salmon fishing in WA if they don't already have another source of income. The "working class" commercials use fishing in WA as one of many ways to supplement their household income, but it's still income and still important.

However, when the discussions about the worthiness or value of their fishing-derived incomes come up, those who state that their income is some measly amount of money are unknowingly doing pro bono PR work for big oil, big coal, and developers. Do you have an income from natural resources? If so, it's a lot harder for someone else to do something that may affect your income than if no one would could be affected; e.g. petroleum products spills and the billions in cash payouts and settlements stemming from Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon spills.

Is it really any surprise that big oil with stakes in the Gulf of Mexico played a big part in helping form CCA with millions of dollars in early contribution? Get rid of the incomes off of the resource you affect (i.e. gulf commercials) and it becomes a whole lot easier to drill, spill, ship, and generally ruin the environment as needed. Instead of trying to limit the other guys, doesn't it ever occur to you that we're all much more powerful together?