Hey FNG,

How's it going? Thanks for the input. I am sure that had the intiative addressed some of the points that were given to me by the Westport folks, the initiative would have had a better shot as passing.

If a new initiative were to be drafted that included funding for retraining programs, license buybacks, along with short term economic assistance for heavily impacted areas, it would have a much greater chance of passage.

Most initiatives are somewhat shortsighted. They only address part of the issue, and often lack key pieces that would draw more support. Bargaining should be done on a compromise basis, and I-696 had no room for compromise in it. In the next net-ban initiative, I would highly suggest that some of these issues be addressed.

Tribes are off-limits in the referrendum process because they are primarily a Federal issue. So we just have to keep on top of that one. Those who voted against Slade but were for fish made a big mistake. He was our biggest ally in the issues with the tribes. Do you think Cantwell or Murray will have the balls to stand up against them? (Sorry, they don't have balls, and I didn't mean to offend any ladies, just democrats.)

If you have concerns about how the general public percieves the issue, then educate them, and allow for concessions. But to draw a line in the sand, or in this case water, and say "I'm not budging!" will do nothing but make the line drawer look belligerent. Address the issues fully, and we will succeed.

Anyway, best of luck, and keep catchin'. Andy