Ah, ah ... a diplomatic and hard-to-pin-down answer

And a rebuttal question that I expected.

Honestly ... would I support a full closure? At this point in time, I'd hate to see a full closure as I have bills to pay like the rest of us and due to the salmon crisis this fall, I've already cancelled over 30 trips since October ... many before the official shutdown came. I'd also be pretty PO'd that so many of us have asked for some sort of safety cushion to start with, but keep hearing that it isn't necessary. But if push comes to shove, I've always said I'd hang up my rod and I'd find some way to cope with it

Here we go full circle to some other points that have been brought up in this thread and others.

A number of wild fish have already been harvested out of these streams. Had we already been operating under C&R regs and even more specifically with selective rules, it's likely that the overall impact of fishing the rest of the year would not be much higher than what we've already allowed to be taken in a harvest-oriented fishery.

As I mentioned before it's seemingly an all or nothing situation ... 'kill them all or no fishing at all' seems to be the long standing policy that rules all in our state management for nearly all fisheries. The state seems to be interested more in creating short-term harvest opportunities and keeping the meat hunters happy without looking at the long-term picture of healthy stocks and max opportunity ... with hatchery harvest available and to perhaps only anger than small percentage still wishing to harvest these fish now rather than all anglers down the road when we have nothing left.