In my opinion the problem stems primarily from misguided priorities.
Fish are not our friends… Fish are not toys… Fish are food!

As a food resource, fish would be best managed to provide the most nourishment to the most people secondly and firstly for sustainability. Thirdly the fish might, where excess permits, be used as toys for sport.

Commercial fishing, sport fishing and consumptive personal use fishing all serve to attain these goals but only when personal use fishermen are given the first opportunity. No commercial fishing should be allowed anywhere that does not have a harvestable abundance beyond what prudent citizens would take for there own use.

The difficulty here is that sport fishermen want to exclude consumptive use fishermen, commercial fishermen want the lions share of the harvest and the consumptive use fishermen just want to fish.

Groups who would prohibit noncommercial harvest by other citizens divide the angling community, as do those who would restrict the methodology to fly fishing or specific selective gear or techniques. Those anglers who consider their selves to be a cut above the unsophisticated blue-collar masses are as much of a problem in developing reasonable harvest allocation guidelines as the commercials.

Certain media and many organizations both within and without the angling community promote dissent as a means to further their own selfish goals. Ideas like the mandatory release of a particular fish, be it bass, trout, steelhead or carp, come from organized efforts to grab a resource for a select few. The current anti-snagging campaign is another example of using dissent to further selfish goals, in this case the restriction of fishing to certain gear and methods. To equate flossing with snagging and then find new examples of flossing methodology to rationalize restricting techniques to moving lines or non-moving lines or bobber only, etc. simply serves to disallow diversity in fishing style.

I'll have to agree with AuntyM that "the commissions mandate needs to be changed. This states resources should be allocated to citizens FIRST…" but with small family commercial operations having seconds at the table for any harvestable excess and after that the use of the fish for toys or sport should come third.

It would be awfully hard to argue that any stocks in the Puget sound region exists in numbers sufficient to warrant commercial harvest. That said, a most difficult problem might be getting the tribes with fishing rights on board with this proposed policy.