This seems to be a proposal to eliminate commerical fishing for Pacific salmon in the Columbia Basin and Puget Sound by making Pacific salmon a recreational fish, not a commerical fish.

Would this help recreational anglers? Sure. There would be more hatchery fish for us to catch and more wild fish on the spawning grounds. I can't argue with that. But it would also eliminate a strong advocate for fish conservation - commerical fishermen. Is this trade-off worth the risk? I'm not sure. I don't like the idea of getting rid of one sector of the conservation community in favor of another. The Commerical-Recreational folks end up fighting each other when the real problems go unaddressed. These include habitat, hydropower, land development, water withdrawl, pollution, etc. So why provoke a fight that focuses our collective energy away from the real problems?

Plus, if a change in the regs can eliminate commerical fishing, why not recreational fishing as well? On what basis should we eliminate one type of fishing (commercial) while other types of fishing (recreation) continue? Because recreational anglers are more important? More numerous? Have fewer adverse impacts? Are more righteous?
From the fish's point-of-view, they would likely advocate eliminating both recreational angling and commerical fishing.

I agree with Beezer. Making the commerical folks more "catch selective" would a better solution. Eliminate the gill nets and switch to traps nets. The State of Michigan made the commerical fisherman switch to trap nets in the Great Lakes in the early 70's. The States of Washington and Oregon can do it here as well (but they need to change State law first).

I believe the fishing community needs to be more inclusive, not exclusive, if we are to work together for the benefit of the Pacific salmon. I do not support pitting one group against the other while the real problems are ignored.