First off, we are all going to have similar opinions on the use of gill nets so dont take anything I write as defending them.

Also, if your against this WAC, did you send in comments to the commission? It is on the agenda for tomorrow.

Also, look at WAC 220-47-500, it is about the same text. I believe the need for this text has to do with co-managing with Oregon.

Cowlitz, you say
No, I can not, but the difference is that sport is open access vs. a set number of licenses for the commercial fleet.

If the sport fishing community would agree to do it, I dont think there would be any problem coming up with a WAC which instituted some sort of lottery system so a limited number of sport fisherman could fish an area that would otherwise be closed. Right now the thinking among sport fishers has been that if the run is down enough just close it. If it is an allocation issue, the season gets shortened, sometimes a season limited to a few hours in a day.

The commercials have a different goal. They want to try to catch every last available fish. If the fish numbers are down or the allocation is small their question is how do we get some of these fish? This is the solution the department came up with. Send out only some of the fleet to set their nets so not as many fish are caught.

The recreational preference is in the North of Falcon Policy, something I have not seen online. The RCW you are pointing out are other laws that govern fisheries passed by the legislature not the commission.

The text of the RCW allows the commission to put these regs in place, the WAC is the process of putting them in place.

I do understand the argument against this, but it is more of an argument about the big picture. The frustration that the department continues to put a whole lot of resources into what is a slowly failing commercial fishery.