Smalma said:

"Todd, I have to wonder if you would be as gracious as you have advise others to be in your own comments if the a group of 50 anglers or so had been successful in getting the 1/day and 5/year wild fish limits raised in stead of the current moratorium. "

Todd....You always reference the legality of the commission's action to initiate the 2 year moratorium. That would be looking at technicalities in my opinion. Whether the move is legal or not I think opponents see that the open commission meeting process was highjacked in this case as the moratorium was not even on the agenda. WSC and some fly fishers organized themselves with a show of force at the meeting and were able to get their agenda heard and passed with very little discussion by potential opponents. And by the way I was there.

I know there are many other complaints opponents have but I am focusing on the process complaint which I think is where the PSA people were coming from. I only bring this up to point out that folks like me who do not kill wild steelhead and are on your side in that regard also can oppose some of your ideas and methods.

I still am convinced that many WSR advocates are interested not only in the fish but in the quality of the fishing experience as they see it. That is to say that they prefer solitude so by restricting the fishery they will weed out a large group of "crackers" who they think don't belong on the river in the first place. That may be where the "elitist" label is coming from.

A "process" is supposed to include those "crackers" if they want to be included, it is supposed to include the fly fishers along with the bait fishers...etc. I know I have felt excluded at commission meetings many times when the commercial fishing bias takes over and decisions are made that totally ignore science and biology and public comment.