"Bruce...you often have rhetorically asked the same question, 'what is best for the fish', No sport, tribal or commercial fishing would, logic dictates, be best for the fish, A no brainer, ya think?"

Yep. In some cases this would be the best option. Especially if you really care about the resource.

"Would you rather 'err on the side of the fish' only to the extreme of no fishing,and to the exclusion of any other potential solution?"

Of course not.

"Can the need to be right (on both sides) be so blinding as to preclude any other possible solution, or combination of solutions?"

Some people don't want to see any other solution besides a statewide blanket ban. This is a key point and all along I have been saying that other possible solutions are available. I've seen many possible solutions posted here on this board but most of the time those ideas fall on deaf ears. Ideas such as slot limits, reduction of harvest i.e. tags, Guide restrictions etc and sometimes the current management policy is working and does not need to be "fixed".

"Maybe Dan S. is on to something here? I too, would rather fish than eat fish, and if those are the ONLY two choices this issue affords,,,,,,,,,,,,well Bruce , I firmly beleive you are in the minority."

Who said there were only two choices? Why must an Angler choose to either eat fish or just fish, why can't we do both. That is what the majority of Anglers want to do. Many Anglers enjoy sitting down at the dinner table with their family and their days catch as much as they enjoy the act of catching it. It's been that way since man first started fishing *gasp! eat steelhead, how barbaric, I only eat salmon and dead chickens!*. Of course sometimes thats just not possibe and in some cases only two choices do exist, but in other cases I tend to beleive better management options are availabe and should be used before WSR is mandated. WSR should be a last resort and/or used selectively. If you think I'm in the minority here, well then we disagree.