Todd,

Oh yeah. I was looking for reaction. Actually, I thought of the alternative you mention, but I haven't had the confidence the CG or the Commission would do their parts. Maybe CG will put up. I'm concerned about getting informed Commissioners; considering the qualification requirements and that it's a voluntary position with much more work than it required years ago. Plus, there is the tradition in this state of the Commission being mostly a rubber stamp. But if it becomes the policy Commission that it oughta' be, then that would be truly hopeful - and opposed by commerical fishing and tribes.

As for info sources, crikey, that's what Region 5 is supposed to be doing for the Commission. The Commission ought not have to hire additional help to obtain unbiased, uncolored information so that they can make thier own independent policy decisions. We've seen how the Region forms its conclusion and then builds the artificial rationale for it. The Commissioners are mostly not trained to spot the situation that's laid out for them, hence the lack of pointed and direct questioning like you observed in Oregon. Maybe we can get there. That in itself is a worthwhile goal for all our sportfishing organizations.

Now, I'm going to the store and look for a Seattle paper, in search of good news.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.