I think there is a real possibility that both will happen and I am not suggesting that there shouldn't be public input to the process. As TwoDogs pointed out this rule is not about fishing. If the only argument against the rule is that fishing will be restricted then you lose. The arguments have to address faults in the studies that NOAA is using to back up this rule or provide evidence vessel traffic is not a major problem. One could argue that until steps are taken to reduce the pollution that cause the orcas high toxic loads other protective steps are futile. One could also argue that more effort should be made to increase chinook populations so that the orcas would utilize much more of Puget Sound in the summer. Whatever the arguments against the rule are you have to be aware of the ESA provisions. If NOAA determines that vessel traffic violates the ESA they are required to take action.

My point, and I think TwoDogs, is that emotional arguments are not enough and that a better approach is to work towards some sort of compromise rule. Think about Spotted Owls and the result of the battles against ESA protection. My favorite example of never backing down or compromise is the fight against tribal fishing rights by AuntyM's favorite ex senator and then WA attorney general. He passed up several settlement proposals, instead taking the tribes to federal court. We all know the result, the Boldt decision, the tribes won far more than they were asking for.