After scanning through through that thread, I have a question. Did any of those posters vote in the Washington state legislature last year? The laws that allowed commercial fishing in this state can be changed. The commercial lobby tried to get rid of the commission under false pretenses and were over run with opposition from hunters and fishermen. Yet you seem to believe they are more powerful then sportfishing license holders and business owners. Do any of the posters have a finance or economics degree and do they provide consult to the commerce department of the state or federal government. How many legislators have commercial fishermen in their district? So, why do you think, those same legislators would favor the elimination of sportfishing jobs in this state? Im sure similar arguements were used by the commercial lobby in 15 other states. They still lost.

If you sincerely believe the use of selective commercial gear will affect the allocation of hatchery fish, then you have to write to the commission and your representatives. I fully expect the commercials will get an equal split of the hatchery harvest with sportfishing, IF and WHEN they switch to selective gear. WHY are you worried about it in 2010, when no law has been created to use selective harvest gear? If I was a commercial and decided to use selective gear, I would demand to fish longer than gillnetters, because the test fisheries have shown the seine nets dont kill the wild fish. That would motivate more commercials to accept selective gear. If we pass a selective gear law in this state, they will have no choice. We only had a weighted average of 60/40 or 55/45 because the commercials kill wild fish at a faster rate and they would exceed the 2% limit and the fishing is shut down. Its not automatic that they will be allowed to keep fishing until they kill two percent of wild fish. Thats rediculous. What law says the commercial fisherman can keep fishing until he meets the 2% limit. If one exists, we need to change that law. What law says the 2% limit cannot be changed? Isnt it obvious that 2% is either too high or not enforceable, thus we have further regulations to reduce wild fish kills. Again, since they arent using selective gear, the fear is unrealized.

You have to believe that a majority of legislators will sacrifice sportfishing dollar revenue to the state, in favor of commercial fishing revenue. Sportfishing contribute more jobs and more tax revenue to the state by a wide margin. We out number them just in total fishermen, let alone the jobs market. We probably contribute more money to the hatcheries, although the money comes out of the general fund.

What is preventing an immediate victory for sportfishing and wild fish, is the same reason two net ban initiatives failed. We dont have enough people engaged in the process. The majority of fisherman in this state dont know, we have a large organized group of sportfishers, that are engaged in the fight. We have a problem in that many members are either unwilling or unable to reach over to a guy in the sporting good store, or boat launch and ask them, if they have heard of CCA. Im sure most of the members of TU and RFA and WSC do the same thing. We certainly dont have the market saturation that the NRA has. I admit, that walking up to a snagger and speaking about any organization is not going to make a LARGE difference. Those people do not make up the bulk of sportfisherman. Some of those people may just believe, that since the tribes fish, commercial fish and the sportsman IS NOT ORGANIZED, that he is going to take what he wants, regardless of the consequences to the resource. They are the equivalent of looters in New Orleans.

One of the reason that non profits are successful, is that people who dont even fish, will donate to protect them. How may people hunt bear with bait or dogs. Yet the law was changed. Same thing for commercial duck hunting. Yet, the gov still sends money to create habitat for ducks, feed deer and elk and their is no commercial harvest.