Without a long history and without much knowledge about the various issues, local polictical factors, etc, to me it seems like a case of one group being heard more loudly and clearly than another. In this case, anti-alien residents and locals contributing to public comment process, eventually influencing policy and law makers that have the power to shut us out if they deem appropriate.

We, as outsiders, are almost asssuredly under represented in whatever the public process might be, despite our significant contributions to local economy.

I am torn on this one. On one hand I have seen and value the resource to the point that I would gladly give up rights to fish there if it meant that the fish would be given the opportunity to thrive and propagate unmolested. Sadly, this isn't and wouldn't be the case, but instead, the locals wish to reserve this " paradise" for a select few. Those that live there, and those that have bottomless pockets.

I don't like the precedent that this sets. One that would seem to say, "We don't want you here, unless you have a shiteload of money and are willing to throw it around willingly and without care." Everything has a price I guess. If such limitations are enacted for conservations reasons, so be it.

No such thing as "equal opportunity" in this case. If an overall reduction of angler days is desired, I would much rather see other limitations achieve the same affect.

If someone has a link for a comment form, petitiion, etc. Please put it up. I would love to put in a few cents, but an too lazy/pressed for time to look for it for now.

Thanks.