Man some of you are dense. You can't see past the end of your nose. Let me instruct you in a few points of logic, military strategy, and long-term thinking.

Logic-If this bill is so good for commercial fishermen and will allow them to scoop all the hatchery fish out of the Columbia, why are they fighting it kicking and screaming? Several of the articles above had numerous presidents of commercial fishing groups defending gillnets and claiming they were selective. One of them also said that making improvements required by this initiative would cost millions and put most of the fishing fleet out of business. Do you think they are too dumb to realize the benefits they will get if the bill passes? Or is it possible that this bill will not help them like you believe?

Military strategy-You do not sit around and debate on how to fight a perfect battle to win a war. You do your best to win one battle at a time, and it takes a large number of successful battles to win a war. Also, the generals that are directing the fight must have a broad, strategic view of the conflict. They must have a clear plan on how to accomplish strategic objectives, and be willing to accept heavy casualties if that is what it takes to accomplish those objectives. They have plans for an entire campaign laid out, but it would be idiotic to advertise those plans to the enemy.
This view correlates to CCA's strategy that they outlined in an article in their magazine when they first started the chapters in Oregon and Washington. They said they would eat the elephant one bite at a time, beginning by targeting commercial fishing that can wipe out entire runs at the drop of a hat. While this strategy is controversial, at least they are doing something. In the civil war, Lincoln went through dozens of generals who sat around Washington with their armies, were indecisive, and got their butts kicked by Lee every time, until he finally found Grant, who was agressive, determined, and kept fighting Lee until he won the war. The generals of CCA have been extremely successful in the past. I've experienced some great fishing for striped bass on the east coast and redfish in the south. Both of these species and many others were collapsed until CCA was founded and won victory after victory defending fish. With their track record and with no other alternative group that is making an impact, I will risk $20 a year to see if CCA can have the same impact here. I am confident that they have a long-term plan to improve fisheries in the Northwest, but I do not expect them to provide it to the public, since that would make it easier for their enemies to defend against it.

Long-term thinking-So many of you are screaming about losing sport-fishing allocations for hatchery salmon next season. You probably hide your money in your mattress too. It is understandable that you want to protect what little fish you have left, but what if decreasing our impact for a few years or even a few decades brought fish level back to half of their original numbers when white men first arrived? We would have more fish than we know what to do with. I'm not saying if that's possible or not, but I know that very rarely do you get great rewards or returns without taking major risks. We already destroyed most of our fish resources in the last 150 years, so why not risk a portion of the remnant you are allowed to catch to see if it is possible to rebuild stocks?

I'm probably way off in some of what I'm saying, but just thought I'd try to paint a slightly bigger picture of the forest than some of you are seeing. If you want to continue with your noses buried in the moss on a branch growing from a tree in the forest, go right ahead.