Oregonian,

Okay, so I just showed you report quantifying the economic impact of sportfishing. It's wildy larger than commercial for similar impacts on the resource.. Did you READ the report?

Then you tell me how the fish are an "untapped" resource? I'm telling you that "tapping" them with commercial fisherman is a vastly smaller economic proposition than letting the sporties go at 'em. So don't leave them untapped, let the sporties fish.

Your original argument -- that if recreational fishing $$$s aren't spent on fishing, they'll be spent elsewhere... That's a parallel argument to the one I made -- which was my point. Sporties could (and surely many would) spend their money elsewhere, including out of state. Commercial fishermen could (and surely many would) find jobs elsewhere, including out of state. The question is which keeps MORE jobs and MORE money in state -- in this case the clear answer is sportfishing.

And you're missing another angle -- this is a PUBLIC natural resource. and in a vibrant sportsfishery, the BENEFITS of the natural resource are spread across 100x to 1000x more state residents... It's not just that it's more economically valuable... It's also more equitable.