Apparently, you can take a lawyer out of the practice, but you can't take the practice of convenient misrepresentation of intent out of the lawyer.

I know you're calling out eyeFISH here, and I'm not speaking for him, but I can't resist (God help me) pointing out that the above post is nowhere near as damning as you intended it to be. If you read the whole piece from the CCA link, you'll not find anything in it that urges members to vote no on Measure 81. It explains to potentially confused members the events that led to CCA's decision to back off support for (stop throwing money at) the measure as a show of moral support (not costing any money) for the Governor's alternative proposal, which was only made after the Governor had been sufficiently convinced that an outright gillnet ban (something some of his financial supporters DIDN'T want) might actually become a citizen-mandated reality.

The Governor was pressured (by most notably CCA, as he, himself, acknowledged) into an attempt to play ball. CCA, being well-versed in politics, knows that it's foolish to put all one's eggs in a single basket when trying to make political headway. Just as there was significant support for Measure 81, there was also significant opposition, and past campaigns suggested that the opposition might well win the day. For that reason, it made sense to acknowledge the Governor's efforts to compromise. If the measure passes, there will be no tears shed at CCA headquarters, I assure you. If not, with the compromise in place, progress (less progress, but progress, nevertheless) can still be made, and all the time and effort put into the campaign will not go wasted.

Personally, I agree with your position that non-tribal commercial fisheries should be laid to rest, 100%. I can't think of any sport fisher I know who disagrees. Unfortunately, the reality is that there is nobody in a position of power who will make that call. To do so, at least in the current climate, would be political suicide. With that, the best we can do is to try and build momentum against the status quo, even if that means a drawn-out battle, wrought with compromise. (Actually, we could do better by pooling our resources together and fighting fire with fire, but because sportsmen are divided by our personal hang-ups, to our shame, that won't happen.)

As an individual CCA member (not a CCA spokesman) who has no vote in Oregon, I urge Oregon's voters, CCA members or not, to vote YES on Measure 81. Should the measure fail, I will hope, recognizing that is all I can do, that the Governor makes good on his proposal. Sort of like insurance; you hope you never need it, but if you do, you're glad it's there. Regrettably, an insurance company is probably more likely to come through than a politician (man, is that saying a mouthful...), hence the vocal support for the measure.