Of course, you're right, Twitch. My remark was tongue-in-cheek.

66% of the popular vote is probably pretty close to the percentage that don't sport fish but love to eat fish. Of course, to claim that they wouldn't have fish to eat without non-tribal commercial nets in the Columbia is more than a small stretch, but it's a very effective message. Folks also don't like hearing that a vote to ban gillnets will put people out of work, which realistically is only a mild stretch.

As I said, even if the sport lobbyists hadn't jumped ship, I doubt the measure would have passed. Kitzhaber's letter acknowledged the far greater economic impact of sport fishing vs. commercial, and I think that message resonated with a lot of politicians in both states. That may be the only progress that gets made in this deal, but it's encouraging.

Personally, I don't want to put the cowboys out of work. I would, however, like to see them change the way they do a few things, and I'd also like to see them pitching in on projects that net them more fish. There have been grass roots efforts to pick up slack doing things that WA Region 6 either can't afford or refuses to do ( Hump hatchery clipping and Grays Harbor ghost net projects, for example), and the cowboys are the only stakeholders who have refused to get involved, yet they still get to reap the benefits. That thar ain't right. Realistically, the gillnetters themselves probably aren't the ones putting up the money to run pro-gillnet campaigns (processors are probably providing the financial muscle on that side), but it would do a lot for my opinion of them if they would step up and get involved in projects that aim to ensure their own future.