How do I see it?? Well, I just got done sending Yes-696 a $300 check if that's any sort of a hint.

The initiative is certainly not a cure-all, but it will bring our returning fish one step closer to the spawning beds ... getting them on the beds and what happens from there is another issue, but if they can't get to the rivers, all we do for habitat and the like is moot.

The two major pro's in my eyes are 1): the economic factors that Dan covered well and more importantly 2): fish get freer passage into the river systems ... although in many cases, these extra fish will be harvested by tribes in those areas where in-river netting occurs (such as the streams in my area), I think that the importance of getting fish into severly depressed watersheds that even the tribes leave alone outweighs the bummer that the tribes will likely reap some benefits from the passage.

However, it must be noted that we do have options here too. No where in the Boldt Descision (as far as I know anyhow) is a mandate of what models must be used for our management goals. A next step would be to change the way the fisheries are managed in this state from maximum harvest based models to optimum yield type models which would increase escapement goals and ultimately cut the number of fish that we deem "harvestable" ... with commercial (read as "kill as many as possible") interests out of the picture, this is much more likely to happen ... perhaps the state would do this on it's own (as they have done in the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska fisheries - another area with heavy harvest by both user groups), or maybe through other avenues ... litigation? Another initiatuve to emplace this as our official mangemnet policy? Federal intervention? Don't laugh ... it happened October 1 in Alaska!

The recovery of salmon in all of Washington's waters is like a puzzle ... to put it together, you're eventually going to have to have all the pieces you'll need ... and removing unselective harvest practices is one of those pieces ... so we'd better start gathering them and then get a game plan together for assembling them.

As for the locals on the coast MM ... you'd better take a wider sample ... I know of a lot of people supporting the issue. And even in the most commercial oriented communities (Hoquiam and Aberdeen), my drive through those areas last week only presented me with one sign opposing 696 ... compare that to several dozen opposing 695 (license tabs for $30) ... an issue that most people say is surely going to pass.

Even if it doesn't pass this time around ... it will, mark my words ... commercial fishing is no differnet than the commercial hunting that took place decades ago. It ended, as will the commercial fishing ... maybe if we don't have to spend millions subsidizing the commercial industry and pour countless other millions into restoration efforts that (in some cases) would not be needed with 696's passage, the legislators won't have to find a way to make up for the lost revenue of the $30 tabs we will soon have.