The somewhat hidden fallacy in the argument is several fold.

1) Only about 1% of that commercial value is salmon. On an apples to apples comparison, sport salmon is 3-4 times more valuable than commercial. This situation is true in places like willapa bay despite an allocation of 90% commercial/10% rec. This is all about salmon. Its not like the ocean crabbers, shrimpers, or bottom draggers fear the recs. If you look at where the commercial money comes from its mostly the ocean and PS shellfish.

2) The financial argument laid out includes tribal harvest, but tribal harvest will not be impacted by this bill. In fact as mentioned above, the state already has a dedicated commercial fleet that will always get at least 1/2 the available take. The seafood availability to the public is just grandstanding.

3) The arguement is that rather than ~100,000 users utilizing the resrouce a few dozen is more equitable? With the justification being the commercially caught fish reach more people. I don't know about you guys, but I supply at least a dozen people a year with free seafood. If the other 100,000 salmon anglers are similar, I would argue we reach about 20% of the sate with our salmon, maybe the commercial harvesters reach more people, but I don't think they're state residents.