Denham,

First, I suggest that you ask some fishery managers from the state, tribes, and feds to get a broader perspective on this.

Then, I would argue that any distinction on fishing gear type is almost purely a political/econo-political discussion and not a biologically-based discussion. In other words, a dead fish is a dead fish.

Gillnets are the current enemy du jour....

Back in the 1920 and 30, when the commercial scale, boat-based gill net industry was really firing up, due to the rise of the small marine engine tech, traps and wheels were the enemy - so much so, that the gill net lobby got that gear banned in WA and OR because of its efficieant and indiscriminate harvest! (Sound familiar?)

The real issue has and will always be the rate at which the fish are killed, not how they are killed. remember, how they are killed is not a biological rational for one gear over another. The "image" problem that gill nets have is they are supremely effective at what they do, which puts dead fish in the boat, which can be seen and counted, unlike the released recreational and commercial troll by-catch, which operates on the more "invisible" principle of assumed released mortality, albeit with some good to questionable estimates for this mortality. Both types of gear have estimates, used in management, for fish that disappear from the gears - hooked and never landed and net dropout.

I'll leave it to the folks here to tell you were I'm wrong.

Good luck,