Well, my initial reaction was no way. The general public doesn't care, and as far as I can tell, only a tiny portion of the sportfishing community cares. But then I started thinking and while this may not hit the hot-buttons or affect Joe Average like Eyman's stuff did, it's gotta be at least as interesting to the public as banning mole traps. Especially if it was worded in an environmentally sound way, such as "It shall be illegal to use sportfishing methods to kill or posess any wild steelhead in the state of Washington..." In other words, instead of promoting catch and release for what may be considered "elitist" sports fishermen, it now becomes a save the wild salmonid deal. And in the public's eyes, it's just like the cruel animal traps deal or the using dogs to hunt cougars deal. We can get the support of everyone who thinks "yeah, we should save wild salmon..." Anyway, it's a thought, and like you say, it would bypass the WDFW policy process. Just how many signatures do you need to get it on a ballot? I see Eyman's got himself a lawyer to help write his new intiatives so they'll be immune to all the legal challenges. Anybody know a good lawyer who knows his way around the democratic process? I know shamefully little about how this works and what's possible, but I think it's worth finding out about. Anyone?