Bruce,

I'm not suggesting that you should have known about this particular regulation and spoken out against it.

Your argument all along was that CnR fisheries kill fish, and you're going after them big time the last several days.

CnR fisheries have existed for the last 20 years, not just the last five days.

Your problem with the new regulation isn't really with the new regulation, it's with CnR fisheries that kill fish, unless I'm reading you wrong. CnR mortality seems to be the rack you're hanging your hat on in railing against this regulation.

My question is this: What have you been doing to express your distaste with CnR fishery mortality over the last 20 years that CnR fisheries have existed?

Why haven't you organized a group to lobby against CnR fisheries in the past?

Why are you now making the argument that CnR fisheries kill fish, when that problem has existed for 20 years?

It seems a bit disingenuous that you'd start doing it now, when the problem is an old one that you seem to have known about for a long time. This regulation doesn't make the problem you're having any better or any worse, but now you're arguing about your problem.

Whether you intend it or not, when you attack a regulation prohibiting the direct harvest of wild fish, citing a problem that existed long before the regulation that is not affected either way by the regulation, it looks like you are fighting to keep harvesting wild fish.

I don't know what your intent is, I don't have any reason to not believe you when you say you don't harvest native fish...I'm sure you don't.

What exactly is your problem with the new regulation, and how is it a different problem than the one you had two weeks ago, or two years ago, or ten years ago?