Todd and OnTheColumbia, I understand what you are saying and realize you have a much better grasp of the detailed situation than I do. I know that this initiative will not reduce impacts on ESA listed fish, and sportsfishermen may not get as high a percentage of hatchery fish. I have understood these points since the first time I read them months ago. However, it gets gillnets out of the Columbia. And guess what? We are not limited to changing one law for the rest of eternity. Next year we can go back and beat them again and turn things slightly more in our favor. Todd, as a lawyer you of all people should understand that one case or one law almost never overturn centuries of precedent. Small shifts in public opinion and interpretation of laws gradually change social policy over many years. Even if there is little good that comes out of exact changes to law this initiative would make, beating the commercial fishing industry at the ballot box sends a huge message. Then we will keep beating them down year after year until they don't get back up. Success at regulating impacts of non-tribal commercial fishermen will in turn give increased leverage for negotiations with tribals. It is time to turn this train around and get it headed in the right direction.
CCA has a shot at doing that, and I would rather support them than sit around moping about the hopelessness of it all and how it will never work. Some fisheries groups have been doing good things here for years, but CCA can have a greater and wider impact than these groups. They were able to list redfish and i think striped bass as gamefish instead of food fish. Think of the impact if they could accomplish that with salmon and steelhead. One of the first steps they took was to get rid of gillnets. They are following a proven strategy, although it will have to be more complex in the Northwest.
With all that said, I'm not saying anyone who opposes this initiave is dull. Passing this initiative is risky and has some negative short-term effects. I personally think the long-term benefits it would have and the chain reaction it could start are worth the risks and cost. Only time can tell who is right. However, those of you who oppose every single bill or regulation that has a possibility of decreasing your allocation next season, regardless of how much it helps the fish recover, are short-sighted and selfish. Unless you're a guide, in which case I understand that you are just trying to stay in business. Cheers.