As best I can recall:

Those opposing the initiative were convinced that it would have a
deleterious effect on the development of a cooperative defense of the
salmon resource by conservation groups, tribes, and commercial/sport
fishing groups. It was noted that the initiative singles out commercial
fishing, in particular the gillnetters, who tend to be the smaller, less
capital intensive of the commercial operations (as well as the majority of
tribal fishing operations). It was noted that the primary financial
supporters of the initiative were corporate timber interests, etc.,
suggesting that it would have the effect of diverting attention from the
"real" causes of declining salmon runs, environmental damage upstream.

Those favoring the initiative argued that, all the above notwithstanding,
gillnets were an unacceptably wasteful method of fishing with excessive
bycatches of threatened fish and birds.

Gene Hunn.

On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Don Baccus wrote:

> Gene:
> >Seattle Audubon's board voted on a motion from the conservation committee
> >to oppose I-640. We heard directly from a gillnet fisherman opposing it
> >at an earlier meeting. The arguments pro and con were complex and no
> >clear majority was achieved, though a plurality favored opposing it
>
> Would you mind providing a brief summary of some of the arguments
> on both sides?
>
> - Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>
>
>
>