Gene:
> 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.

Thanks, about what I'd expect. For what it's worth, I believe the
first argument is by far the winner. Corporate timber has been
working overtime to try and escape their share of responsibility
for the problem, and support for the measure would come back to
haunt SAS, I think. The refrain "even the Audubon society agrees
that the primary problem is overfishing by commercial fishermen"
comes to mind...too blatant, of course, but the industry would
look hard for ways to build on this fortuitous juxtaposition of
your name with theirs.

Those favoring were, in my opinion, being short-sighted and politically
naive.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>