It would be possible to oppose I-640 solely on the issue of bycatch,
even though this issue has been painted as being about salmon. Reducing
bycatch would be a good thing, but if commercial fishing went under in WA,
that would be one fewer voice against big timber and hydropower. Whether
or not commercial fishing is really likely to fail if 640 passes is a
question I have not seen seriously addressed -- would this happen
because it is impossible to be commerically viable in WA waters using
equipment that meets the bycatch ceiling, or are our fishermen just too
stubborn to change, or would it just "cost too much," or what? At any
rate, it seems like a risky time to be trying something like this.
Slade et al. would love to have commerical fishing weakened or removed
from the timber/hydro picture.

Incidentally, an article by Kery (sp?) Murakami in the Seattle Times
late last week (Thurs?) listed major contributors to the pro-640
campaign, and timber was conspicuously absent from the list.

David Wright
dwright at u.washington.edu