OC, That my friend is the correct view of a proper coalition member. There is no way that wild fish will be defended without a continueing ,and hopefully viable commercial fishery.
Weither its in Alaska or the Native fishery down here it is a very easily justifiable (to politicians) reason to protect wild fish habitat and feed sources, and of course clean water too.
The battle to save the Tongass National Forest was fought long and hard the number of Fisherman that made trips to DC to lobby the Pol's was unreported. The fish guys and gals were much more effective in preson than a suit representing the Sierra club etc. Not putting down the efforts of the large conservation outfits but only pointing out that it was and is a battle fought on many fronts by a lot of good people that you never hear about in the national press.
Afew years ago there was an organization that sprang up with the single purpose of getting rid of High Seas pelagic drifnet gear. SEACOPS was an International coalition of Enviromentalist, Sport and Commercial Fisherman and community state and national politicians that formed a solid coalition and brought a close to the most wasteful and devestating form of industrial fishing the world has ever scene.
It was started in Sotheastern Alaska by a group of mostly Commercial Fisherman and grew as only an organization can by the dedicated purpose of completeing a single task. Individuals gave freely of there time and considerable of there hard earned cash to win this battle against the will and might of the Japanese and Taiwanese lobbys in the US State Department.
So like OC I find it a little hard to dissmis the commercial fishers and more likely to defend them for what I have scene as many times supporting conservation and fostering the economic well being of many small coastal towns along the Pacific.