[numbskull]

As much as this issue concerns me, I can see a very valid argument for restricted use areas.

Would the nation be better off with no National Parks?
Would the nation be better off with no wilderness areas?

I think we have to ask why the coastal ocean would be better off without the same.

The issue (for recreational fishermen) is not so much the creation of such areas...it would probably be good.....it is the access and rules of use that occur in such areas. To date fishermen have fought the idea and had no voice in what occurred when they lost. It becomes fishermen against the environmentalists, but the general public feels better protecting the soft fuzzy fish than worrying about how many tons of bass they can eat. Hence all fishermen lose.

I think this may be an issue where recreational interests are very different than commercial interests (people have an interest in being able to visit and use Yellowstone without being able to build hydro-thermal plants, motels, drugstores, and sports stadiums there).

The instinct is for fishermen, commercial and recreational, to stand as one and fight these enviro crazies. The smarter move is probably for recreational interests to join with the saner parts of the environmental interests and work out some compromise that allows continued recreational access with greater limits on environmental impact. Yeah this means throwing commercial interests under the bus, and obviously there is a chance to get burned when you make a deal with the devil, but such is the lot of us recreational schmucks and not every "environmentalist" is an extremist.....not by a long shot.

I don't, however, see that happening since there is no well organized recreational fishing voice/lobby (the RFA is a trade lobby). Ultimately the recreational fisherman will just end up poorer as a result. Same as it ever was.