Darth baiter,

Cutting WDFW's budget won't improve fishing; not immediately at least. I'm fairly certain of that. My strategy is on a longer game, not near term.

My strategy is aimed at getting WDFW to appreciate where its money comes from, recognizing that fishing license buyers are the principle constituents of its Fish Program, and making clear by example that biting the hand that feeds it is bad business policy. To do so, we have to make the Department hurt in the only way that it recognizes, and that is the budget.

In the near term I expect WDFW, as a reactionary agency, to retaliate by cutting expenses in the area that still benefit recreational angling for anadromous fish. But let's consider a reduction in hatchery funding. At present 72.8% of hatchery funding is for salmon and steelhead, mostly salmon. At present, recreational anglers get pathetically little in return of hatchery steelhead these days, and the lion's share of hatchery salmon accrue to B.C. and WA commercial and treaty fishing, not recreational. We're just about at the point where, as recreational anglers, it's appropriate to ask, "What do we have left to lose?"

I suggested that WDFW audit hatcheries based on their return to WA recreational angling per $ spent. The Department replied that it continually assesses hatchery performance, as if I don't already know that. Of course CWT is used to evaluate SAR and harvest contributions to the various fisheries. But I haven't seen any compilation of how much of the money spent returns to WA sportfishing. Looking at where the most WA sport salmon originate, seems to be the Columbia River (ocean sport, CR and trib. sport) which mainly gets its funding from hydro mitigation and Mitchell Act (federal money), not from WA GF or license fees. I think if WDFW needs to save some money, the first course of action is to shut down or convert hatcheries that return very few fish to WA sport fishers.

BTW, a word about commercial and treaty fishing. First, I'm not opposed to either. I'm simply opposed to subsidizing them when there is no benefit to my sport fishing interest. If NT commercial fishermen want to contribute more financially to the hatchery salmon they harvest, by all means, please do. I'm just not interested in paying for it with my taxes or license fees. Same with treaty fishing, although I understand the special legal status it enjoys.

WDFW does have some leverage that it apparently does not employ. In US - Canada negotiations, WDFW could advance the position that unless a reasonable proportion of the fish WA produces accrue to WA sport fishing, WA will no longer produce those hatchery fish caught by Canada. Same with treaty fishing. While the tribes are entitled to their legal share and allocation, unless a reasonable proportion of the hatchery fish are allowed to accrue to WA sport fishing, then WDFW will no longer produce those hatchery salmon. The tail should not wag the dog. (It has not been legally adjudicated that WA must produce hatchery salmon for treaty fishing, only that treaty fishing rights do apply to those salmon that are produced in hatcheries.)

WA NT commercial and treaty fishermen make up less than 2% of the state population. That means that most of WDFW's funding comes from the other 98% of taxpayers and license purchasers. In a pay-to-play environment, WA sport fishers are being way more than severely short-changed. Unless the equation can be shifted to provide some economic equity to the WA sport fishery, we should simply stop paying to produce most of those salmon that come from the 72.8% of WDFW's hatchery budget.

If WDFW feels sufficient pain, then the possibility exists that it will choose to direct its efforts toward those constituents who provide the Department's money. I don't see that happening without the pain occurring first. Look at it in the context of personal life and relationships: A person tries drugs (GF and abundant license fees) and enjoys the experience and finally becomes addicted and has to steal money from family, friends, and strangers (taxpayers) to continue feeding the habit (hatchery salmon for Canada and commercial fishing). The addict cannot and won't change (rehab) until they hit rock bottom (they lose their job (funding) children leave, spouse divorces them, and just maybe, they finally see that the only positive future is a drug free (spending sport $ on Canada and commercial fishing) lifestyle, where actions do have consequences, so they choose positive actions to achieve positive consequences (funding sufficient to support programs that benefit the people who pay for them).

Or, we can continue along the current pathway, lobby our Legislature for a GF increase, license fee increase, and our reward will be more Puget Sound river recreational fishing closures (ala Stillaguamish & Skokomish) until all PS rivers are closed to sportfishing (a goal of some PS tribes) and even more PS marine water salmon fishing is closed. This is the future, and it is coming to a region and state near you if you live in western WA.

We have choices to make. I don't want to be an activist. I'd rather go fishing. But it's not hard to see that without activism, there will be precious little fishing in the not-to-distant future. When WDFW decides to work for me, I will work for WDFW. Quid pro quo. Pretty simple.