Although defunding WDFW would work much better than defunding the police, I wouldn't advocate taking all funding away from WDFW. Just the $$ spent on salmon management and salmon hatcheries, as those add up to the greatest proportion of Department spending. So long as WDFW chooses not to work for those who pay (the preponderance) of its operating costs, then we taxpayers and license buyers should have the choice of choosing to not pay them for the work they don't do for us.

To wit: how different would recreational salmon fishing look if WDFW did not participate in NOF at all? A few years ago I was told that from Jan. 1 to Apr. 15, 60% of all salmon program labor hours is spent on NOF. What are we getting for that substantial expenditure?

Far and away the largest line item in the WDFW budget is salmon hatcheries, to the tune of many millions of dollars, yet many of those hatcheries return few to nearly no salmon to NT recreational fishing. It doesn't take an economic expert to question the wisdom of this kind of spending.

Keep the wildlife program, both game and non-game. Keep the resident trout program, including its hatcheries, as this is the one activity of WDFW that actually pencils out. I would also keep the steelhead program, including hatcheries, not because it pencils out economically, but to preserve future options. The future of marine survival rates is uncertain, and the total cost of the steelhead hatchery program is only partially born by the Department. A lot of it comes from mitigation and Mitchell Act funds.

Authority? Authority should be proportionate to public service and accountability to those paying the freight. Taking away the money won't improve recreational fishing, but it doesn't look like it would make it noticeably worse. If you've been around for very long, you can see that is where the Department has chosen to take us.