I'm gonna add to what you said about surveillance, RT. Why not go ahead and put up surveillance cameras anyways at major hang outs, etc.?

Since Gov. Locke thinks that Gamies shouldn't travel over 100 miles a day ( ), I don't see why this couldn't work. Think about the cost of wireless surveillance equipment +/- the capability to record footage. Ok, the bill would be large at first, but the long-term effects towards cost, and effectiveness, would be extremely beneficial to the angler, and to the tax payer alike.

Remember, it's a deterrent factor, not a prohibitive factor, because the cameras physically cannot stop someone from littering, etc. It's like a potential shoplifter going into a retail store that has hidden cameras placed around. He could steal, but he'll be awful nervous when he does it.

It's not like the fishermen will know what days the cameras could be manned. It would save a lot of walking, etc. for an enforcement official if all he has to do is access the camera to see roughly how many anglers are down at a spot, etc. before he decides if he wants to physically go down there, or he could use the footage against an angler if he sees the angler commit a wrongful act.