Grandpa,

You seem to know the score, so I'm surprised at your comments. Just how is WDFW supposed to "stand up to the tribes?" They've tried that in the federal court system and lost badly. Tribal treaty fishing rights have been the law of the land for nearly 30 years now. WDFW doesn't benefit by throwing good money after bad. What, exactly, would you have them do that would be a more positive allocation of resources?

The tribes contribute less than WDFW to fisheries management in most cases, and they have standing at law in support of that. The tribes treaty fishing right has superior legal status to any non-treaty fishing right under the state's jurisdiction. Tribes are assumed to be allowed to fish unless the state has management and conservation data to limit the treaty right. And WDFW must have management data demonstrating that there are sufficient fish for a non-treaty commercial or recreational fishery. A much lower burden exists for treaty tribes. You might think it unfair, but that is the law.

It costs money to manage a fishery, including one like the LW sockeye fishery. It costs more to manage a recreational fishery than a commercial fishery because there are so many more units of gear on the water, spread over a longer period of time. It is worth the expense, because recreational fishing will return more to the state's economy, but that becomes a policy decision.

WDFW dances to the strings of the commercial fishing industry because it's required to by legislation. Why do you fault them for following the law? I think it's more productive to focus on modifying the law.

As for using a high profile public resource when there's a budget crunch, well, that's a time-tested and generally proven buearucratic and political tool. USFS always closes the most popular campgrounds when faced with budget problems. That's been demonstrated as the best way to generate public support for budget assistance. Closing perch season on Mud Lake isn't going to have any effect, on numbers of people or on the budget, so it makes sense to light a fire under the opinion makers by talking about closing something significant.

You ask an interesting question about whether sport fishermen pay enough. It's not an easy situation when we buy the same license if we fish 3 or 4 Saturdays per year or 300 days per year. If license fees are much higher, WDFW risks losing the vast majority of anglers who fish only a few days per year. The hardcore fanatics, like you perhaps, who fish many days per year, and would pay a lot more, are the - to borrow your phrase - boutique fisheries that cater to the hard core special interest sport fisheries that should perhaps be paying something approaching the green fees at a golf course. How much is too much may depend on how many days each year that an angler fishes.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.