Public access sites would seem to have low costs compared to many other aspects of the department. However, closed public access sites will have extremely high visability to users who pay taxes and license fees. This proposal is probably better thought out than many of the programs done by WDFW.

Reminds me of whenever the US Forest Service faced budget cuts, the first thing suggested to get the ax were the most popular campgrounds, leading to the greatest public push back to Congressmen, who put money in the USFS budget to keep those campgrounds running. Even tho the campgrounds are one of the lowest cost of all USFS programs. Dumb like a fox!

Sg