I think it's pretty well proven that the vast majority of hatchery production is paid for by sport fishers by both direct sales of angleing licenses and indirectly from money that originates from federal excise taxes on sporting goods and gear. Although there are innumerable ways to slice and dice agency budgets and funding to prove pretty much anything anyone wants to, it is a known fact that the select area fisheries operate at a negative net economic value, meaning that the dockside value of the fish sold is less than the cost to produce them. When you combine that with the relativly small (a few hundred) gillnetters that directly benefit, I personally think it's a bad program, and not one we should double down on.

Yes, there are secondary local economic benefits to the program, but those only come at a loss of economic benefit elsewhare in the region. It's a zero sum equation. There is no net gain, somebody else (a whole lot of somebody elses) have to suffer an economic loss for a relative few to get an economic win. And that small win is only at the cost of impeding the recovery of several ESA-listed stocks of fish that we are litterally spending billions of dollars to try and save. Seems dumb to me, especially when changing to live capture seine nettting from gill nets would dramatically reduce the harm caused.

It's not a popular opinion, I know.