So the Oregon licensed charter skipper was caught operating out of a WA port. Legitimate bust; his bad.

However, while I understand the WA charter operators wanting to protect their turf I am not sure I agree with the following quotes as extracted from the article:

“They’re very good at what they do,” Smith (Coho Charters) said about the illegal operations. “When they show up en masse, they tend to close seasons down faster.”

“You can only have so much pressure on a limited resource,” Cenci agreed.

Charter operators provide a service for licensed recreational anglers who are constrained by seasons and daily/possession limits - charter operators do not constitute another user group with their own allocation (nor should they). It has been my perception that the limited entry designation has been a means to protect the financial well being of those already holding charter licenses and to keep prices of those saleable licenses high. Also, as I understand it a charter boat must have a limited entry salmon license in order to charter for tuna out of a WA port.

You might say, "O'K, so what?"

Well, not only does that tend to keep available seat numbers low it tends to keep angler trip fees high plus there is another aspect to it. There are a number of WA guides who have purchased OR guide licenses and are able to legally fish the estuary although they cannot pick up WA clients on the WA side.

Those guides are paying their fees to OR. They tend to stay on the OR side and spend their operating money there. And their clients tend to stay on the OR side of the river spending money for rooms, meals and an occasional beer or three on the OR side. From my perspective it seems WA's economy is missing out on a big part of the economic potential tied to the lower Columbia River fishery.

I just have to wonder how much additional money would flow to the WA side if WA's limited entry restriction did not apply to the LCR?