The problem I see with species-specific fees is that black hole our state calls the "general fund". All the state money goes into this hole and then our net-loving lawmakers decide who's going to get it. Remember how the Lotto was supposed to fund schools? Take a look at where the Lotto money goes, and what eventually makes it to the schools. Not exactly a direct line of funding, if you know what I mean.

Would I pay more. Sure, but only if the money wasn't funneled through the general fund first. Then every pork-barrel project gets a shot at the money, too, and I can't stand seeing more of my license/tackle money funding everything BUT fisheries.

Maybe someone should see if KOMO would be interested in this for one of their "You Paid for It" stories, but knowing our lawmakers, they'd use it as reasoning for closing more hatcheries and laying off more enforcement officers. Face it, our lawmakers never met a net they didn't like, and the voters of this state are easily swayed by "20,000 jobs lost, not one salmon saved" crap. And with the angling community busy arguing amongst ourselves over C&K/C&R, the gillnet lobby will likely continue to thwart our efforts to get the nets out.

I'm not sure I could offer up an easy solution to the mess we're facing, but I'm good enough at math to know you shouldn't sell a fish for 10 clams when you paid 40 for it. Must be that "new math"..........


Fish on.........