I think you're right, What - if they re-open the Skagit, it will probably be more crowded than before, and that's actually what I would hope for, not because I want crowded conditions, but because I'm interested to see some good evidence that C&R is an effective way to manage an endangered resource. If that success story happened on the Skagit, we'd likely start seeing proposals to manage the OP rivers (and others) in kind.

I guess the main reason I don't think we want pay to play management (besides the fact that it promotes elitism) is that there are an alarming number of people on these same Internet boards chirping about how they'll be willing to pony up. If they do pony up in the numbers being threatened, you'll find yourself fishing in the same crowds, and you'll have about $300 (per fishery) less beer money to drown your sorrows after yet another skunking.

The other problem I see with limiting access (no matter how that's done) is that it punishes the wrong people. Did sport fishing contribute more to the decline of wild steelhead than the tribal and commercial user groups? More than development in the critical watersheds? If not, then why should we always be the ones whose opportunity gets reduced or becomes more expensive? Oh... I just remembered... those other users (at least the non-tribal ones) are doing their pay to play thing in the halls of the Legislature. I guess that explains it. Carry on....