In principle, I think license fees should be periodically increased, not only to account for inflation, but also to cover some of the costs we have now that didn't exist when licenses were cheap (things like habitat improvement and hatchery reform). I also think regional endorsements, for each species of concern, are the most fair way to implement user fees. That way, people who want to fish for salmon and steelhead help pay the additional costs of managing those species. There should be ways for the folks who only want to fish for trout and other types of game fish to get a basic license, at a low cost. Endorsements target the people who will be exploiting the resources, which seems completely fair and appropriate to me.

Of course, as has been said, we're always the first to pay more and the last to see improved opportunities because of it, and that needs to change. I'm writing a letter that I plan to mail to each of my state and federal legislators, to let them know that I'm okay with fee increases, provided they translate to my user group reaping the supposed benefits. I think I'll include Larry's example about the PS crab endorsement as an example of the sort of management we have grown tired of supporting with our increased fees.

I also plan to include a statement to the effect that unless I see fair compensation for our continuing investment (in terms of commercial vs. Sport allocation), I won't be buying a license, let alone any endorsements. Whether or not I can see that through remains to be seen, but I think if they got that message from enough anglers, they'd be encouraged to tread lightly. I'll be sending the letter via snail mail, to make sure someone in the offices has to open it and read it. If even half of us did this, there would be piles of envelopes on these folks' desks, each representing another frustrated sport angler advising them to put up or shut up. I think that visual would carry more weight with them than a mass email campaign that spouts the same, impersonal message 2 million times.