The legislation which established the blackmouth stamp (thanks to the late Sen. Oke) was never fully met by WDFW; that is, the Department never met the production requirements. Then it was rolled into the general license followed by an attempt to significantly reduce or eliminate the program entirely. Fortunately Sen. Oke was still in office and told WDFW that if they moved forward with such reductions he would reduce the license cost by the amount of the salmon stamp. That threat got their attention. Well, the good Senator is gone now and WDFW has gradually been reducing the program output and age mix essentially relying upon their numbers showing much lower contributions to that fishery - without a firm handle on why that is happening and addressing the underlying problem(s).

Now, about the proposed license fee increases. As we are clearly moving to a pay to play relationship due to ongoing and Draconian cuts in General Fund money I want to add a couple of thoughts:

1. All state sales taxes on hunting and fishing gear needs to go to the Wildlife Account.

2. Commercial license/landing fees need to go to the Wildlife Account and within each type of fishery must be commensurate with the cost imposed upon recreational users. As an example, the commercials pay literally pennies per pound for Puget Sound crab in a four month season while the recreational crabbers pay several dollars per pound with most of that effort during a two month season. Did you all notice that the P.S. crab endorsement is proposed to increase by 111% - yes, more than double its current $8.75 cost and that doesn't include the increase in the shellfish license while there is only a small increase in P.S. commercial crab licenses and no increase in landing fees. And don't forget that the original endorsement at $3.00 was proposed by and supported by recreational crabbers to obtain harvest info which the department did not have nor (so they claimed) had the money to gather. Note to self: no good turn goes unpunished. And how is that crab money being expended? The recreational crab advisory group is alive on paper but moribund and that group, unlike the other two advisory groups linked to endorsements, does not have any budget/expenditure oversight. Why is that? Where is the money going and why is there a need for a 111% increase?

3. No Wildlife Account money should be expended on non-revenue generating activities. Got a bear in your garbage can problem? The response comes out of GF money. Want to count fence post lizards? Comes out of the GF. Want to enforce the new trafficing in endangered wildlife law (an unfunded initiative) - it comes out of GF money. Wolf management? The GF.

4. No recreational fishing enhancement funds should be utilized unless the expenditure has a direct positive impact primarily for recreational fishers. Period. Habitat projects should be funded by the general public given that it occurred primarily as a result of development by and for the general public.