It is a tricky dilemma. On the one hand, if we double the amount we're paying in, we have a much stronger argument about how much if the budget is provided by sport fishers, which SHOULD translate to increased emphasis on our fisheries. On the other hand, we've been the bulk ratepayers for many years, and yet we are the first to lose opportunity, every time. What reason have we been given to expect a different outcome?

Here's the way I (think) I see it:

WDFW and the Legislature are already counting on us to provide an increased amount of revenue in the budgets they are developing. When forecast revenue does not materialize, either the General Fund takes another hit it can't afford, or else we lose funding for hatcheries, etc. in the next cycle. In this case, because they are counting on us for so much more than in the past, it would be devastating if a large amount of the planned revenue didn't come in. That, combined with the largely negative outlook for next year's fisheries, makes this the ideal year to vote with our wallets, in my mind. Others have brought to light the fact that even simply postponing purchasing your license for a month or two might well be all it takes to send the message that must be delivered, so perhaps we can have our cake and eat it, too.