If sporties do enjoy mixed stock fisheries more than in-river, it's probably close to entirely due to the fact there are more fish, actively feeding, in those mixed stock areas. Even if it means smaller fish, most recs just want the best chance at catching fish. I like being out on the ocean once in a while, but if we only get one choice, as someone who cares more about a chance to fish in the future than how much he can catch today, I vote we keep our in-river fisheries, which can be more effectively managed for selective harvest of only sustainable stocks and allow ALL of us (not just the ones fortunate enough to be able to afford ocean fishing vessels) an equal opportunity to participate.
Your point about bank fishing being less expensive than fishing the "ocean" is accurate. Beyond that, let's take a somewhat different look at your post which is pitting one recreational user against another.
The majority of the salt water fishers live around Puget Sound which is generally a mixed stock fishery. Puget Sound is NOT the ocean and may be accessed by small, relatively inexpensive boats. All of those boat houses one remembers or reads about around Puget Sound launched 14 foot boats commonly fitted with 10 HP motors. One does not need a 24 foot aluminum go fast ocean boat to fish Puget Sound so lets not make this a battle between economic classes.
Another issue is that many of us who have paid our dues can no longer physically spend a day on the river bank nor is standing elbow to elbow at popular (and becoming less accessible) river fishing locations a pleasurable experience (at least for me). On that subject let me ask - just how much more high powered jet sled traffic can the rivers handle? More user conflicts?
Having gotten that off my chest what we really need to strive to achieve is maintaining reasonable opportunity in both the salt and rivers rather than an "either/or" scenario.
Previous Topic
Index
