“A key goal of the proposal is to set fees that more accurately reflect fisheries management costs, including the relatively high cost of managing salmon, steelhead and other fisheries in waters where some fish are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act,’’ said Jim Unsworth, director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Well, what is the cost breakdown between dealing with sports fishing, commercial fishing, tribal fishing, and poaching? Seems that each group of actual fishermen should pay for their share of the enforcement costs. But that none should directly pay for overall fishery management using the logic that "everyone benefits from having these species viable" so everyone should pay for that goal.
Isn't this what the endangered species folks argue, that we all benefit from these species? So all should pay for the species management aspect, meaning it should come from the general fund, not from license revenue.
And, if in a given fishery there is a severe fish shortage then ONLY sports fishing should be allowed, since it is the least efficient harvest method.
