"Jim" wrote

The San Antonio is a very small creek that probably couldn't stand much
pressure without being trashed. I hate to pay a fee, but it seems like a
reasonable balance to this problem. The roads make this public land too
accessible. If access isn't restricted in some way, I'm pretty confident it
would become another beer can and salmom egg jar wasteland.

Keep the lottery, ditch the fee. The reduction in pressure would be the
same.

I'm not a snob,
but I would rather jump through some hoops and pay $30 to fish this place a
few times than be disappointed many times for free.

WADR, the end result, applied widely, would be that folks who can pay
ever larger pay-to-play fees will have nice pristine places to fish and
folks who can't will have to settle for the overcrowded unmaintained
wastelands. The intent may not be elitist, and I believe you when you
say you're not, but the effect will be.

I've got no real gripe with fee-based fishing on private lands. It's a
shame that so many landowners in the West are now refusing permission to
fish their land, opting instead to lease the rights to outfitters and
guides, but that's their right. I'm very much opposed, however, to a
slow conversion of U.S. public lands to de facto private playgrounds for
the well-off.

If you are on a tight budget, I've always found that you can invest in a
little hike to get the same kind of results, if not better.

I'm not on any sort of budget at all when it comes to fishing (sadly,
perhaps g), but a lot of folks are, and I'd like to see enough public
lands remain public enough that a little walk continues to pay off for
them.

TL, JR