Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505
We were asked to be respectful and not to derail, if you can't do it on this thread, it won't matter how many threads I start.
Read my first post.
I was agreeing with the system Brandon brought up, agreeing about the failed attempts at fish management in Alberta that have in the process both stunted fish and destroyed populations of other native game fish that were deemed not important by the guys making the rule book. I told him I was happy to see that there were others on the forum who shared that pov.
I don't mind discussing things, but from our last discussion on the matter it's obvious that even proof is no match for a closed mind, that's why I see no sense in discussing it with some members.
If you have a plan, I'd love to hear about it. If your going to deny facts and case studies that actually work, then there's no sense in having a discussion.
|
You really need to go revisit that other thread. You do remember that the case that was brought up by the other poster. They decided to go with albertas policy because what they were doing(slots) wasnt working.
Much of what you are complaining about is being addressed now.
Throwing money at it is not only what is required, but would go a long way to help with making changes that you want.
I believe in Brandons OP he mentioned that the States(not sure which one he is referring too) test net yearly. Here I believe it is a 5 year rotation. Cant do that without money. Be darned if I will support something(slots) that would risk the fishery with 5 year intervals. That would/could lead to crashes
that would have recovery periods in excess of 10 years. Pressured lakes might be able to handle some tags(a slot) because of limited numbers.
Distant lakes with little to no pressure might be ok, but 5 years might be to long there as well.
Allowing fish to spawn once before removal may/may not be the best solution but it is with the current testing.
Years ago walleye anglers yelled the loudest. They got the grease.
But from what I have seen that is being corrected now and they are looking towards other species that have suffered.
Most of this was covered in the other threads.
The issue I have with them is the slow reaction with limits. Would be better imho to reduce limits much quicker(preemptive) rather than reactive.