For the life of me I can not understand the resistance to delayed harvest and a slightly reduced retention.
These were my thoughts last time this came up...There needs to be WAY more delayed harvest waters. 293 stocked waters and 4 or 5 with delayed harvest is a joke. I would support 1/3 of all stocked waters going immediately to a delayed harvest. Since I am dreaming here and get to make up the rules lets start by making most of these delay harvest lakes at 3-16” fish for retention and perhaps 10 more lakes at 1- 20” retention. Not very far down the road that will put a lot more fish of decent eating size in frying pans if that is where you want them to go. That still leaves 198 lakes for the people who like to eat 9” fish. As acceptance and realization sets in, that could be changed later. How would this get enforced? More enforcement from dollars saved on stocking, and civic duty. I believe most people will follow the laws because it is their civic duty. Ya lots will break the rules but so what. Dollars saved can also perhaps go to larger fish being stocked and more diverse stocking. Why do I have to go to Saskatchewan to catch a tiger trout? More triploids anyone? Am I nuts?
|