View Single Post
  #37  
Old 01-09-2011, 02:20 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
No one is hiding anything. 94% of all trout kept were from the same year stocking. That is the actual fact. I just misread it but corrected myself when it was pointed out. In debates...some times that happens. Is this number a negative to the equation? No...in fact it remains a strong positive for implementing the proposed regs. It means that a huge percentage of the fish get harvested immediately after stocking. That means they are extremely easy to catch and if we just let mother nature feed em for a while...we can harvest bigger fish while retaining much higher catch rates in the interim. If we think about your comment later that you are a tax payer and have a right to comment...purely from a cash flow management perspective...can you see the logic and value in a delayed harvest, increased recreational value and in the end an increase in the size of the harvestable cutthroat to someone wishing to retain one?

It is fact that many lakes people target immediately after stocking...with in two weeks...some smaller lakes are fished out. How is this value to your tax payer dollars? How is this value to recreational fishing...when these lakes are devoid of fish. The only thing UKL and LKL have going for them is shear size. That is also the benefit to meeting the requirements for a quality fishery in an area with extremely limited options for such a fishery.

Catching bigger fish easier is not an opinion but a stated fact from anyone that has fished a quality fishery like Bullshead. Those of us that have fished it can say without a doubt the fishing has improved. Many that argued some of the same concerns against these regs in Bullshead are enjoying such awesome fishing that the fight to switch it back would be impossible.

No one can argue that people like catching fish when fishing in UKL and LKL. So buy your argument against there being no facts...missed the key fact that when the 12 inch minimum size limit was instituted that the catch rates increased 7 times. So retaining fish in the lake longer...delaying harvest and letting mother nature grow them to 20 inches will only increase catch rates... I can not see the argument working that says increasing the numbers of fish in the lake would decrease catch rates.

The fact is that the lake CAN hold bigger fish and does grow a few...but delaying harvest would allow the minimum size to increase just as the 12 inch rule accomplished at the time. That would mean an increasingly larger number of bigger cutts. This is one of the reasons for the lakes meeting the requirements for a quality fishery.

For someone that is not campaigning...you are doing a good job of trying.
If your want anyone to take anything that you write seriously then provide supporting information to back it up. Just because you say something is a fact doesn't make it so. Case in point, earlier this week I questioned you about where the facts were to support your statement that 94% of stocked fish were immediately caught. You admitted that you could not provide the supporting info yet you still post it as a fact (see your statement in bold #1 above).

Bold #2 - Show me the supporting information for this fact and how what happens at a small lake compares to Kan Lakes. They are usually stocked late in the Fall and are much bigger lakes. I highly doubt that they would be fished out within two weeks of being stocked so IMO it does not apply.

Bold #3 - You are saying that if someone voices an opinion it is a stated fact? Ah....ya.....okay. So if someone tells me that they think a quality fishery means catching and keeping several "eater" sized fish it is a stated fact and I should post it as a stated fact on this thread? I don't think so.

Bold #4 - If they put the same number of fish in every year how are the catch rates going to increase? Where is the logic.....Because the fish are bigger more of them will be caught?

Bold #5 - I could accept this as fact if a study was done to determine what the ramifications were of having more larger fish in the lake.

As for me campaigning against this proposal, I was quite happy to stay in the shadows and even helped you to maintain your credibility by quietly and diplomatically correcting you when I noticed you stating something as fact that any reasonable person would know was not possible to determine.

I came onto this thread with an open mind and I would have gladly signed the petition to support this proposal if I thought that it was a good idea. However, I have not read anything on the thread other than it would make it easier for grown ups to catch bigger fish as a reason to sign it. Had it been full of facts and information to support your position I may have seen it differently.

Although I admire and respect your determination in lobbying for this proposal, without studying the social, economic and environmental impacts of it first, how can anyone support it? Has anyone even contacted SRD to determine what the impact would be of having more larger fish in the lakes? Or, why the current regulation is in place to allow people to catch "eater" sized fish? How would this newly proposed regulation effect tourism and the local economy? There is a ton of more information that you need in order to be taken seriously. I'm sorry, but IMHO right now it just sounds like a few good 'ol boys got together on a Friday night over a few wobbly pops and came up with a plan to help them catch bigger fish.
Reply With Quote