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.