View Single Post
  #25  
Old 01-02-2018, 08:58 AM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyTheory View Post
I know there are other continuing factors. I realize that OHV, agriculture, and industry are the main contributors. However, adding another element of stress to a recovering system - like angling - augments the stress that these fish populations are feeling. That is what a lot of people don't understand.
And my concern is then...what? Eliminate angling; will the gov't address the other MAJOR contributing factors? What is the long game here? Eliminate angling along the Eastern Slopes until stressed fish populations recover, even though, with industrial impacts, they may never recover sufficiently to be deemed strong enough to withstand angling? And what happens when more anglers are concentrated on fewer watersheds? It's reasonable to be concerned here about a slippery slope. Is it not rational to ask; how long before other watersheds are closed?

Because that is one possible outcome, given the long history of the previous government, and, given the short term history of the current government, the jury is definitely out on that one. The current gov't seems to be cherry picking its issues when it comes to the environment.

Wasn't able to attend the Dec. 14th meeting; so if my opinion is lacking info, by all means, provide the links / insight Fly Theory. What really is the long term game here?
Reply With Quote