Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck
You do not have to be thankful for the privilege of eating a walleye, you have to ask why it has taken so long.
There is an ideology with the Fisheries Biologists that Walleye are not to be eaten. If they wish to dispute this, then they can please explain why it took a Wildrose MLA to organize Town Hall Meetings in Bonnyville and St. Paul to get lakes that had been closed for 20 years to finally be opened to walleye retention.
The lakes from all index netting were very abundant with walleye to the point where there were few perch or pike.
The Bios explained that they wanted representation from at least 5 year classes, or some garbage story like that. From sizes ranging from 6" to 8 Pds, the criteria was met from fisherman experience.
Wildrose sold alot of memberships at those Town Hall meetings as finally someone stood up to the Buerocrats.
Most of the large Southern Reservoirs are for irrigation, not fishing, and can be drawn down to the point where the fish will winterkill. Because of that reality, the limits should be very generous, as the resource is not permanent.
Drewski
|
I don't disagree with some retention and harvest. That said, I'll admit to being very reluctant to open that Pandora's Box, because I can see things going very wrong, very fast,. However, if done within reason, based on sound data, and with sufficient enforcement, I think it's a good thing, and will be sustainable.
Where I strongly disagree is your suggestion that because there's a chance, a very SMALL chance, that the walleye population may be affected in the future, that it justifies significantly affecting it today. That logic simply doesn't add up for me, and I could provide dozens of analogies to show how faulty it is.