Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Meredith
I was at the Lac Bellevue meeting in 2016 organized by Ray Makowecki of the AFGA and retired fisheries biologist, and Ray Danyluk former MLA for that riding. It was pretty much as you described, Drewski: 300 people upset with how fisheries were being managed. I wrote about it in 2017: "Are We Underutilizing Our Walleye", as well as what I perceive to be the overall problem: "Shifting Away from Consumptive Use".
There is a considerable backlash to current fisheries management policy coming not only from anglers, many of whom have more knowledge about the lakes they fish than the local gov. biologists, but also from former gov. fisheries biologists and managers who do not like seeing how the interests of anglers are no longer being considered in so-called management decisions. As one biologist described the situation, the current gov. bios are more academics than fisheries managers. As you said, all these latest webinars and survey did was satisfy a requirement for "public consultation." |
Both good reads. A common theme in the past has been lack of communication and hopefully engagements like these past webinars happen regularly or more in person meetings like held previous to the pandemic.
A lot of people value being able to take one home for dinner once in a while and that should be part of the management objective if possible. It's also a good tool to help bring lakes back to balance faster depending on the waterbody. No one can convince me that letting walleye get so overpopulated that they start stunting is good for a lake.
How that harvest happens will always be an argument. I think there will have to be give on both sides. On the really high pressured lakes perhaps the only way to appease the most on both side is something like tags or other sort of harvest license.
Whether the bios are willfully listening or being nudged to listen to anglers there has been some positive moves. I took more positives from negatives from the past engagements and hope it continues.