View Single Post
  #25  
Old 01-09-2011, 11:16 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Before you pro fellas start calling someone out that is against your proposal you'd better have a good look at what has been posted on this thread so far. I haven't seen many facts presented anywhere on this entire thread from anyone supporting this proposal. The facts that I've seen are either inaccurate, misleading or not facts at all and merely opinions.

For example: 94% of stocked fish are caught right away (not true)....fish are caught with pellets still in their belly (yeah, if you are there in September or October when they are stocked)........A quality fishery means being able to catch bigger fish easier (opinion)...... families and kids are going to like catching and keeping one bigger fish over several smaller ones (opinion)......etc, etc, etc. I could sit here all day and poke holes in a ton of stuff that has been posted but I'm not campaigning.

The FACT is that the Kan Lakes already hold the size of fish (and bigger) that are in the proposal. Changing the regs would just make it EASIER for grown ups to catch keeper sized fish and harder for kids to. Everything else is Fluff, Smoke and Mirrors. If you aren't up to the challenge of catching the bigger fish now then all that I can say is try harder.
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.
Reply With Quote