Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtoad
I realize C&R doesn't work in this analogy but I hope you can better understand the quality argument from the other side.
|
Interesting read Bigtoad and it obviously took you a bit of time to think it out and write it. You can certainly spin a good yarn.
Here's the downside to your story as I see it.
That scenario only applies to trophy "Quality" hunters that only want big bucks and not the average hunter. The average hunter, myself included, are meat hunters. If I want a deer to eat then I'll shoot a doe and I don't care about the antlers. It's like keeping the smaller eatin' sized fish.
It's nice to be able to shoot a big buck, don't get me wrong, and if the opportunity arises then I'm sure that every meat hunter would instantly become a trophy hunter. However, I'll bet that there are not too many of either type of hunter that would want to go out and shoot a penned deer that was grown to a big size. Ethics aside, the challenge just wouldn't exist nor would the feeling of accomplishing something truly noteworthy.
Now if you go out fishing in Lake X and catch a 20" trout and tell your buddies they'd be impressed. However, if you go to Lake Y, a "Quality" fishery, and catch a 20" trout so what? The lake is full of them and people catch bigger ones than that everyday.
I'm not suggesting that you only go out and catch big fish to impress your buddies, just pointing out the attitudes would change dependent on the level of difficulty.
I know that you keep saying that there are no lakes in Alberta, other than the "quality" fisheries, that hold +20" trout but I know that isn't true. They are there, they're just harder to catch than the smaller ones.