Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave
So, if most of the fish in the lake are 16" or smaller then some of the fish must be bigger than 16"......... 
In that case I'll change my vote from 3 - 16" fish to: "Limit of 5 any size with a good chance of fish over 12"." Assuming of course that the same applies to being able to catch fish bigger than 12" in that lake. If I'm hungry I'll catch a couple of 12" fish for the frying pan to eat right away. If not, I'll bring 5 bigger ones home to eat when I am hungry.  |
Really? I feel like I'm watching The Colbert Report. Some of the stuff you say is so ludicrous it has to be sarcastic... you just can't be serious... can you??? I mean, you say some good stuff, and then you write this? I don't get it.
Ok, here's another question HunterDave:
You go to your bank and ask to take out $1000 from your account to buy some hunting gear that you've been looking at. The bank manager comes out and says to you, "If you wait and come back in 3 year, I will guarantee that your $1000 will grow to $3000 which you can then take out." Which do you take? Common sense would say to keep the money in there if you're getting that type of return.
By delaying the harvest of fish, we're all getting a huge return. One 18" fish is larger than three 10" and much more fun to catch. No?
Keeping 5 (or even 3)
every time you go fishing seems really selfish to me. I'll keep one small-medium fish to eat but I won't keep a big one if I catch it. I don't because of the respect I have for the fish; that it was able to get big despite the fishing pressure, and because of the respect I have for the other fishermen that will be fishing there next.
If I bonk that big fish, that's the end of the story, but if I release it, someone else can catch it again and the story continues. If I bonk all of the 5 fish I am allowed, that is 5 fewer fish that could become bigger fish. Again, it seems selfish. I don't have the heart to do it and it makes my stomach churn when I see someone else do it because, to me, it's showing a lack of respect for the resource we have and a lack of respect to all of the other fishermen as well.
In New Zealand, there was a great sign at one of the rivers that said something to the effect, "Please, take only what you need so the resource will be here for everyone to enjoy." That was the only regulation on the stream; keep whatever you want, just no more than you need. I wondered how long there would still be fish in that stream if we tried that in Alberta... I thought maybe a week.
If all of us are bonking all of the fish we can and all of the big fish we can, we end up getting exactly what we've got = a fishery where 18" fish seems like monsters and SRD stocking 30,000 fish into a lake every year.
Or am I the crazy one? Discuss......
(As a side note, I've been really enjoying this discussion, and besides me calling HunterDave's ideas "ludicrous" I think it's been a good, civil discussion with many good points on both sides
)
Cheers.