Quote:
Originally Posted by wind drift
Our province’s policy states that conservation of fish is top priority, then treaty rights, then recreation. Too bad conservation hasn’t been job #1 to date. Note that industry or agriculture doesn’t show up on the list.
To be clear, I support pulling all the levers, not just the fishing control lever. It appears there is agreement on this. However, because previous governments were ineffective and let fish conservation slide to the bottom of the real-life priority list for making decisions, the basic problem now is that none of the levers have been pulled hard enough to keep our native trout from showing up on the lists of species at risk. So, now more levers have to be pulled, and harder. In order for that to happen, and for it all to work, we all have to get over blaming others and get on with it. We could argue about blame and proof until the last Athabasca rainbow dies. Do we really think that industry will get on board with a recovery program if anglers are still allowed to fish, even if the science shows that catch and release kills only 1or 2% of fish caught? If we anglers say we won’t support 5 year suspensions on fishing until we have proof that culverts will be fixed, or sediment controlled, etc., where does that leave us? Pretty much nothing will happen. Finally having to close a watershed to angling is a long needed wake up call for everyone.
|
Whether industry does or doesn't get on board is up to no one but the government.
Angler participation is not going to change industries outlook, policies and action will.
If the government wants anglers to do their part then show us where to dig. I am sure a number of anglers would show up and dedicate their time to help fix these habitat issues etc.
Lots of anglers have already dedicated a lot of time to this program showing these biologists the issues on these rivers. All they got for their efforts was a slap to the face in the form of these closures...