Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter
From what i gather is there seems to be a conflict of interests. The campground would lose revenue.
Now one must ask is the lost revenue greater than the possible rebuilding of a lake?
|
Ya, this was the only reason I could come with. I have no idea how busy that campground usually is from May 8-June 1 on a typical year, so I can't really comment on how much a full closure of the lake would affect the campground revenue.
On one hand, the campground is a business and must look after its best interests, which is making money. How much money is made from people who camp there during May8-June1 and fish?? I have no idea...
On the other hand, if the lake becomes a terrible fishery, then what's the campgrounds plan? It won't matter if the lake is closed an extra 2-3weeks cause the people that camp there in that time period in order to fish, will find a different lake and campground...
Always two sides to every debate I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish
It appears that 2 weeks was deemed sufficient. Why close something when you dont have to?
|
Deemed sufficient by who? And obviously the west arm is not the
only spawning grounds for walleye in that lake... From what others have said, it is a major one, but not the only one... SO, why the decision to close only the west arm? You've pointed out the fact the weather patterns have changed the past few years pushing back spawning... Clearly this can't affect just one part of the lake. What was the process used to determine that only the west arm needed an extra closure?
And what about the pike in all this? It seemed to me last winter that they are following the same pattern and were 2-3 weeks behind from their normal spawning routine. So why not a push to protect them as well? Is the walleye state in Travers just more desperate than the state of pike?
I'm just asking these questions because I have no idea, but have yet to be shown any data to support what is being discussed, and still have no idea the process used to determine all this. Which brings me to below....
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish
Any one think that maybe if SAWT didnt fish the lake the last 2 years that just maybe the closure wouldnt be extended?
Something for you all to think about!
Sorry for short posts but have to go to work.
|
So are you saying that the process behind this closure is simply that SAWT pounded this part of the lake for the 3 years WU was pushing to get this closure, so SAWT could then say "look, we've been fishing this part of the lake, and we aren't catching any big fish anymore?? Poor us.." That sounds a little "fishy" to me.... Especially considering the whole WU/SAWT same president thing brought up before....
I would really like for you, huntfurfish, to expand on this comment and what exactly you mean behind it. Maybe I'm missing something here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader
Don't know what this statement is to mean. I would think if SAWT did not fish the closed area it would show their support and their agreement with the fact it should be closed to help protect the fisheries. By fishing in the area it is showing their lac of concern for the fisheries.
|
This makes so much more sense than what huntsfurfish is alluding to!
Instead of pounding it during the tournament, they very well could have a taken a pro-active approach by NOT fishing it, saying "look, we're very concerned about the state of this part of the lake, especially with the timing of this tournament. SO, to help WU's cause to push for an extended closure, we've decided to not let tournament anglers fish this part of the lake."
To me, that makes more of an impactful statement than anything. That's just me though.
Hybrid Mode
