[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Whether you are intentionally trolling to not, you are. It is funny how you get your little feathers ruffled when I say something and then you come up with gems like this:



Each of your responses are laced with comments like this. If you want any respect, you will have to earn it and this is not the way. I'm pretty sure this is a big reason this thread has dragged on too long and spiraled it and out of useful discussion. People in glass houses.... And I ain't no saint

Back to this post, you just dug another hole. So based on your own admitted and very limited experience, fishing North only / rarely. You are going to pretend you know what is best for the entire province? Based on what, 3 species??? Walleye, pike perch?? Wow, what a bio you would make!

Sorry but the world is much bigger than the small one you live in. Fisheries management takes real people, real knowledge and a full understanding of the entire eco system to succeed. Not some limited experience, wise remarking, 3 species poster on some forum.

And before you do what you do and turn this back on me, remember, I did not start this, I did not admit I could change and run our fisheries for the better, you did.

Lol! Hurt feelings?

Remember this?

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Your not going to get this or agree so we can just agree to disagree. In the meantime, do something about if you are unhappy.

Then remember this?

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Kurt, there is nothing you have said that bothers me, moves me, makes me think, and even gives me pause for thought. It is okay to disagree. Really.

Then remember when I wrote this

Originally Posted by Kurt505

IMO, I think it's selfish to destroy a pike and perch fishery so you can play fisherman.

I'm not posting to bother, move you, or make you think, but I've obviously done 2 of the three because you keep wanting me to stop posting.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree with you, and stopping the conversation with you right now, there are others here I can converse with.

Take care.

Then you wrote this,

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Actually one of three, bother. It bothers me that someone can hold onto something and ignore science

Or do you remember writing this?

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

I'm still pointing to the article as a great bigger picture on fisheries decline - streams, creeks, rivers, lakes...all linked. It certainly got me thinking about bigger problems and not just lake limits. Glad I found it.

I'm glad you found it too.


Or when I wrote this,

Originally Posted by Kurt505

No, we don't really want the same thing.

I'm not interested in a sacrificial lamb as part of a solution, I'm not interested in a province full of stunted walleye, I want a healthy total fishery. Like having a healthy ungulate herd, predators play an important role. It's easy to shut down a fishery and cross your fingers, I want a more in depth solution, one that addresses a fishery not just a fish.

So you responded with this,

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

You are all over the place...
In one post you want "balanced" fisheries and in this post you say its too in depth.

And getting back to your article,

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Oh I comprehend your "ideas" and told you what I think of it. There is no substance to it and it is all over the place. And now you are back to your balance stuff again. Sad. And yet you laugh at the article earlier and now call it "good". And then you think I want credit? Talk about insulting. I just found it today and thought I would share it. Apparently wasted on an a narrow minded person like yourself. If you really did read it, if you really did understand, you would realize how silly your position is...but you not going to.

So..... are you still glad you found it?


See, the problem with trying to converse with you is you think I'm all over the place, but I've always stayed on topic and I do have an open mind so when someone like walleyedude or huntsfurfish posts something I wasn't aware of, I'm not afraid to alter my position, it's what happens from comprehending what is written, not being all over the place. Talking about goldeye in Manitoba or grayling in the peace river watershed while discussing walleye populations in buck lake is what can be referred to as being all over the place. when you look back on this thread, I'm not all over the place, it's always been about walleye and how their numbers effect the populations of other fish LIVING IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT, specifically lakes.

The article you posted is a good article, but please point out the parts that directly pertain to this conversation.

I obviously got your feathers all ruffled up because you can't stop posting on this thread, so I guess you lied when you said I haven't said anything that bothers you, moves you, makes you think, or gives you pause for thought because you already admitted to being bothered and you've obviously stopped to think about it, and it's caused you to be moved enough to post again, and again, and again, after I thought we had an agreement to agree that we disagree and move on.

I admitted that the south, only having about 5 lakes is best with tags, I admitted that lakes near large urban centers is best with tags and also stated I think they need more tags for those lakes, and I said that I still think northern lakes could go on a one walleye limit type system. And MAYBE that change is on the way the next time the 5 year test cycle comes by, who knows. You see, I do have an open mind, I have learned something from this thread, and maybe there are some others reading this with an open mind can see the need for more lakes to open up for more retention.

You say this is just a forum and nothing will change by posting on here, so i know you understand the premise of a forum. I hope you understand I'm just saying what's on my mind and posting my ideas right?

You're too bent on attacking my character to understand what I'm writing, or you're just choosing to ignore what I wrote, because it seems no matter what I write you just make something up and go with it.

I've been trying really hard to keep respectful with you the whole time, even where you quoted me on what I wrote to huntsfurfish (I'm not sure why that would hurt your feelings) it was an honest question, one he hasn't answered for whatever reason, maybe he hasn't read it yet, I was being respectful. You're the one who got ignorant, mixed up posts, and lied, so I hope you understand why I don't want to continue the conversation with you.

Can we now go back to agreeing to disagree and move on?