Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Yeah, agreed, but isn't the proposal for more lakes being classed as "quality" fisheries and not ALL lakes becoming "quality" fisheries? It doesn't have to work in allot of lakes, just a few more to satisfy the "quality" fishery anglers. So what's the problem? Are the lakes where it's feasible for such a plan too far from the city or is it that it wouldn't be easy enough to catch bigger fish?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpro
I agree, it would only have to be done in a few lakes. But still, such regulations would likely not allow lakes to reach their full potential. That's why many of us suggest lowering the limits as well as implementing a higher minimum size limit.
If it's only done in a few lakes I don't understand why there is such an outcry over the suggestion of changing regulations on those lakes. There will still be many, many lakes that are unchanged.
|
Agreed...so it all goes back to sharing and compromise. Is there a problem with creating a variety of fisheries for everyone and not just picking one group to follow? Why not some 5 fish a day lakes, some quality lakes, some 1 under 16 lakes, some 1 over 16 lakes, some 5 a day lakes in Sept/Oct but only 1 during Nov to Aug, etc. We know the old way does not work. We know people want something better. We know from experience what new ideas are working.
Let's just agree to learn and improve and not ignore each other and our desire for what a great fishery means to each of us.