Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter
Sun....as a biologist are you in contact with other biologists in other provinces that everyone claims have so much better fishing?
Do you work for the Government fisheries?
Im not pointing fingers. For many reasons things may have not gone as well as desired...eg funding.
But here is my question to you a biologist.....the one group claims fishing is far from desireable and reminisses about days gone by. So when did the biologists see this happening? Is or Was it a matter of funding that allowed it to become a fishery the group is complaining about?
This is no way a direct bash towards you Sun....but when i repair anything in life i like to know why it broke and how to prevent it from happening again.
|
I have not been in fisheries since 1995 except volunteering here and there when I can...but I still read what I can and try NOT to lose what I learned over the years. It is no secret on this forum that I work for an oil company and not in an environmental capacity.
I don't really have any contacts left from when I was there...lots of turn over during those years. Fun times...hard work...sometimes hard to come by...low pay...unpaid overtime...danger and lots of travel.
Funding is not the root of the problem IMHO but rather failure to act appropriately to changing demographics of increasing anglers and harvest. To give people the quick fish in the pan as natural population depleted they created IMHO a revolving door of stock and remove...stock and remove. The door swings so quickly that fish often don't stay in the water longer than days (like Mount Lorette ponds for example). The rate of remove varies depending upon fishing pressure and water body size. Those lakes closest to major centers see the fastest depletion of stocked fish...those out of the way lakes fair better. F&W was IMHO mainly promoting a meat fishery and not a recreational fishery. I have said that before and I met some of them in the past. Typical thinking of the day was pay $40 in gas...bring home $40 worth of fresh fish. With a finite supply of fish and limited waters to fish...fishing pressure is just too high and that leads to over harvest even under the current regulations. F&W has not had the budget in which to staff biologists and technicians to specifically monitor fish recruitment and harvest but the biggest problem besides that was a delay in stopping population crashes before they happened. If anyone says to you that over fishing has not been a problem...well populations that have crashed include walleye, sturgeon, grayling, and many local populations of trout, pike, perch etc. Even mountain whitefish is IMHO way down in numbers and they are critical to feeding the larger predators like bull trout. I don't think a lack of money stopped a fix from being implemented sooner but rather the mentality of the time and maybe a fear of a backlash for reducing limits. Some people may tend to feel they have a right to a historical disproportionate share of resource as the numbers of people increase. But that is neither fair nor sustainable.
In the past...fish had a chance to grow as harvest was not as high and stocking was not the end all be all fix it.
Don A. may also shed some light on this and maybe even share with us a different opinion. Others may also reminise.
I am not so sure I would blame a general budget on our problems as our stocking program is massive compared to say BC. BC however has many more lakes such that fishing pressure is better balanced and spread out...not to mention better control on limits.
When I was younger...limits for trout were 10 a day...not 5 a day...now probably it should be 1 a day...just purely on population demographics.
I think you are a smart man to ask the important question...what broke it. That way the problem is not repeated.