Oil and Gas exploration and Forestry are at the root of habitat loss, yet I'm not allowed to even walk into a back-country river to fish any more because my few days a year has too large of an impact on the fisheries?
Industry is allowed to harvest forests to the rivers edge and build roads across nearly every creek and river in the province, but I can't go wade in the river with a fly-rod in my hand because my impact is too great?
I may not know a lot, but I know I sure as hell am not the one fragmenting our river systems by angling.
When I sit by a fire in the back-country I'm picking up dead-fall to burn, not harvesting the forest.
My impact as an angler on the landscape is seasonal at worst. Industry impacts on the landscape are pretty much permanent.
Yeah I can see why they need to keep anglers out of our rivers. We sure are bad for the landscape...
Perhaps they are thinking they can use it as ammo to fire towards industry. "Hey, look at the recreational users. They completely surrendered (read: we removed) their ability to use the resource. Maybe you guys could find it in your hearts to change the way you do things?" Not likely...
I fully support and practice catch and release fisheries (my own opinion, please don't blast me if you like to harvest). I think that should have been a first step to the issue. Not just yank the stairs out altogether. I think we have seen some success in its implementation on the South Ram. There is something about having the opportunity to go back to a river a year or 2 down the road and potentially catching that same fish. Maybe it was a personal best, and you caught it again and it was your new personal best. I remember a video I saw a few years ago of a guy recounting his trips (with photographic evidence) to the same hole year after year and catching that same special fish. Those are special memories and they last a lifetime. Now I may get to tell my kids of that one time I got to fish that one special hole on the one special stream a few years ago, but you may never get to have that opportunity, because politics.
Maybe this is just me, but I find it interesting that they are pushing many lakes to catch and release because they can't sustain a harvest (that's what all these recent meetings are about), yet it sounds like the message at this meeting the other night (I wasn't there, just based on the info in the original post) indicated that catch and release is bad? Is that not conflicting messaging?
