Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak
So what was the other steps taken so far?
Which of these issues have they already addressed?
So far we have only seen lip service and proposals...
The first step being taken is angling closures. Followed by supposed correction of these other issues.
Which is backwards and scientifically flawed. They supposedly did a bunch of work creating a baseline of the fish stocks in these rivers and now they are going to go 5 years then test them again at which point they will be comparing apples to oranges due to the angling closures. Things look good then they need to wait another 5 years so they can retest and compare to their baseline data as to whether it was the angling closures or other changes that made the difference.
It wreaks of poor decision making and it would have been much smarter and a faster process to just address these other issues first to see if they solved the problem then closing the fishing as a last resort if there was no other viable option.
|
Previous steps:
Reducing bag limits
bait bans
season closures
alternate year stream closures (remember those years?)
barbless hooks
well intentioned, strongly worded recovery plans
culvert & sediment surveys
stream habitat surveys
habitat protection policies and guidelines (mostly not followed)
etc.,
etc....
Lip service, toothless paperwork, broken promises and failed careers. It appears we agree on all that. Did any of that piecemeal work change the trajectory? Not enough, and so here we are.
This isn't a science problem. It's a social problem. The solution is a social one, informed by science, for sure, but ultimately one that depends on all of us.