Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck
And again, not a single answer why a conservation closure for all user groups from April 1 - May 15 would NOT be a benefit to walleye populations, which in turn, means more walleye for all user groups.
Didn't the SCC say that Conservation comes before Treaty?
If you do not like the answer, then change the question, is that the Government's approach?
Drewski
|
And like all rights, limits and conditions can be imposed for theirs and all of societies longer term benefit.
N
We have the right of freedom of association.....unless that association is with a criminal gang.
We have freedom of religion....unless that religion violates the law....ie killing all non-believers.
The point is there are LIMITS on rights.
No where, when these rights were agreed to, was the concept of how effective or efficient future tech was going to be. Power boats, sonar, siene nets, poly ropes, trucks to hauls all this.
We (who don’t have theses historical rights) also have limits on the gear we can use....barbless hooks, no netting, no bait on some lakes, etc
So it makes no sense why the current approach is to not stick to the intent of the agreement as it was envisioned back when agreed to. Only birchbark canoes, hand made nets, and carry or drag your gear from your home and the same goes for what you catch. Sure would limit the 3/4 ton box filled with hauled away by each one.
Also, I like a $10,000 per fish fine for anyone caught buying a fish from these rights holders. If we can’t regulate the rights holders, we sure can regulate those that help propagate/ exasperate the problem.
At least kill the financial incentives.....and make some program funding.
Threaded Mode
