Gooose, I've been waiting for this one. As someone fairly new to the board, I feel that I can relate to this thread.

There appears to be a good-old-boys network here that is unwilling to share any information outside their own group. Part of me can understand this and another part gets POd. The following is from the POd part:

While I can understand the desire to protect the resource, I cringe at the thought of discouraging new members. Here is a radical thought to ponder:

The only way to protect the resource is to encourage more fishermen to get active in the fishery.

90% of the fish are caught by 10% of the fishermen, right? What does that mean? 90% of the fishermen got skunked! Those 90% pay their taxes, buy their licenses and go out once or twice a year and don't catch anything!! To add insult to injury they are being ridiculed by the 10% who have the knowledge to help them.

So why should the 10% catching all the fish care? Politics!! The 10% catching all the fish are screaming to protect THEIR resource while the 90% that are getting skunked either a) think the fishery sucks and think all fishing should be banned or b) don't care and don't want their tax dollars wasted on entertaining the few a-holes that catch all the fish and ridicule them for not knowing how or where to catch them.

I maintain that if we care about the fishery, our goal must be to enable as many people as possible to get out and catch fish! Politicians will vote to protect recreational fishermens' rights over commercial and tribal fishermens's rights when their constituents tell them what is more important by voicing their opinions to them.

We all say we want to protect the resource, but when push comes to shove, and tax dollars are on the table, who is going to vote to spend money on fish: a) the 10% enjoying the resource? or b) the 90% that got skunked AND insulted? This is a democracy so who loses?