Quote from Bob:
"And along the same lines Plunker... you are asking other anglers of all angling method types (whether it be bait, fly, whatever) to forgo even the opportunity to fish at all because "your" group wishes to harvest one specific type of fish."

Good spin Bob,

Now, those who eat a few fish from healthy stocks are really selfishly asking that no one, themselves included, be allowed to fish.

Shall we believe that eating a few fish will deplete a healthy stock to the point where the incidental mortality (killing) of these fish by C&R anglers can no longer be handled even though the spawning escapement goals are being exceeded?

I fail to understand how an excessive number of fish spawning can deplete a stock?

Also - It has been pointed out on this bulletin board in the past that several questions on the preference survey indicate that the "majority" of anglers still prefer to keep and eat some numbers of wild steelhead from healthy stocks.

Perhaps we are both so incorrigibly set in our attitudes that we will have to just agree to continue in our disagreement.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Todd - Are you saying that less anglers (if they fish C&R only) provide more "eyes in the woods" than a greater number of anglers of all types? Might you be practicing a bit of stereotyping here?

I think your argument might be condensed by simply stating that by allocating the resource to the minority user group who would only C&R them, we could spend a lot more time killing an equal number and get more dollars out of it.

I like the more bang for the buck argument. It's probably the only argument for mandatory statewide C&R that makes sense.