Matt,
Todd
It is a shame you missed the point about the taking of photographs. Let me do a better job of explaining the irony and farce. Obviously many on this board are keen to pose and take pictures of big fish. Well, so along comes a law that instantly means your views are outdated and obsolete. You are now a neanderthal for having posed with a fish, gasping and sucking air instead of water. Suddenly, what you thought was okay isnt. Suddenly, you have become a harmer of fish.
I've heard from some of the folks who proposed the new fish handling rule. It is intended to stop people from dragging fish up on the bank, having them flop around in the sand, and then get kicked back in the river.
There's no way to stop that via rule other than do it the way they did, and doing it the way they did also stops people who treat fish well for pictures, which I think is about 90% of the people.
Will the rule help? Maybe, maybe not. As I've noted before, it still doesn't prevent people from sticking their hands in the fish's gills, or standing on the fish's head in two inches of water to yank the hook out.
I'd say it's overinclusive, in that it prohibits too much perfectly safe behavior, and that it's underinclusive in that it doesn't address a lot of the problem it's meant to address.
Holding a fish out of the water doesn't harm a fish, whether a regulation says you can do it or not. It does, however, make it against the law.
Of course it applies to me, and to everyone else, and I'll make sure I comply.
Now, besides wild fish flopping on the ground before release, wild fish face an additional problem.
That problem is the application of sticks and rocks upside their heads.
1. biologically speaking, the more that spawn the better.
2. economically, it makes more sense to have longer seasons and more fishing days, both of which are possible with WSR.
3. politically it makes sense, we have credibility to ask for concessions from other stakeholders.
The problem is wild fish being harvested...the solution is stop harvesting them. There is no balancing act to make, it's a winner all the way around.
This is an example of a regulation that does exactly what it is meant to do.
Arent all new restricive fish laws good laws by definition? Careful with your answer here. It has EVERYTHING to do with this thread.
No, they're not. Ones that address problems that need to be addressed are good rules. Ones that don't, aren't.
You said 'If going from 30 to 5 didn't reduce harvest, why would going from 5 to 3'? If what you say is true, then going from three to zero wont make any difference either will it?
It certainly will...there's no fudge factor with zero. If a gamie sees you with a wild fish, how does he know if you're on your first, fifth, or twentieth? How does he know you've been good and accurate about filling in your catch record card? He doesn't.
If the limit is zero, it's pretty simple. You have a wild fish, you're busted. No fudge factor, no judgment call, no room to cheat.
You said 'The rest of the guides in the state, the other 85% or so, already can't keep natives in their boats.' We arent talking about the rest of the crappy rivers in this state. We are talking about the good ones that have strong enough returns to support a harvest, and should continue to do so as long as the numbers support some level of it.
They're still not going to lose any $$ over it, or bookings. In the long run they'll have more fish to fish over, which can only help business. The point about other guides elsewhere not being able to keep wild fish was to point out that it hasn't hurt their business, so why should it hurt the few guys out on the OP?
If you're worried about them going out of business, why would you insist that you're not going out there anymore? Are you just not going to fish in the spring anymore? Why would you concentrate on rivers elsewhere? You've been told, not chosen, that you can't keep wild fish there, either. What's the difference?
Fish on...
Todd
Previous Topic
Index
