UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Curious, what is the rationale or position being promoted by the rec sector? Presumably it isn’t “let’s fish these Fraser Chinook stocks into extinction” so, assuming that’s not it then what is it? Is there a list of areas and or times that the rec sector agrees need to be closed unless stock levels can be shown to be at “X” to support C&R fishing and at “Y” to supports some level of harvest?
I ask as I hope most rec anglers agree that several Fraser stocks, and quite a few Skeena stocks as well, are in a very dire state and need to be conserved if we hope to be able to fish in the future. I also ask as it is very easy for other sectors and interest groups to paint rec fishers as selfish IF, and I emphasize the IF, we present ourselves as fighting to kill the last fish. That certainly isn’t the approach I support nor do I believe the majority of rec fishers want that. So, what is the message that’s consistent w/ conservation of these stocks that is being championed or recommended the rec voice get behind?
Cheers!
Ukee
I ask as I hope most rec anglers agree that several Fraser stocks, and quite a few Skeena stocks as well, are in a very dire state and need to be conserved if we hope to be able to fish in the future. I also ask as it is very easy for other sectors and interest groups to paint rec fishers as selfish IF, and I emphasize the IF, we present ourselves as fighting to kill the last fish. That certainly isn’t the approach I support nor do I believe the majority of rec fishers want that. So, what is the message that’s consistent w/ conservation of these stocks that is being championed or recommended the rec voice get behind?
Cheers!
Ukee