UkeeDreamin
Well-Known Member
Don't be greedy - care to explain? Proposing that using the tools at hand to manage exploitable biomass via annual, monthly, daily, slot, etc, etc limits such that they apply to everyone, equitably, and are more easily enforceable is greedy? The current system that allows a local, whether next to a lake or ocean, to take an unlimited number of daily quotas day after day isn't greedy? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as our respective definitions of what constitutes greed appear to be quite different. Also not sure how pointing out the same inequity exists between the coast and interior for a person travelling to catch some trout or kokanee somehow makes the system right or valid - did two wrongs start equalling a right?
Sculpin, not sure what you're getting at with regard to the constitution stating where we should live or how that has anything to do with a reasonable expectation that folks paying the same taxes and licensing fees should expect equitable access. Equitable does not in anyway mean the same. Under a system of reasonable monthly or similar quotas, the person living next door to the resource would still be able to access it month after month, whereas the travelling angler wouldn't unless they're willing to foot the travel bill.
The most direct comparison I can think of is BC's hunting regs - unlike fishing limits, the same limits apply to all residents of BC whether travelling or heading home each night. Again, why are fishing regs different? Have yet to hear a valid argument explaining the why.
Rec angling for the sport vs the "greed" of filling a freezer applies equally to us all whether we're travelling or fishing our home waters. When their are conservation concerns linked to potential rec harvest impacts we see closures, slot limits, reduced quotas, etc. So at a loss of why so many seem to be arguing against this and/or mocking the valid points being raised. Well, I guess that's not true, I know that folks mock when they have nothing valid to add.
Ukee
Sculpin, not sure what you're getting at with regard to the constitution stating where we should live or how that has anything to do with a reasonable expectation that folks paying the same taxes and licensing fees should expect equitable access. Equitable does not in anyway mean the same. Under a system of reasonable monthly or similar quotas, the person living next door to the resource would still be able to access it month after month, whereas the travelling angler wouldn't unless they're willing to foot the travel bill.
The most direct comparison I can think of is BC's hunting regs - unlike fishing limits, the same limits apply to all residents of BC whether travelling or heading home each night. Again, why are fishing regs different? Have yet to hear a valid argument explaining the why.
Rec angling for the sport vs the "greed" of filling a freezer applies equally to us all whether we're travelling or fishing our home waters. When their are conservation concerns linked to potential rec harvest impacts we see closures, slot limits, reduced quotas, etc. So at a loss of why so many seem to be arguing against this and/or mocking the valid points being raised. Well, I guess that's not true, I know that folks mock when they have nothing valid to add.
Ukee