I've said it before - I think anyone can post as little or as much as they want (or not at all). I personally like the reports, because often there is info about the "how" included, which I've learned a lot from, but to each is own. But...
I have been wrestling with this thought, maybe you all can comment. If we stay "guarded", don't spread the word about our fishing exploits through whatever means (internet, bait shop, mssa meetings, ect.), won't we shrink the group of people that fish, and decrease the visibility of fisherman as a legitimate group of citizens. If the fishing fraternity gets smaller and smaller, and more guarded, won't we marginalize ourselves and eventually, the "reason" to end PC&R is because, heck, no one fishes it. We know that no agency will likely collect actual data on effort. If we follow the logic that people monitor these boards to make decisions, shouldn't we all be posting the basic - location, caught/didn't catch, all released unharmed, with only pic's of fish in the water if any at all. If we do that, we'll be representing ourselves as a large group or responsible anglers, giving people little reason to believe we are having an impact and showing that this is a popular fishery that generates profit for local business (gas, tackle, food, ect.). If there are no posts, shouldn't we surmise that the powers to be will assume that PC&R isn't popular. And if not popular, why have it at all?
Just a thought. I'm honestly not sure if I buy the logic myself, but I can't shake the feeling that the rightful acrimony over the process will bite us all in the a$$ somehow. I also don't think there is a cause and effect with the posts and the PC&R limits because I think it was all a smokescreen to cover up the actual, selfish reasons of the groups that wanted to limit PC&R, so maybe that is why I don't believe myself.
Anyway, food for though. Hopefully I can find the time to get out next week myself.
Cheers,
Bob
|