09-22-2006, 09:22 PM
I did read the UOTF thread. (slow workday) It is actually a very good read if one wants to get more background on this issue. I guess the thing that I don't understand is why the RMA would be so vehemently opposed to this. So they are mad that the walleyes aren't back in force, but harvesting a few perch before they (perch) start to stunt is not going to slow the eyes return. Like I said before, it just seems like they are bent out of shape because they weren't consulted in order to confer a "blessing" on the regs change.
I did have one question for you about this. Why was the limit proposed to be 10 fish? It would seem that if reports are correct about the population, then a standard 20 fish limit would be acceptable. That apparently was a reason given by the RMA for fighting this. "The population should be high enough to sustain standard statewide harvest regs."
[signature]
I did have one question for you about this. Why was the limit proposed to be 10 fish? It would seem that if reports are correct about the population, then a standard 20 fish limit would be acceptable. That apparently was a reason given by the RMA for fighting this. "The population should be high enough to sustain standard statewide harvest regs."
[signature]