04-28-2014, 08:01 PM
No doubt. That's why it would take input from angler like you and I to find where the application makes sense and where it doesn't. I respect your stand point and why, and I especially respect you as angler; as I feel the same way. I guess my point is that we all have to be careful not to blindly lobby for updated regs that are counterintuitive to the sport itself, which is catching fish. There won't be a need for conservation if the sport dies.
You and I go way back, and we both have our own expertise. The problem is many of the feds and DNR biologists take an idea and implement sweeping bans or rules with out consulting the subject matter experts; us. They did that not long ago in regards to some of the species here in SC. The South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council was the culprit. They even admitted they used no scientific data to come to their conclusion, yet the state government jumped on the band wagon so they didn't loose federal funding. This is despite hundreds of charter captains and anglers, to include myself, protesting in Charleston, SC at the SAFMC board meeting.
My point is, it's a delicate balance. We have to support and fortify fishing as a viable means of recreation, and as anglers, we also have the duty to support and fortify the fishery itself so it can be preserved for generations to come. Go to far on one side or the other, and fishing will be a thing of the past because no one will take interest in it, that or it will become so heavily regulated that it defeats the point all together. Luckily, it's not my place to make the high level decision, but I will continue to do my best to feed my professional input to those that do.
[signature]
You and I go way back, and we both have our own expertise. The problem is many of the feds and DNR biologists take an idea and implement sweeping bans or rules with out consulting the subject matter experts; us. They did that not long ago in regards to some of the species here in SC. The South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council was the culprit. They even admitted they used no scientific data to come to their conclusion, yet the state government jumped on the band wagon so they didn't loose federal funding. This is despite hundreds of charter captains and anglers, to include myself, protesting in Charleston, SC at the SAFMC board meeting.
My point is, it's a delicate balance. We have to support and fortify fishing as a viable means of recreation, and as anglers, we also have the duty to support and fortify the fishery itself so it can be preserved for generations to come. Go to far on one side or the other, and fishing will be a thing of the past because no one will take interest in it, that or it will become so heavily regulated that it defeats the point all together. Luckily, it's not my place to make the high level decision, but I will continue to do my best to feed my professional input to those that do.
[signature]