Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanputski
As passionate as many of us have been in this discussion, I feel that we are reaching the point of reiterating our position in a repetitive cycle.
In the end, some see the need to take measures to protect fish first,
while others see the need to take measures to protect personal income first.
We all have our position, and seem to be sticking to it. I am not going to convince some one who's judgement and common sense are blinded by $ to change their views. just the same, no one is going to convince me that allowing a certain group to kill more fish to preserve their own personal income is what is in the best interest for the fish.
I pray that somehow, common sense will prevail and people will decide to help protect the fish we all love. I dont see how anyone can argue that taking an intermission from the rate of killing is a bad idea... might not be what's best for YOUR personal income, but it is what's best for the fish.
I dare anyone to tell me that killing more fish is better for the bass population than killing less fish.
|
I haven't heard anyone say put the dollars ahead of the fish. Why are you going to take everything to the extreme?
I'll give you a quick example… Just a couple short years ago we were fighting to keep bluefin tuna from being put on the endangered species list . As silly as that sounds it was a hard fought battle.
Commercial bluefin tuna fisherman are instrumental in setting the harvest quota . The fish are doing well by most standards .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device