It seems to me that having a yearly rather than a daily limit on a given type of fish is much more logical and reasonable than a daily limit. Surely the fish stocks respond to a yearly catch, not a daily one. Whether it's necessary to implement such a measure is another question. If you don't think it's necessary why complain about those lugging 2 bows a day, for e.g., from a river?
|
#1
Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:37 PM
|
#2
Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:38 PM
My question is how would this limit be enforced?
#3
Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:00 PM
Great idea in theory, but realistically I think it would be very difficult to enforce and regulate.
#4
Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:39 PM
Laws need to be enforceable. With a daily limit, it's enforceable to a certain extent. With a yearly limit, no officer would know how many fish someone has kept in total. We'd have guys walking back to their cars with a dozen fish each
#5
Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:27 AM
#6
Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:54 AM
I don't even know if that's necessary but if something did need to be done about diminishing fish populations it would probably help.
#7
Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:03 AM
Tough to manage this...but understand the principle...
#8
Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:05 AM
Be nice if more of those $$$ we pay for our liscence a went to enforcement.
Be nice if they acctualy used ALL the money we spend on licence instead of putting it in a big slush fund..
#9
Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:07 AM
Be nice if they acctualy used ALL the money we spend on licence instead of putting it in a big slush fund..
LOL
I hear that brother
#10
Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:33 AM
Be nice if they acctualy used ALL the money we spend on licence instead of putting it in a big slush fund..
Hey man I was unaware that was going on...if it isn't too much work would you mind letting me know where I can find more info? I want to write some folks about this one lol...
#11
Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:50 AM
TBH I've acctualy never looked into reading about it. Just has come up in multiple conversations about it over the years. Basically learned about it through word of mouf. But I did find this as a starting point.."The special purpose account" if you download the pdf at the bottom, the annual report gives you a bit more.http://www.mnr.gov.o...L02_166024.html
Hey man I was unaware that was going on...if it isn't too much work would you mind letting me know where I can find more info? I want to write some folks about this one lol...
#12
Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:30 AM
#13
Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:58 AM
It would have to be yearly AND daily. It wouldnt be enforcable but it would at least provoke thought.
#14
Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:26 AM
It would have to be yearly AND daily. It wouldnt be enforcable but it would at least provoke thought.
Yes, but it would provoke thought only in us law abiding fishermen.
Those who abuse the fisheries will continue to do so until the penalties become sufficient to deter them.
Just to add to the conversation, not sure if it is province wide, but in at least a few rivers in Newfoundland you are only allowed to keep 1 Atlantic each year, I fish them. I believe, but not positive the same holds true in parts of New Brunswick.
Alfie.
#15
Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:09 AM
.
#16
Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:37 AM
#17
Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:20 PM
A no fish limit, in other words catch and release only is the only enforceable alternative to what we have now. I'm sure it would likely resort in more out of season poaching while law abiding anglers are off the water.
#18
Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:45 PM
A no fish limit, in other words catch and release only is the only enforceable alternative to what we have now. I'm sure it would likely resort in more out of season poaching while law abiding anglers are off the water.
Like the "NO-FISH" limit...
#19
Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:47 PM
i agree with you there chase shuld be c and r only for at least all trout species
#20
Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:49 PM
i agree with you there chase shuld be c and r only for at least all trout species
I'd say bro...
|