11-15-2013, 08:52 PM
It was my understanding that the biologists were in favor of opening the inlet to fishing. Is that not the case? One RAC shouldn't override their recommendation. If the biologists are still in favor of the current rule, the Wildlife Board was right to ignore the RAC proposal. If the biologists are still in favor of the current rule, then the Governor shouldn't overrule the Board. If, however, the biologists have recommended closing the inlet then the Board should have closed it.
[quote WiperMac][font "Calibri"]
The DWR briefer stated at the Wildlife Board Meeting that only 15 citations were issued, 2 for willful snagging and the rest for having no license. Does anyone really believe that someone caught without a fishing license would be bothered by anti-snagging regulations?[/font][/quote]
Even if the 13 caught without licenses were also snagging, I doubt there are any fewer violations most days at Strawberry. Between people who don't, or can't, safely measure a fish and obey the slot, and people who can't, or won't, tell the difference between rainbows and cutts, or who willfully take more than their limit, I'd guess that there are easily more violations at Strawberry.
[signature]
[quote WiperMac][font "Calibri"]
The DWR briefer stated at the Wildlife Board Meeting that only 15 citations were issued, 2 for willful snagging and the rest for having no license. Does anyone really believe that someone caught without a fishing license would be bothered by anti-snagging regulations?[/font][/quote]
Even if the 13 caught without licenses were also snagging, I doubt there are any fewer violations most days at Strawberry. Between people who don't, or can't, safely measure a fish and obey the slot, and people who can't, or won't, tell the difference between rainbows and cutts, or who willfully take more than their limit, I'd guess that there are easily more violations at Strawberry.
[signature]