09-05-2014, 05:15 PM
[quote bassrods]...
Then the word got out and the fisherman numbers went way up and the bigger fish was being hauled out by the LIMITS. Then came the fisherman that wanted the bigger fish to be protected ([#FF0000]after the over harvesting was over[/#FF0000]) and the fishing has not been the same sense..
So who was or is right??[/quote]
Where is your proof that overharvest happened?? Fish populations exploded! They did NOT decline!
Size went down as population numbers went up. This was a direct result of protecting the big fish.
Those big fish have never returned due to regulations as pointed out by riverdog.
there was a very good reason why those rainbows were growing to the sizes they were in the 70's. Harvest was a major factor in those sizes. Anglers were keeping population numbers down, which meant that fish growth was FAST, which = BIG fish.
come on Cliff. Open your eyes. Lee's Ferry is a slam-dunk case.
[signature]
Then the word got out and the fisherman numbers went way up and the bigger fish was being hauled out by the LIMITS. Then came the fisherman that wanted the bigger fish to be protected ([#FF0000]after the over harvesting was over[/#FF0000]) and the fishing has not been the same sense..
So who was or is right??[/quote]
Where is your proof that overharvest happened?? Fish populations exploded! They did NOT decline!
Size went down as population numbers went up. This was a direct result of protecting the big fish.
Those big fish have never returned due to regulations as pointed out by riverdog.
there was a very good reason why those rainbows were growing to the sizes they were in the 70's. Harvest was a major factor in those sizes. Anglers were keeping population numbers down, which meant that fish growth was FAST, which = BIG fish.
come on Cliff. Open your eyes. Lee's Ferry is a slam-dunk case.
[signature]