View Single Post
Old 04-27-2015, 08:20 PM   #70
GregAndrew
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris138 View Post
Nobody forced you to read this thread. Seems like you clicked it on your own, Greg. Or are you just looking to insult everybody involved and contribute nothing to the conversation?

The only joke around here is the utter lack of a productive dialogue. Thank you lipripper for speaking your mind and taking the time to support your opinions!
I did click on the link for "reduced BFT limits" it is true. That does not mean that I want to wade through a bunch of personal opinion spouted as fact about other far reaching topics. Comparing those that don't believe the way you do to "Rednecks" is not productive to any of those topics. Nor, in my opinion, is comparing someone pointing out that an organization (NOAA) "fudging" numbers is comparable to saying that they (NOAA) would lie about a life threatening situation ("Category 5 Hurricane"). Contrary to your accusation that I am trying to "insult everybody involved", most of the other posts and several of your ideas are constructive.

There are probably a lot of people in the fishery management business to do just that "manage the fishery". But if you don't believe that there are others there, in this day and age, that want to protect all wildlife from all take activities, I believe you might have blinders on (but I will concede that this is just opinion).

I don't mind a good debate on an issue, but I have never seen it happen on the Internet. A good debate requires much more back and forth than is usually capable on a forum before the "Mob Mentality" takes over.

I would love to see some hard numbers on the proportion of BFT caught by recreational anglers between the border and Santa Barbara to the take in the entire Pacific. Those numbers, I would hope, would be "facts". Giving an opinion on what those numbers might mean without having the real numbers is just that Opinion. Unfortunately, today opinion trumps fact too often because of the way it is marketed.

For the record, I would be considered pretty liberal when it comes to catch limits. Other than a few times when the WSB limit was 1, I don't remember having caught and kept a limit of any fish except stocked Trout. If the numbers showed that there was any reasonable chance that reducing the limit from 10 to 2 BFT in this tiny zone would help, I would be all for it.
GregAndrew is offline   Reply With Quote