Quote:
Originally Posted by FISHIONADO
Be careful what you ask for. I just returned from Hong Kong where there were no junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist for many years and now they have zero sport fishing. They lost all their grouper, sharks, and rays. An "East Coast Whopper" there is less than an ounce. Now they are begging for the junk-science, global warming tree hugging mfck'n scientist to bail them out. I agree with you mostly Art, but I don't think the answer is at either of the extremes.
|
True that. I'm all for changing the take limits, slot limits and no fish periods for breeding impacts. If you give the California liberal a fucking inch, they'll take your arm, pickup and incandescent bulb in one bite.
I'd love to set an resident inshore limit to two fish, but we(fisherman) need to set those parameters - not Peter PETA.
So if we create a PAC to funnel the DFG's $66million into. We'd only have to give up fishing for a few years. Take up golf. We can cripple their budget and department. Then we need to put someone into office that will look after our interests. Then instead of buyging $20 worth of useless tackle every month, we get the one million anglers to donate that money to the PAC and keep on fishing. Look at the unions - they know what side the bread is buttered.
Imagine the impact we could have on CA if we gave it up for two years. The sportfishing industry, tackle shops and related businesses would suffer, but if they want long term growth, they need a short time sacrifice.
Let's get it together and get a booth at the Fred Hall. We can start the campaign for no licenses for '09, '10.