DNR volunteer survey results

[5th Tuition]

Originally Posted by Bug Guy

Hey all - while you may not like the DNR's recent decisions (I know I don't), simply put, without data on catch they will only have their opinions to make decisions with. I'm pretty sure that is not what we want.

Bug Guy; you have a point, however, it's this first sentence of your statement that I have trouble with. What totally drove me up the wall about the DNR decision on PSCR is that DNR did NOT use their own opinions to make restrictions on C/R. DNR used the opinions of the MCBA to impose restrictions. To impose restrictions on one user group based on the "concerns we have heard" from another user group is cowardly and incompetant.
5th (Marty)

[Hockleyneck]

Originally Posted by 5th Tuition

Bug Guy; you have a point, however, it's this first sentence of your statement that I have trouble with. What totally drove me up the wall about the DNR decision on PSCR is that DNR did NOT use their own opinions to make restrictions on C/R. DNR used the opinions of the MCBA to impose restrictions. To impose restrictions on one user group based on the "concerns we have heard" from another user group is cowardly and incompetant.
5th (Marty)

The restrictions on trollers and only trollers is what gets me. How did this happen? The elitists who served up the trollers may be next, welcome aboard. There is no question rockfish are not as plentiful and more restrictions are coming regardless of whether your personal choice is to participate or not.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Hockleyneck

The restrictions on trollers and only trollers is what gets me. How did this happen? The elitists who served up the trollers may be next

I wouldn't consider MCBA to be elitist

[5th Tuition]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

I wouldn't consider MCBA to be elitist

Barefoot; I'm not speaking for Rich, but I don't think his elitistist quote was directed at the MCBA.
I know in my mind; that quote went directly to a flyfisher/jigger who proposed not only these restrictions, but day restrictions as well. Perhaps, if you think hard enough, you can come up with the name of someone who flys all around the world fishing, yet wanted to confine us to three days a week during PSCR
5th (Marty)

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by 5th Tuition

I know in my mind; that quote went directly to a flyfisher/jigger who proposed not only these restrictions, but day restrictions as well.
5th (Marty)

The words may have come out of the flyfisher's mouth, but they were the MCBA's words...

Originally Posted by Hockleyneck

The restrictions on trollers and only trollers is what gets me. How did this happen? The elitists who served up the trollers may be next, welcome aboard. There is no question rockfish are not as plentiful and more restrictions are coming regardless of whether your personal choice is to participate or not.

Rich, I don't consider jiggers to be elitists? It is just another way of fishing. This is my point all along, as Recs we need to stick together and support everyone's type of fishing. Personally I troll, jig, liveline, bottom fish, flounder fish, just fish...but when we start attacking other means of fishing because trolling was singled out, then you further divide the recs. Then who wins? The people who originally proposed this issue. There are MCBA members at the forefront of this fight (at least on TF who have posted on it) who run Pre Season C&R trips...those are the guys we need to be "attacking" not other recs and their form of fishing. When you say "the elitists who served up trolling" that can be taken a lot of ways...I would rather jig year round than do anything else, don't consider myself an elitist in the least, but I also didnt serve up trollers. Trollers make up (as a conservative estimate) 95% of the trophy season anglers, hence why they were targeted. Is it fair, no, is any of this fair when there is no science behind it, no...but again, recs need to stick together or this fight will be uglier and uglier...

[Bug Guy]

Marty,
I will concede the impetus was external. I would also guess though, that the public statement by the DNR attributing it to other organizations was a public relations move. Having worked in the field, I've seen groups attribute their own opinions to other groups in order to deflect criticism (in this case, it didn't work so well). However, I admit I have no firsthand knowledge that this really was the issue.

While I have the floor, let me tell you a potentially hypothetical story...

Let's say PA's Dept. of Transportation (PennDOT) wanted to build a bypass around a back country town that was located on a road between major cities (Allentown-Philly) and northern attractions (Poconos). The road has to be built somewhere and land has to be taken. Option 1: build it along a stream, make 5 bridge crossings, and impact 2 endangered (one thought to be extirpated) minnow species. OR option 2) build it along a mountain side and displace 200 people living in a mobile home park. What do you do? Maybe the agency leaks it out that they are going to impact this stream and the poor minnow...maybe then the local watershed group run by a nice lady in her 50's who is a nature lover but not a scientist organizes and gets locals in an uproar...maybe then PennDOT decides to "graciously" allow the watershed group a seat at the table as a stakeholder...and then maybe PennDOT says, the lady is right and they'll have to go with the lesser discussed "plan B" and concedes the lady was the reason for their decision. In the end, 200 residents of a mobile home park are pissed at a 50 yo woman who runs a local watershed group and not so much at PennDOT, while PennDOT avoided the costs of 5 bridges and mitigation/conservation of 2 endangered species.

The point - gov't agencies are often better at deflecting blame than making sound scientific decisions.

Will DNR always make the right call - probably not. Was the C&R process BS - definitely. But without scientific info, what option would the DNR have other than to be biased and capricious?

Oh, and if you hadn't figured it out...Brandon is the 50yo woman in the more recent story.

Originally Posted by 5th Tuition

Bug Guy; you have a point, however, it's this first sentence of your statement that I have trouble with. What totally drove me up the wall about the DNR decision on PSCR is that DNR did NOT use their own opinions to make restrictions on C/R. DNR used the opinions of the MCBA to impose restrictions. To impose restrictions on one user group based on the "concerns we have heard" from another user group is cowardly and incompetant.
5th (Marty)