lycoflyfisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,468
If you think politicians don't get involved when stocking is reduced in their districts you would be mistaken (ask Arway). I am sure Mike could tell some stories as well... having PFBC funded through the general assembly would only give politicians more control and of a lot more than just stocking trout. Just saying to do your research and be careful what you wish for.
Furthermore, a reduction in license buying anglers would also reduce the economic impact that recreational angling associated expenditures provide as well as the lobbying power that anglers collectively have. That reduction could be leveraged by powers to be to diminish regulatory protections of aquatic resources if their recreational use and associated economic activity is shown to be reduced. This comment is not directed towards supporting the current stocking practices, but is in the interest of conservation of all aquatic resources.
Furthermore, a reduction in license buying anglers would also reduce the economic impact that recreational angling associated expenditures provide as well as the lobbying power that anglers collectively have. That reduction could be leveraged by powers to be to diminish regulatory protections of aquatic resources if their recreational use and associated economic activity is shown to be reduced. This comment is not directed towards supporting the current stocking practices, but is in the interest of conservation of all aquatic resources.