09-29-2017, 06:35 PM
[quote TubeDude]"is that really a valid argument against habitat improvement??"
[#0000ff]Hard core angler types are usually more concerned with convenience and harvest rather than habitat improvement. Short term vs long term every time.
A bird in the hand...makes blowing your nose difficult.
[/#0000ff][/quote]
"Hard Core" of course is a matter of opinion.
But, even on this site, we do see the short term verses long term a lot. We do see those that want to poison out a lake now and restock with 'Bows' so they have good fish next year, but will need to do it again in 10 years. The long term, fixing the problem so it does not happen again, but takes more time, is often less favored. IN FACT, they often bully those that don't agree with them.
PBH makes some strong "moral" arguments that habitat improvement is most important, and "morally" he is right. But, pragmatic approaches are often required in the world of politics. AND DON'T EVEN THINK THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL THING. Often the only way to get things done is to get a majority behind you, even if it means you need to compromise on your "moral beliefs". Still, in principle, I think that the true "fisherman" agrees that habitat improvement, even if restoration is not possible, is the key to the future.
And I grew up as a "farmer" and we did a better job of protecting the environment then State we lived in did at the time. We knew that the future of our land was directly tied into the health of the land, the habitat we provided for wildlife, the renewability of the soil. I will not say that all farmers are that way, but most are dramatically more "conversation minded" then has been suggested.
I think that there is a consensus developing here, the question is "is there a pragmatic solution"? One hopes that if we can come to an agreement, perhaps the State will come to an agreement as well.
![[Image: happy.gif]](http://www.bigfishtackle.com/images/gforum/happy.gif)
[signature]
[#0000ff]Hard core angler types are usually more concerned with convenience and harvest rather than habitat improvement. Short term vs long term every time.
A bird in the hand...makes blowing your nose difficult.
[/#0000ff][/quote]
"Hard Core" of course is a matter of opinion.
But, even on this site, we do see the short term verses long term a lot. We do see those that want to poison out a lake now and restock with 'Bows' so they have good fish next year, but will need to do it again in 10 years. The long term, fixing the problem so it does not happen again, but takes more time, is often less favored. IN FACT, they often bully those that don't agree with them.
PBH makes some strong "moral" arguments that habitat improvement is most important, and "morally" he is right. But, pragmatic approaches are often required in the world of politics. AND DON'T EVEN THINK THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL THING. Often the only way to get things done is to get a majority behind you, even if it means you need to compromise on your "moral beliefs". Still, in principle, I think that the true "fisherman" agrees that habitat improvement, even if restoration is not possible, is the key to the future.
And I grew up as a "farmer" and we did a better job of protecting the environment then State we lived in did at the time. We knew that the future of our land was directly tied into the health of the land, the habitat we provided for wildlife, the renewability of the soil. I will not say that all farmers are that way, but most are dramatically more "conversation minded" then has been suggested.
I think that there is a consensus developing here, the question is "is there a pragmatic solution"? One hopes that if we can come to an agreement, perhaps the State will come to an agreement as well.
[signature]