01-03-2007, 08:52 PM
[reply][cool][]I know you enjoy a bit of verbal repartee and you like to stir the pot.
]However, what did you mean by " [/b][#000000][size 1]Tubedude, you are looking at this issue from a very schewed vantage point[/size][/#000000]"? Did you mean screwed or skewed? Either one probably fits.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff][/reply]
1) not trying to stir the pot...this is something I really believe in--the restoration project is a good thing and very beneficial to sport fishermen. We should be supportive of the program and not try to fight it.
2) actually, I meant "schemed"...I guess a bit of dyslexia caught up to me. It seems that you are against the recovery plan because of the generous bag limits on predators...I believe this is short sighted and "skewed" or "screwed". I believe that recovery of the june suckers would benefit the predators by allowing them more space and better habitat to thrive in. I also believe the recovery plan could help other species including waterfowl.
[signature]
]However, what did you mean by " [/b][#000000][size 1]Tubedude, you are looking at this issue from a very schewed vantage point[/size][/#000000]"? Did you mean screwed or skewed? Either one probably fits.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff][/reply]
1) not trying to stir the pot...this is something I really believe in--the restoration project is a good thing and very beneficial to sport fishermen. We should be supportive of the program and not try to fight it.
2) actually, I meant "schemed"...I guess a bit of dyslexia caught up to me. It seems that you are against the recovery plan because of the generous bag limits on predators...I believe this is short sighted and "skewed" or "screwed". I believe that recovery of the june suckers would benefit the predators by allowing them more space and better habitat to thrive in. I also believe the recovery plan could help other species including waterfowl.
[signature]