05-15-2012, 03:58 AM
I actually agree with almost all your points. Well stated.
I do believe DWR takes angler feedback very seriously. I was referring to PBH who kept discounting our opinions because we were just selfish, stupid anglers who don't have biology degrees. The actual biologist know better than to discount the opinions of some of the best anglers in the state (not trying to sound cocky but I consider duckdog and my group of angling buddies some of the best anglers in the state, especially with the berry, when compared to the average power bait chucking anglers).
I know that your average fisherman may not want the bow quota cut at all, but I don't think it is because of the bows themselves, but because the bows aren't part of the slot and they can therefore keep every bow they catch.
I don't think many of them would complain if you cut the bow quota in half, use 35% fr tigers and another 15% for sterile brookies and then change the slot to include all fish but kokanee and allow anglers to keep one fish over 22, one fish from 15-22 and a 4 fish total. I actually the majority of anglers would love this as they would be guaranteed to be able to take home one decent fish (20 inch cutt) and the variety would be awesome.
I won't disagree that small tigers may not survive better than small bows and cutts. In my opinion, it seems like if they were planted in the right areas at the right time that they would; but I won't boldly proclaim my opinion as truth. Tigers just seem to be more elusive and prefer structure which make them more difficult to hunt. Their brown/brookie IQ also seems higher than the other fish.
[signature]
I do believe DWR takes angler feedback very seriously. I was referring to PBH who kept discounting our opinions because we were just selfish, stupid anglers who don't have biology degrees. The actual biologist know better than to discount the opinions of some of the best anglers in the state (not trying to sound cocky but I consider duckdog and my group of angling buddies some of the best anglers in the state, especially with the berry, when compared to the average power bait chucking anglers).
I know that your average fisherman may not want the bow quota cut at all, but I don't think it is because of the bows themselves, but because the bows aren't part of the slot and they can therefore keep every bow they catch.
I don't think many of them would complain if you cut the bow quota in half, use 35% fr tigers and another 15% for sterile brookies and then change the slot to include all fish but kokanee and allow anglers to keep one fish over 22, one fish from 15-22 and a 4 fish total. I actually the majority of anglers would love this as they would be guaranteed to be able to take home one decent fish (20 inch cutt) and the variety would be awesome.
I won't disagree that small tigers may not survive better than small bows and cutts. In my opinion, it seems like if they were planted in the right areas at the right time that they would; but I won't boldly proclaim my opinion as truth. Tigers just seem to be more elusive and prefer structure which make them more difficult to hunt. Their brown/brookie IQ also seems higher than the other fish.
[signature]