Thread: Tailwater Stamp
View Single Post
  #27  
Old 09-19-2011, 11:06 PM
waterwolf waterwolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_Anderson View Post
I'd love to know where the overwhelming 73% of Trout guides support of this came from? Guides that were hand fed to the agency for the survey no doubt...

73% supported a proposal that's cost and regulation was open ended at the time of the survey? Wow!

Survey Results
http://www.sceniccityfishing.com/for...ey_Results.pdf
Mike they come up with these BS numbers every time they need to push some crap legislation through. They have pulled it for deer regs, turkey regs, crappie regs etc etc. They hire it out to UT and do random surveys generally, on this one in particular I don't know the facts, but I know of zero guides who even remotely support this proposal.

Cheme makes a great point, and one that I agree with 100%. Why not charge the folks who actually remove part of the resource more, that seems far more equitable then hammering a person who takes nothing.

Bottom line TWRA is as bad or worse then the federal govt. anyone who has ever attended a public meeting will understand what I am saying. They are basically almost impossible to talk with in an intelligent manner, and have their mind made up prior to even hearing logical opposing views.

A better idea to save money would be to eliminate the coldwater fisheries folks, they are pitiful at best and a giant money pit. If any evidence is needed look at the horrid job they do of managing a wealth of coldwater resources now.
Reply With Quote