A bit harsh guys. Simon does put out a repeated agenda. Historically he was supported by others like Nick Thorn. Unfortunately people move on an discussion is the worse off.
I thought Simon's last post was open with various comments such as his Trout fishing
Discussion , improvement and support for Native fisheries should be subjects in which we cooperate as anglers without acceptance of the notion that things can not get better. _________________ An open mind beats an open tackle box
I don't disagree with you, Guss (or with MOST of what Simon says). But when the same message gets told by the same person, over and over and over and over and over again, it sort of gets a bit tiring and you can't blame people if they stop listening..... _________________ "If it is to be, it is up to me".
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:05 pm Post subject: Re:
pale ale wrote:
But there are always newcomers to fishnet, and young fishers who need to be taught what is right (in regard to protection of our valuable natives)
Correct.
You only have to look at the ignorance of some in regards to the historical and well proven distibution of natives and what a great fishery it would still be without introduced species. _________________ A wake free river for all.
Yeah the introduced species have buggered it all up. We are the ones who put them there, and continue to do so with trout.
Sure introduced fish are part of the issue, but it's nothing to do with rivers being totally regulated either?
It's all a big dream to think you can go back. Unless we are going to bust all the dams and let the water flow freely from the mountains to the sea, and stop farmers taking water and plant native vegetation over all the farmland and try to reconstruct the rivers.
We have to work within the confines of what we have now, massive dams on almost every major waterway that buggers up a lot of the natives breeding patterns. Rivers that no longer even resemble what they once did.
I have nothing against having rivers free of trout for natives like Simon wants, it's a great idea, who cares about trout they're only put there for people to catch and take, they have zero conservation value. BUT if all you care about is conversation then why fish for native species at all, if you're honest about it we're only exploiting them for our own gratification.
*Yes Murrayman2 expecting a less than constructive response from you, play the man not the ball as per usual*
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:52 am Post subject: Re:
Karpfen wrote:
Yeah the introduced species have buggered it all up. We are the ones who put them there, and continue to do so with trout.
Sure introduced fish are part of the issue, but it's nothing to do with rivers being totally regulated either?
It's all a big dream to think you can go back. Unless we are going to bust all the dams and let the water flow freely from the mountains to the sea, and stop farmers taking water and plant native vegetation over all the farmland and try to reconstruct the rivers.
We have to work within the confines of what we have now, massive dams on almost every major waterway that buggers up a lot of the natives breeding patterns. Rivers that no longer even resemble what they once did.
I have nothing against having rivers free of trout for natives like Simon wants, it's a great idea, who cares about trout they're only put there for people to catch and take, they have zero conservation value. BUT if all you care about is conversation then why fish for native species at all, if you're honest about it we're only exploiting them for our own gratification.
*Yes Murrayman2 expecting a less than constructive response from you, play the man not the ball as per usual*
Awwww poor didums want a tissue. LOL
Another rant trying to say people blame just trout, how ridiculous, no one ever does that.
And a why fish at all thrown in…..grooooooooooooan
Top arguments those two *rolls eyes*
Again people complain about others going on and on with the same statements.
PMSL. _________________ A wake free river for all.
People dont be fooled, you cannot be educated
by a couple of narrow minded trout haters.
Bottom line is, an IDEAL upland trout stream/river
has never been and cannot ever be suitable to sustain a
healthy population of the natives mentioned, this is for
many obvious reasons.
Yes there has been some very old reports
of natives inhabiting a few upland areas but
these FEW areas are known as pools and
predominantly not being able to inhabit the
remaining parts of the river, these pools are
slower moving, warmer and less oxygenated conditions
and they are so limited that they wont be able
to handle even the slightest bit of angling pressure,
imagine these pools as fish tanks and all it takes
is yourself and a mate to totally drain out pool
of any fish in a day or two.
The question is, would any TRUE inland trout angler
want to ever sacrifice this sustaining and rewarding
fishery when it is a guarantee that if the trout is removed
from that river then that river will never be fished again,
a disastrous death to an iconic inland fishery.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
