Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanMac14
I understand we have to be present to make our voice heard on potential regulations. I just dont understand how these regulations make it to the table when it is something that was directly contrary to previous findings. I don't get how they didnt just respond "well our stance is that treble and barbed hooks do not effect the mortality rate of trout so we will not be considering your proposal." Our lack of direct opposition, while disappointing, should not have mattered in this case. These regulations won't effect me directly per se, but it just bothers me that it happened and I hope you are right that this isn't setting a precedent of satisfying the special interest groups
|
what we were basically told is that a bunch of cry babies kept showing up in force asking for the same thing and even though it's based on zero science they eventually got a part of what they wanted. so we basically showed up to let them know it isn't going to happen again even though it was too late to have these particular regs reversed.
if they ever try to pass bogus bs regulations again we'll find out sooner and all we have to do is get a couple of hundred guys to sign an online petition stating they'll boycot the trout stamp and see how fast they change their minds. in fact i'm thinking about starting it up for the current bs regulations they just passed.
