February 28, 2008

here's my rant for the day. It was based on a post regarding the allowance of fishing two lines in Minnesota and the decrease of youth anglers:

One thing managers will likely need to consider down the road is if managing the resource for sustainability will decrease user participation in the future. I'm all for sound management, but if there are less users in the future (as all of the license sales trends have indicated), then there will be less revenue coming in to manage those fisheries. If you aren't able to manage the fisheries effectively anymore, than what's the point of having rules in place then?

There will likely need to be a compromise sometime in the future to allow some flexibility within the current rules package to allow more angler recruitment and retention, whether it be by allowing extra lines, or less restrictions on taking fish or easier regulations to remember (less waters-specific regulation). The way things have been going lately, I just don't believe that you can have sound sustainable management practices and still be able to attract new anglers, unless you nuke every video game ever created, destroy urban centers, and kick every kid out of the house on their ass and force them to play outside like we all used to do. I'm surprised kids these days aren't developing some sort of allergy to vitamin D and UV radiation.... Maybe if you give humans another 50 years you'll start to see more genetic mutations for albinoism and Nintendo thumb.


  1. Ok Im dense. How does allowing two lines help recruit young fishermen?

  2. Allowing two lines doesn't necessarily recruit youth anglers. The main point of the discussion wasn't specifically about allowing two lines for angling in MN, but rather that fisheries managers may need to utilize different tactics than they are currently using to attract and retain anglers, especially those out of the traditional demographic.