Thread: New Creel Limit

Originally Posted by badbrad

CP what you guys are saying is KY folks are not liking TN folks in KY and Tn folks don't like KY folks in TN
CP, I'm not quite sure what he 's reading, I didn't take that from your post at all.
I do fish the TN side of KY/Lake. I was born in West Tn and was taken there by my grandfather when I was just a kid. Lot of good memories for me, and the fishing is good. That being said, I agree that having different regulations on the same lake with an imaginary line across it doesnt' make a lot of sense.
Reducing the creel would be fine by me, but I like the 11" size limit even better.

I don't think he was referring to me, but rather to Cane Pole. I'm basing that on his reply to Cane Pole on the TENN board, where he referred to "his other post". That, and Cane Pole's first line in his reply to me.

Anyway ... I found some interesting TWRA study info, on size limits, and posted about it on the thread in the TENN board. Seems like the TWRA thinks a 9" size limit would be more beneficial to KY Lake, than even the current 10" limit. I think they're basing that on some unknown values, though. They do mention that they need to know the natural mortality rates and the total % of Crappie removed from the lake, so that their study numbers can be compared to that, and adjusted.

I think SLS has his heart in the right place, but some of his numbers/info is a bit skewed.

I'm just wondering when the TWRA & KDFWR & all the other state's wildlife people, are going to catch up to the 21st Century :p --- Rather than have a few dozen people, who can make these meetings, be the only voice pro/con to their proposals ... why not put out a "vote" link, and ask thousands --- You could register using your fishing license number, read the proposal & the reasons/ideas behind such, then vote or make counter proposals. All their biologist's info/studies info/field experience is already in their own database ... so all they'd have to do is copy/paste the pertinent info into a polling post page, send the news media the address & post it on their main website, and give the people affected a couple of weeks to get around to making their choice ... then go from there.

Majority rule doesn't mean that everyone's going to be happy with the results ... just "most of them" will :p

... cp

Originally Posted by sls

Cane seems like you and I do not sgree on a whole lot. Don't make a whole lot of difference though, in the big picture does it. I do respect you and your opinions. How would 30 to 20 help, in your opinion?
PS I read today where Walmart is cutting back on fishing tackle by 50%. Wonder if they think gas will cut back on fisherman or other reasons?

I can not prove 20 would be the answer for the same reasons I have stated before. I don't know the answer nor do the biologists. They have science, I have the river time. My choice is about compromise, not about facts. Why give up everything.

My comments submitted was to the change was try 20 with a maximum term limit of 5 years on creel limit. This way, we could revisit the issue and not be locked in forever without a chance of repeal.

You are right, in the long run our opinion don't really matter, but it does make for good conversation and information sharing. They are going to do what they want, not what we want anyway.

I believe Wal Mart is just making more room for China made junk to sell us at Xmas.