The Future of the Management of Recreational Angling

The world of angling management is moving well beyond simple notions of
harvest; catch and release and so forth.

Eric Poole, who is an angler and author of some repute, is an economist and
statistician by profession and currently a PHD candidate in Economics at
Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. His thesis is about developing
best practice management techniques for fishing (both commercial and
recreational) and I think some of his ideas will shake the angling world in
a few years. In some respects they have a sympathetic resonance with some of
the Halfordian Golfer's "naive" ideas but are much more sophisitcated.

For example, on some of the local web based discussion boards Eric has
talked about "quality" issues and has a strong opinion that the only way to
address these on certain waters is by limited entry (i.e. by lottery or by
access by payment)

He has also addressed bugbear talked about on ng, tackle restriction and
when if at all is it right to restrict tackle. He has developed a
mathematically based model to justify doing so. Have a look at this:

http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole/BPAM_E_Poole_Jun06.pdf

His web site: http://www.sfu.ca/~epoole

watch this site for additional work on his thesis

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:46:47 GMT, "RalphH" wrote:


For example, on some of the local web based discussion boards Eric has
talked about "quality" issues and has a strong opinion that the only way to
address these on certain waters is by limited entry (i.e. by lottery or by
access by payment)


I don't like this idea. On private land, fine. On public access land
/ water, upsetting idea. Close the area to all fishing for a certain
time, set rules about what can be used to fish, limits, etc.. But
don't start doing any privileged few sorts of things on public access
land / water.

The idea of payment to public access fishing really reeks for me.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

Don't ask me what time it is lest I'm of
a mood to tell you how to make a clock.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

wrote in message
oups.com...
Howdy Ralph,

Reading this paper was a wild experience, though, honestly, very little
in it has not been covered here from time to time.

I'd invite Mr. Poole to ROFF to discuss tackle restrictions in
fisheries management any time. I think that would be great. I'd like to
ask him what specifically should be changed in Colorado.

Your pal,

TBone


His email address is on the site. He has lurked on ROFF in the past. He may
know who you are. If you have some specific questions how this methodology
would apply in Colorado I suggest you drop him a line.

"Cyli" wrote in message
...

The idea of payment to public access fishing really reeks for me.

Yes -- but why?
Payment for access is merely one form of limiting
access so as to avoid over-exploitation of a vulnerable
resource. Does it really matter whether payment is
made to a private land company or the state?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

RalphH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Howdy Ralph,

Reading this paper was a wild experience, though, honestly, very little
in it has not been covered here from time to time.

I'd invite Mr. Poole to ROFF to discuss tackle restrictions in
fisheries management any time. I think that would be great. I'd like to
ask him what specifically should be changed in Colorado.

Your pal,

TBone


His email address is on the site. He has lurked on ROFF in the past. He may
know who you are. If you have some specific questions how this methodology
would apply in Colorado I suggest you drop him a line.

Great suggestion. I think I will.

TBone

In article ,
says...
"Cyli" wrote in message
...

The idea of payment to public access fishing really reeks for me.

Yes -- but why?
Payment for access is merely one form of limiting
access so as to avoid over-exploitation of a vulnerable
resource. Does it really matter whether payment is
made to a private land company or the state?

Yes. Private land is someone else's land. Public land
is my land. Having to pay to access my land sucks!
- Ken

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:36:16 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
wrote:

"Cyli" wrote in message
.. .

The idea of payment to public access fishing really reeks for me.

Yes -- but why?


Payment for access is merely one form of limiting
access so as to avoid over-exploitation of a vulnerable
resource. Does it really matter whether payment is
made to a private land company or the state?

Yes. Very much.

One reason being the slippery slope thing. It privatizes public land
and we can all have nightmares about where that could lead.

--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Cyli" wrote in message
. ..


The idea of payment to public access fishing really reeks for me.

Yes -- but why?
Payment for access is merely one form of limiting
access so as to avoid over-exploitation of a vulnerable
resource. Does it really matter whether payment is
made to a private land company or the state?


Yes. Private land is someone else's land. Public land
is my land. Having to pay to access my land sucks!
- Ken

Then it logically follows that you should be able to graze cattle and
cut timber on "your" public land without paying a fee, right? You should
also be able to enter national parks and camp on Forest Service land for
no fee, right?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 06:52:41 GMT, rw
wrote:


Yes. Private land is someone else's land. Public land
is my land. Having to pay to access my land sucks!
- Ken

Then it logically follows that you should be able to graze cattle and
cut timber on "your" public land without paying a fee, right?

Not going to touch that one.

You should
also be able to enter national parks and camp on Forest Service land for
no fee, right?

In the National Parks, you're taking advantage of infrastructure
that's been built up just so you can go see it and use it. I do think
that dispersed camping for no fee should be allowed as in Forest
Service land in my state where, yes, I can camp for no fee as long as
I don't use the regular campgrounds and leave things as I found them
as much as possible. And I believe that in the west on BLM land, one
can camp anywhere for free where they're not a traffic hazard and go
anywhere as long as they close all gates they found closed when they
went through them.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

"Cyli" wrote in message
...

Payment for access is merely one form of limiting
access so as to avoid over-exploitation of a vulnerable
resource. Does it really matter whether payment is
made to a private land company or the state?

Yes. Very much.

One reason being the slippery slope thing. It privatizes public land
and we can all have nightmares about where that could lead.

The slippery slope may be uniquely American.
Other countries manage things differently, e.g.
(1) Ancient rights of way over private land can be
freely walked in England. Organized walking clubs
make a point of this, in order to maintain legal access.
(2) In Sweden, landowners cannot prevent public
access for harmless recreation, e.g. walking and
picnicking.
(3) The "Crown lands" system in Canada provides for
public access to private land, controlled fishing (e.g.
special regulations for salmon), logging under licence etc.

Cyli may be quite right that (up to now) transfer of
ownership from the state to private landowners has
been more harmful than not: but this is not a law
of nature, i.e. need not happen if only legislators
and land purchasers could agree on terms. I see
no reason why this uniquely US problem need
dictate methods of fisheries management.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)