Originally Posted by
Fitzy
Hi Brian,
If we agree that if the use of angler preferences at 100% of the fund would see some locations suffer, then is 25 or 50% then a fair distrubution?
I don't think so. Unfair is unfair no matter what percentage you pin on it. The angler preference should be abonded all together.
That would also remove the need for a review of the distribution every year as appears will be the case. This is a woeful waste of fisheries resources that could be far better spent on research & enforcement. It would also see the administrations costs come down resulting in more fish in the water. Again, that's the whole purpose of the SIP in the first place.
I believe QFS is fostering an environment for stocknig groups to bicker over the spoils.
Divide and conquer? hhhmmm
Fitzy