Preacher....if that were true, they wouldn't have made the changes they already have.  IMO, they have already taken a beating with much worse to come.

I believe they are not a small minority but a signifigant movement (yes a minority still) that has impressive political clout.  They can push a basless agenda through despite ill-toward financial side-effects.

the above is obvious opinion.

wally wrote on Jun 24^th, 2010 at 5:07am:

Oh it's all opinion until someone can site a reasonable source.

What seriously detrimental changes have been made?  I've sat around the campfire with folks who head out, catch & keep their limit, then complain that the fishing isn't what it used to be.  Sometimes only to see them eat the catch and head back out for more.

For me sportfishing isn't about filling the freezer.  I can buy frozen fish at the supermarket.  Heck I can buy fresh fish too, bass, trout, pickerel, whitefish.  It's about passing the time, catching a few, once in a while keeping what will be eaten that day.  Often it's simply a line in the water while I explore the lake.

I certainly don't ever need to keep more than I'll eat that day.  The very few exceptions have been fatally hooked fish, & I eat as much as I can.

Barbs & live bait are crutches imo.  I'm an angler, not a harvester.

Parks do not exist to provide surrounding communities with revenue.  Parks exist first in their own right to preserve the ecology.  Parks exist secondly to provide all of us with the opportunity to enjoy the land.  If the BW/Q existed to provide revenue for the surrounding communities it would be mining, logging & hydro on the mandate.

Hooks - I haven't read any unbiased reports one way or t'other.  I have seen fish manhandled to death from folks trying to extract barbed hooks.  I have been among those folks, back before I switched to barbless.

Live Bait - It's well documented that live bait brings invasive species and spreads disease.

Lead - The toxic effects of lead are also well documented.

Electronics - Meh.  I've used them in the past with hit & miss results.  One amusing anecdote involved me telling the boat driver to stop.  He complained that we didn't get any pings.  I bargained for three casts.  Only needed one.  Caught the only fish of the day.  Electronics, imo, are like live bait.  A crutch.

User Fees - Fees could double again and it's still the cheapest vacation around.  If it serves to limit the number of users, the park is better for it.  There are plenty of other places, including free places, free places not far from Q.

The bottom line in these items isn't what's good for Atikokan.  That much is clear.  The bottom line is presumed to be what's good for the park.

Quote:


 According to the master plan, I thought the idea was to increase usage, not decrease. While parks might not exist solely for the financial benefit of the surrounding communities, any monies spent there by park users, helps not only the local economy, but keeps the communities from wanting to encroach on the parks for sources of revenue.  It doesn't have too be all or nothing.

When I first started going to the Q, the outfitter's got a break on camping fees. Reserve with them, you saved $4 or so for each night, over reserving thru park. That was per person. Say you have 4 people, that's $16 a night, times 7 days as an example, that adds up to $112.
Not a make or break figure for some, but for families or large groups it can/did make a difference.

My outfitter Q-Dave said that "savings" was often spent on outfitter gear. Tackle/bait/ rental canoes/ camping gear. When they took that away, it hurt the small outfitters the most. It also had a souring effect on paddlers who saw themselves getting less bang for their buck.

Not what the official park goal was, at least as I understand it? Isn't it true that revenue from the more accessible parks, helps pay for the more remote, less used ones?

The banning of imported live bait, because of invasive species makes sense, but why good old Canadian bait from Atikokan? Is there a difference between a Q- lake leech and the ones found outside the park  It may be a crutch, but too many, a leech for Waldo's is a time honored tradition.  By the way, the live bait ban doesn't effect the Native People, the Indian guides I ran into on Wolseley were carrying leeches for their fly-in clients. So it can't just be about the dangers of live bait or they would of worked that out with the Native residents.

Since many here have found the hi-tech artificial's like GULP every bit as effective as live, what did the real live bait ban do, other than deprive local business's of revenue.

The best way too preserve Nature is by giving the people reasonable/affordable, hassle free access, balancing that against the damage human encroachment causes.

You can't fall in love with something, if you don't experience it first hand.
The vast majority of paddlers who visit the BW/Q fall in love with the area. They and they're children are the one's who will work to preserve it for future generations.

 What's reasonable too some, may be way over budget for others. Do we want economic prosperity to determine who gets too experience the parks, or do we want it open for everyone, at a rate that the average family/paddler can afford.

Teddy Roosevelt, the father of the American National Parks, wanted the wild places to belong too the people, not just the elite few for whom money wasn't a concern.

I know the locals had a say it the parks master plan, or at least that's the official line. I can't imagine all the outfitters were happy with the change in the camp fees I mentioned, or the bait/tackle places with the live bait ban. I'll bet like local politics here, the nays were swept under the carpet.  

...the Canadian "bait leeches" are US leeches.