I have mixed feelings on things like this.
Hand One: State Gov decides to introduce an invasive, non-native species. A species proven to be egg feeders. A species proven to be dominant over the native brook trout.
An argument can be made that rainbow/brown stockings in the 1960s decimated the native brookie populations.
Tax payer dollars pay for everything from the hatchery to the fuel for trucks to stock.
The state implements regulations on a non-native, invasive species, and issues citations against citizens for violations.

Hand Two: the intro of these non natives provide recreational opportunities for folks that may have depended on brook trout as a part of their daily diet.

In a nutshell: our state IS introducing an invasive non native species proven to be detrimental to native species in rural, poverty stricken areas. Areas where sustenance fishing regularly takes place. Is it right to force people to pay for the introduction of an invasive species, set regulations on said species, knowing that sustenance fishing takes place, then fining them money they likely cant afford for just trying to eat?
Does the cast net make a difference?
I can eat a half dozen 12 inch trout.
Can a family of 6 eat 30?



Hmmm.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk