Can't decide whether this is either simply an uninformed position (you openly state that you've never fished for Atlantics in Quebec) or an intentional troll. Either way, I hope that few rise to the "bait".
Poorly worded though it may have been, he is still somewhat accurate.
We, as sportsman, seem completely willing to give up our rights to the resource for nothing in return.
Biologically, salmon are especially well suited to angler harvest. Firstly, less spawners does not mean less outgoing smolt and returning fish just as more spawners does not mean more outgoing smolt and returning fish. A given river has the capacity to output X amount of smolts and will do so, so long as a minimum number of spawners is achieved, meaning increasing the number of spawners, say on a good year for returns, isnt going to affect the smolt ouput for that year class. This is cleary understood with ample research into the matter being easily found through the web and even in discussions involving trained biologists on this forum.
Adding to that, antecdotally, the rate of harvest via anglers and especially in-river nets was MUCH higher in the past; yet, the fish kept on coming back. Many, certainly not all, of these Quebec rivers have had substantial angler harvest year in and year out with little change in returns (up years and down years aside) -- the Matapedia comes to mind, looking at fish counts and catches.
So back to the initial point...we anglers are always so willing to give up our right to harvest, the most, and oftentimes totally, benign threat to fish stocks in exchange for absolutely nothing
, which is, I think, the point of the above poster.
The Greenland nets arent gone.
The French nets at Saint-Pierre et Miquelon arent gone.
The First Nation nets arent gone.
The Aquaculture Industry isnt gone or even more strictly regulated.
Upriver agriculture, timber, mining and other extraction practices arent further regulated (less a problem for much of Quebec than, say, New Brunswick).
Yet somehow we anglers are 'doing are part' when we dont kill what could, and should, be a sustainable meal, and, again to the above poster's point, instead opt to eat some seafood thats been farm-raised or comes from an over-fished resource, or some tasty beef grown on a farm extracting or polluting the water from our beloved fishery, or whatever else. All the while being disgusted at those other guys who do decide to enjoy a sustainable meal. We happily tell those guys they are bad people as we limit their, and our own, right while getting near nothing in return.
The resource isnt better off for it, maybe save for the potential of more repeat taking fish for an extra tug or two.
Ive seen the argument made that CnR gives us a bargaining chip. Maybe it did
, but now we dont have it any longer since we just gave up FOR FREE.
That said, I am not against C&R for Quebec in the least, of course, and really many of those Quebec rivers probably shouldnt have a harvest simply on account of not getting many fish to begin with. A river receiving 500 or so fish/year as many of the smaller ones do is certainly more
susceptible to over-harvest from angling (even if angler harvest isnt likely to deplete the run, which it isnt).
Ive not killed a fish in Quebec and probably wouldnt to begin so Ill likely be back. That said, there ARE a lot of people that probably are going to be pissed off about this -- many locals, especially -- and the ZECs are going to suffer. Im betting we see a sharp increase in fees for fishing over the next few seasons.