| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JustOlBill
Finger Mullet
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 37
Location: Colorado
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shallowsport
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 3260
Location: Flour Bluff/Kingsville
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Federal dictates don't have to make sence. They are lining someone's pockets, and could give a flip about "the people". This will now give them an excuse to ban recreational snapper fishing altogether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spooled
Finger Mullet
Joined: 17 Nov 2012
Posts: 44
Location: Rockport
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Absolute nonsense. Why would anyone destroy fish habitat in the name of aesthetics.
_________________
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigrock
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 1380
Location: Sherwood Tx
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spooled wrote: | | Absolute nonsense. Why would anyone destroy fish habitat in the name of aesthetics. |
First let me say that I don't agree with the removal of rigs as it's done now. The article mentioned aesthetics, but it's really much more than that, safety to shipping and boating being a big reason given.
As to the comment of why anyone would do ANYTHING in the name of aesthetics, think about the neighborhood you live in. Is there an HOA running the show? Aesthetics = Economics in this case. Why don't we all grow our yard grass tall and graze livestock instead of mowing. Or plow it all up and raise crops on that precious peice of soil. We could solve multitudes of problems if we would go that route. Food prices would go down, emisions from our mowers would go down, leaching from fertilizers would go down (if farmed properly  ) and on and on. We don't do that because of aesthetics. That's OK by me, but it answers your questions as to "Why?". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spooled
Finger Mullet
Joined: 17 Nov 2012
Posts: 44
Location: Rockport
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bigrock wrote: | | Spooled wrote: | | Absolute nonsense. Why would anyone destroy fish habitat in the name of aesthetics. |
First let me say that I don't agree with the removal of rigs as it's done now. The article mentioned aesthetics, but it's really much more than that, safety to shipping and boating being a big reason given.
As to the comment of why anyone would do ANYTHING in the name of aesthetics, think about the neighborhood you live in. Is there an HOA running the show? Aesthetics = Economics in this case. Why don't we all grow our yard grass tall and graze livestock instead of mowing. Or plow it all up and raise crops on that precious peice of soil. We could solve multitudes of problems if we would go that route. Food prices would go down, emisions from our mowers would go down, leaching from fertilizers would go down (if farmed properly ) and on and on. We don't do that because of aesthetics. That's OK by me, but it answers your questions as to "Why?". |
Very whimsical, but in your explanation you failed to mention leveling our neioghborhoods with explosives so we don't have to mow the lawn.
_________________
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
