Most Humane Way to Clean Fish

[[email protected]]

I saw this in Google's cache of a webpage that no longer exists, and I
figured I'd preserve it by posting it here:


-----------------------------


The Most Humane Way to Clean Fish


** Those of us who fish have on frequent occasion, wonder to what
extent fish feel pain during the process of catching and cleaning them.

We certainly are concerned with the survival of those species that we
release, taking care to make sure that they swim away to "fight another

day." But what about those that make into our coolers?


What is the most humane way of dealing with the basic living creatures?

For the answer, here are the thoughts of neurobiologist Dr. Sarah Fox,
who has done extensive research into the sensory aspects of fish.


By Sarah Fox, Ph.D.


As a neurobiologist who has done some work with fish, and as a recent
observer of the fishing/cleaning process, I'm quite concerned at some
practices (not mentioned in the article) that have been time-honored
common practice, at least among sport fishermen. I have a few very well

educated thoughts, and I would appreciate your making your readers
aware of them somehow.


My concern isn't so much how to *clean* a fish as it is how and when to

*kill* it. I was horrified to watch as one fisherman pulled a live fish

out of a bucket and clumsily started scaling it. When he was done with
the scaling, he cut the head off. He explained that he needed the head
to hold, in order to do the scaling. I pointed to a scaling board (with

a tail clamp) about 3 feet from him, suggesting that he could cut the
head off first, and *then* scale the fish on the board. He didn't want
to do it that way. He said the fish didn't feel anything anyway,
because it's a cold-blooded animal.


As a neurobiologist, I've done quite a lot of work on cold-blooded
animals. It is an outright myth that they don't feel pain. They do.
I've personally recorded from nerve cells that transmit pain
information to the brain, so I know the pain information is there. An
animal would certainly have a difficult time surviving if it were
unconcerned about bodily injury, so pain pathways are quite necessary
in all animals!


My friend took a much more humane approach and cut off the head before
doing anything else. However, her cut left just enough of the muscle
behind that I could see the fish (i.e. its head) writhing for a few
minutes thereafter. I had always trusted the folk wisdom that
decapitation means instant death and loss of consciousness. Apparently
that's a myth too. This would especially be true in a cold blooded
animal, as its rate of oxygen consumption (hence, suffocation) is quite

low. The head did not die from loss of circulation or neural input. It
slowly suffocated (and almost certainly with a great deal of pain).


One thing we did that helped was to "cold-anesthetize" the fish before
killing them. This was very easy: We dumped ice in the fish bucket.
Because the fish are cold blooded, loss of body heat is not distressing

to them, at least in the same sense as it would be to a bird or mammal.

There is no thermal setpoint to fight. As the fish cools off, its
metabolism slows too, entering into what would be very similar to a
hibernation state for a mammal. When it stops moving, it's effectively
"anesthetized." In this state, it can be cleaned rather painlessly.
Ultimately, though, there is a suffocation issue for the head. When it
warms back up, it becomes metabolically active again. However, there is

no question that there would very little pain this way.


Commercially, fish are flung out of the water and allowed to suffocate
in the air. While this may seem a difficult fate, it is perhaps a more
humane one. If suffocation is inevitable, either before or after
decapitation, then why not suffocate before decapitation and not have
to endure the pain of being scaled and cut up? Some fishermen have a
practice of pulling their catch out of the water and throwing it
directly into an ice chest. This is a method of cold anesthesia, which
when combined with suffocation, is probably more humane still. Perhaps
the ultimate technique in humane fishing would be to throw the catch
into a bucket of ice water, where it can still breathe, but where it
will quickly be anesthetized. Then throw it on ice, where it will
suffocate slowly during a prolonged state of anesthesia.


It is invitable that we must kill something to live, whether it is a
cow or a chicken or a fish or a vegetable. These are all life forms
that have their own right to life, just like ours. Inevitably, we can't

all live, so one creature must inevitably be consumed by another. None
of us should have any problem with that. However, there is no reason,
as smart as we are, that we cannot be merciful in the way we gather our

food. That is the least we can do for the creatures that lose their
lives to sustain ours.


Peace,
Sarah Fox, Ph.D.

[riverman]

"Commercially, fish are flung out of the water and allowed to suffocate

in the air. While this may seem a difficult fate, it is perhaps a more
humane one. If suffocation is inevitable, either before or after
decapitation, then why not suffocate before decapitation and not have
to endure the pain of being scaled and cut up?"

I wonder how much pain a fish feels from scaling and being cut up, if
it were decapitated first. Hmph.

Besides, whoever wrote this article has evidently never heard of a
'priest'.

--riverman

[lazarus]

Hmm yeah it seems ignorant as well as silly. The fact that a muscle
continues to writhe after decapitation shows nothing about pain. It
shows that muscles continue to writhe (in mammels as well as fish)
after death - a phenomenon that's been noted for many centuries.

I do get upset, though, with some fishermen who are needlessly cruel to
fish.

L

[Wolfgang]

"lazarus" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hmm yeah it seems ignorant as well as silly. The fact that a muscle
> continues to writhe after decapitation shows nothing about pain. It
> shows that muscles continue to writhe (in mammels as well as fish)
> after death - a phenomenon that's been noted for many centuries.
>
> I do get upset, though, with some fishermen who are needlessly cruel to
> fish.

If fish DON'T feel pain, it's difficult to see how anything done to them can
be construed as cruel; no one has any real reason to be upset by anything
done to them. If they DO, then ALL recreational angling is needlessly
cruel.

Problems, carefully thought through and clearly stated, generally turn out
to be fairly simple. Solutions are typically harder to find......and then
there's the whole implementation mess. :)

Wolfgang

[[email protected]]

riverman wrote:

> I wonder how much pain a fish feels from scaling and being cut up, if
> it were decapitated first. Hmph.

lazarus wrote:
> Hmm yeah it seems ignorant as well as silly. The fact that a muscle
> continues to writhe after decapitation shows nothing about pain. It
> shows that muscles continue to writhe (in mammels as well as fish)
> after death - a phenomenon that's been noted for many centuries.

I think she meant that since cold blooded animals require less oxygen,
the blood supplied by the muscle that's left attached to the head might
keep them alive to feel the pain of being decapitated, and then they
would experience suffocation, so it's better to have them die of
suffocation before decapitating them. Personally, I'd prefer to
decapitate them before the suffocated, and try not to leave much muscle
or anything behind the head. That might cause them to suffocate faster.
But I definately wouldn't scale the body with the head attached if the
fish was alive, and I'd use the "cold-anesthetize" method.

I also heard that some people hit the fish in the head to knock it out.
I wish SOME kind of humane treatment for fish was regulated. It's
possible that fish suffer about as much as a human would under the same
conditions. But I have a feeling that even if we KNEW that for sure,
people would think it's somehow not as bad because they're just fish.
To me, the main difference is that a fish's faimily probably would
mourn for them as much as a human's family would mourn for a human, but
it's the possible physical pain that bothers me.

Wolfgang wrote:

> If fish DON'T feel pain, it's difficult to see how anything done to them can
> be construed as cruel; no one has any real reason to be upset by anything
> done to them. If they DO, then ALL recreational angling is needlessly
> cruel.

I heard the roof of a fish's mouth doesn't have enough nerves to feel
pain from a hook, but I wouldn't recreational fish anyway. I used to
fish a little as a kid, and I was the complete opposite of how I am
now. I once caught a snapper and people on the peir told me to throw it
back if I won't be eating it, but I wanted to see it swim in circles in
my bucket. And I once caught an eel and people were trying to buy it
from me so they could eat it, and they kept raising their price, but I
wanted to bring it home just to show my father. I guess I'm trying to
make up for it by saving their great grandkids.

[Wayne Harrison]

> wrote

. I guess I'm trying to
> make up for it by saving their great grandkids.

my guess is that you are more ****ed up than a soup sandwich.

wayno
>

[[email protected]]

Wayne Harrison wrote:
> > wrote
>
> . I guess I'm trying to
> > make up for it by saving their great grandkids.
>
> my guess is that you are more ****ed up than a soup sandwich.
>
> wayno

How about an explanation? I'm talking about possibly preventing
thousands of cases of horrible pain and suffering per day, and that's
the best response you have?

[Wayne Harrison]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Wayne Harrison wrote:
>> > wrote
>>
>> . I guess I'm trying to
>> > make up for it by saving their great grandkids.
>>
>> my guess is that you are more ****ed up than a soup sandwich.
>>
>> wayno
>
> How about an explanation? I'm talking about possibly preventing
> thousands of cases of horrible pain and suffering per day, and that's
> the best response you have?

well, barry, i don't know what to say. that you are so concerned about
the pain of fish in times that thousands of human beings are dying, day by
day, in iraq, and other places, simply overwhelms my ability to relate to
you, on a rational level.

what do you think about the pain that fish feel when they are eaten by
other fish, or birds, or otters, or old age, for that matter? i suggest
that you grab a syringe full of demerol, and patrol the streams in your
locality, searching for fish in pain. inject those who you conclude are in
pain, and move on, comforted by your unctious efforts.

wayno
>

[rw]

wrote:
> Wayne Harrison wrote:
>
> wrote
>>
>> . I guess I'm trying to
>>
>>>make up for it by saving their great grandkids.
>>
>> my guess is that you are more ****ed up than a soup sandwich.
>>
>>wayno
>
>
> How about an explanation? I'm talking about possibly preventing
> thousands of cases of horrible pain and suffering per day, and that's
> the best response you have?

I suggest that you consider not hooking them (i.e., fish) in the mouth
and playing them to exhaustion.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[[email protected]]

Wayne Harrison wrote:

> that you are so concerned about
> the pain of fish in times that thousands of human beings are dying, day by
> day, in iraq, and other places, simply overwhelms my ability to relate to
> you, on a rational level.

I think the safe answer would be for me to just say that it's easy to
prevent some of the suffering of fish by telling people the relatively
simple way to prevent, or at least reduce the suffering, or by creating
the appropriate regulations. It's worth a shot anyway. It's pretty fast
cheap to just post a message here, and I think it's worth the trouble
even if you can't compare the fish problem to the human problem. An
equivalent effort in time and money to help people in Iraq, by myself
or by the government, wouldn't do very much.

But screw the "safe" answer. One reason it bothers me so much is that I
have no reason to believe that the daily suffering of fish is any less
than the daily suffering of people.

> what do you think about the pain that fish feel when they are eaten by
> other fish, or birds, or otters, or old age, for that matter?

I think about that too, and it's pretty damn horrible (I usually think
of more furry creatures though). I heard about some animal that's
something like 90% likely to die by a predator attack, and it's not
always a quick kill from a bite to the neck. Because of that, I'm not
an animal conservationist, or whatever they're called. I'd rather not
be born if I knew I was likely to die like that. Maybe it's better to
suffocate on a boat, or die by a hunter, or maybe it's all the same,
but the less painful it is, the better.

> i suggest that you grab a syringe full of demerol, and patrol the streams in your
> locality, searching for fish in pain. inject those who you conclude are in
> pain, and move on, comforted by your unctious efforts.

I'll take the blame for not doing that if everyone else takes the blame
for not even cleaning their own catch humanely.

[rw]

wrote:
>
> I think the safe answer would be for me to just say that it's easy to
> prevent some of the suffering of fish by telling people the relatively
> simple way to prevent, or at least reduce the suffering, or by creating
> the appropriate regulations. It's worth a shot anyway. It's pretty fast
> cheap to just post a message here, and I think it's worth the trouble
> even if you can't compare the fish problem to the human problem. An
> equivalent effort in time and money to help people in Iraq, by myself
> or by the government, wouldn't do very much.

I think every fisherman should be required to carry, and to use, a
battery-powered bass-o-matic. Works for trout, too.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[BJ Conner]

Wayne Harrison wrote:
> > wrote
>
> . I guess I'm trying to
> > make up for it by saving their great grandkids.
>
> my guess is that you are more ****ed up than a soup sandwich.
>
> wayno
> >
I think you got that one right, check out her website.
http://www.gendernet.org/sarah/
Probably not getting enough hits on her semiporn site so she's over
trolling in roff. I'll bet the PHD is phoney and you have never has a
bottle with enough scotch in it to make you look twice at that.

[[email protected]]

rw wrote:

> I think every fisherman should be required to carry, and to use, a
> battery-powered bass-o-matic. Works for trout, too.

I guess all fishermen know that reference, but just in case:
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75qbassamatic.phtml


BJ Conner wrote:

> I think you got that one right, check out her website.
> http://www.gendernet.org/sarah/
> Probably not getting enough hits on her semiporn site so she's over
> trolling in roff. I'll bet the PHD is phoney and you have never has a
> bottle with enough scotch in it to make you look twice at that.

That's probably a different Sarah Fox, and I'm not either one. It
doesn't say PHD anywhere on that webpage. My website is PoliSource.com.

[[email protected]]

On 16 Nov 2005 21:51:52 -0800, wrote:

>rw wrote:
>
>> I think every fisherman should be required to carry, and to use, a
>> battery-powered bass-o-matic. Works for trout, too.
>
>I guess all fishermen know that reference, but just in case:
>http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75qbassamatic.phtml
>
>
>BJ Conner wrote:
>
>> I think you got that one right, check out her website.
>> http://www.gendernet.org/sarah/
>> Probably not getting enough hits on her semiporn site so she's over
>> trolling in roff. I'll bet the PHD is phoney and you have never has a
>> bottle with enough scotch in it to make you look twice at that.
>
>That's probably a different Sarah Fox, and I'm not either one. It
>doesn't say PHD anywhere on that webpage. My website is PoliSource.com.

Does it have badly illustrated diagrams of wonderknots? A list of
useful acronyms? Recipes, food or fly? Good deals on good tackle? OK,
how about bad deals on ****ty boats? Are you at least selling dildo...,
er, swizzle sticks, and donating the proceeds to the American Red Cross?
If not, what good is some ****ed-up-as-a-soup-sandwich PETAphillic
fish-smothering transsexual with a tarted-up CV? Maybe you can hook up
(pardon the pun) with some other recent contestants like "Gary" and
"Johnson" and form a self-help (or self-abuse, if you prefer) group...

SELL,
R
....and here's hoping that if the (apparent) weirdness that is this
thread, even for ROFF, is just because the thread isn't propagating
completely, it stays that way - it's much more fun this way...

[Conan The Librarian]

wrote:

> To me, the main difference is that a fish's faimily probably would
> mourn for them as much as a human's family would mourn for a human, but
> it's the possible physical pain that bothers me.

I was pretty sure from the start that this thread was a troll, and
this clinches it.


Chuck Vance ("fish's faimily ... mourn for them"?!)

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:35:46 -0600, Conan The Librarian
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> To me, the main difference is that a fish's faimily probably would
>> mourn for them as much as a human's family would mourn for a human, but
>> it's the possible physical pain that bothers me.
>
> I was pretty sure from the start that this thread was a troll, and
>this clinches it.
>
>
> Chuck Vance ("fish's faimily ... mourn for them"?!)

It's all Clinton's fault. He shook hands with JFK, and JFK was
Catholic - well, so he claimed, anyway. Catholics eat fish on Friday.
The Kennedy band are...er, is...er,am...well, whatever...Catholic. The
Kennedys are involved in lots of funerals. Think of all the fish
funerals they've caused! There can be no questioning that the data on
this table - http://tinyurl.com/7ka8c - proves it.

HTH,
R

[Frank Reid]

"I saw this in Google's cache of a webpage that no longer exists, and I
figured I'd preserve it by posting it here:"

Barry, here's a lesson. In an attempt to communicate, one should "know
your audience." What this means is that what you find important is not
necessarily what we find important. You came in here with a rather
disingenuous statement (noted above), but your real reason for posting
was to preach your belief system to the "uninitiated." You started out
with a lie, lost all credibility and still are attempting to argue. Go
back to trying to find dates in teen pregnancy groups by displaying
your world shattering knowledge of hemorrhoids.
Frank Reid

[BJ Conner]

wrote:
> rw wrote:
>
> > I think every fisherman should be required to carry, and to use, a
> > battery-powered bass-o-matic. Works for trout, too.
>
> I guess all fishermen know that reference, but just in case:
> http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75qbassamatic.phtml
>
>
> BJ Conner wrote:
>
> > I think you got that one right, check out her website.
> > http://www.gendernet.org/sarah/
> > Probably not getting enough hits on her semiporn site so she's over
> > trolling in roff. I'll bet the PHD is phoney and you have never has a
> > bottle with enough scotch in it to make you look twice at that.
>
> That's probably a different Sarah Fox, and I'm not either one. It
> doesn't say PHD anywhere on that webpage. My website is PoliSource.com.


Right under Welcome
"Hi! Thanks for visiting my page. My name is Sarah Fox, Ph.D., and I am
a transsexual woman...."
Mail order PHD?
Go away, screwed up people should work of fixing themselves first then
they can work on the rest of us.

[Wayne Harrison]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I saw this in Google's cache of a webpage that no longer exists, and I
> figured I'd preserve it by posting it here:
>
>
> -----------------------------
>
>
> The Most Humane Way to Clean Fish

congratulations. you have now become the instigator of the most bizarre
thread ever to appear on r.o.f.f.

simply breathtaking.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 02:34:27 GMT, rw >
wrote:

wrote:
>> Wayne Harrison wrote:
>>
> wrote
>>>
>>> . I guess I'm trying to
>>>
>>>>make up for it by saving their great grandkids.
>>>
>>> my guess is that you are more ****ed up than a soup sandwich.
>>>
>>>wayno
>>
>>
>> How about an explanation? I'm talking about possibly preventing
>> thousands of cases of horrible pain and suffering per day, and that's
>> the best response you have?
>
>I suggest that you consider not hooking them (i.e., fish) in the mouth
>and playing them to exhaustion.

Yeah.. he should bite them (i.e., fish...hmm, on second thought, why
place limits - Barry, you go, girl!) in the ass and ride them like
National Velvet.

[[email protected]]

On 16 Nov 2005 18:23:19 -0800, wrote:

>
>Wayne Harrison wrote:
>> > wrote
>>
>> . I guess I'm trying to
>> > make up for it by saving their great grandkids.
>>
>> my guess is that you are more ****ed up than a soup sandwich.
>>
>> wayno
>
>How about an explanation?

Now, then, don't you feel better? Isn't that what you're REALLY after,
Barry? You seem so confused and ill-at-ease with your life, but life's
just one of those mysteries of, well, life...I mean, how high is up?
How long is a piece of rope? What's it all about, Alfie? Maybe this
little song will help:

"'Cause then there was this boy whose
Parents made him come directly home
Right after school
And when they went to their church
They shook and lurched
All over the church floor

He couldn't quite explain it
They'd always just gone there

Mmm mmm mmm mmm
Mmm mmm mmm mmm

Mmm mmm mmm mmm
Mmm mmm mmm mmm"

SEE! SEE! Even little Pentecostal floor-floppers can't quite explain
it...

>I'm talking about possibly preventing thousands of cases of horrible
>pain and suffering per day, and that's the best response you have?

One word, Benjamin, er, Barry - "plastics...and Preparation H..." OK,
so, technically, that's 3 words and a letter...wait...maybe "Preparation
H" is considered one word, so it'd be three words rather than three
words AND a letter, but still, I think the point is obvious and it is a
more apropos response to your questions...

[rw]

wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 02:34:27 GMT, rw >
> wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>>
>>>How about an explanation? I'm talking about possibly preventing
>>>thousands of cases of horrible pain and suffering per day, and that's
>>>the best response you have?
>>
>>I suggest that you consider not hooking them (i.e., fish) in the mouth
>>and playing them to exhaustion.
>
>
> Yeah.. he should bite them (i.e., fish...hmm, on second thought, why
> place limits - Barry, you go, girl!) in the ass and ride them like
> National Velvet.

Irony challenged, as usual.


--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:58:35 GMT, rw >
wrote:

wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 02:34:27 GMT, rw >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>How about an explanation? I'm talking about possibly preventing
>>>>thousands of cases of horrible pain and suffering per day, and that's
>>>>the best response you have?
>>>
>>>I suggest that you consider not hooking them (i.e., fish) in the mouth
>>>and playing them to exhaustion.
>>
>>
>> Yeah.. he should bite them (i.e., fish...hmm, on second thought, why
>> place limits - Barry, you go, girl!) in the ass and ride them like
>> National Velvet.
>
>Irony challenged, as usual.

Naw, ya fuzzy little Double Turlette, you're more like "irony <sad
Mac>"...hit any key to continue...hit any other key to quit...

[Cyli]

On 16 Nov 2005 17:49:46 -0800, wrote:


>To me, the main difference is that a fish's faimily probably would
>mourn for them as much as a human's family would mourn for a human, but
>it's the possible physical pain that bothers me.


Please go back to your Vegan group. You know nothing whatsoever about
fish, as indicated in the above quote.

Whoever said you're as messed up as a soup sandwich was being a bit
too kind. There's not enough to you to have ever had the sandwich
part going. Thin vegetable broth is the heartiest I can grant and I
have a hard time doing that.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[[email protected]]

Frank Reid wrote:

> Barry, here's a lesson. In an attempt to communicate, one should "know
> your audience." What this means is that what you find important is not
> necessarily what we find important.

How could others not find preventing the pain of suffocation and being
scaled alive through a DAMN EASY METHOD important! You all have the
power to prevent is, but most of you don't seem to want to lift a
finger to get a bucket of ice for the fish, or like the original post
said--use a scaling board and cut off the fish's head first. It's not
like I'm confronting you with ice and telling you to use it. If you're
not sure you want to bother, at least don't hold it against me for
caring. It seems people would rather concentrate on my comments about
fish not mourning as much as people. Do they not mourn at all? Ok, some
animals do, but maybe fish don't. I don't care! My point was that I'm
bothered by the PHYSICAL pain! Do you know that fish don't experience
pain?


> your real reason for posting
> was to preach your belief system to the "uninitiated." You started out
> with a lie, lost all credibility and still are attempting to argue.

The original post might not have been worded perfectly, but it wasn't
my words and I don't know of any lie except from some posters here
about who the author is. There's useful and important information in
it.

[[email protected]]

Cyli wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2005 17:49:46 -0800, wrote:
>
> >To me, the main difference is that a fish's faimily probably would
> >mourn for them as much as a human's family would mourn for a human, but
> >it's the possible physical pain that bothers me.
>
> Please go back to your Vegan group. You know nothing whatsoever about
> fish, as indicated in the above quote.

I didn't notice that...I meant they probably WOULDN'T mourn for them as
much, though a missing parent might mean death for for baby fish. I
won't pretend to know enough about fish to know. But whatever I meant
there, you don't have to throw out every other important detail from me
and from the woman I quoted.

[Daniel-San]

barry wrote ...


<<snip>>

> the woman I quoted.

You're generous.

Dan

[Wolfgang]

> wrote in message
ups.com...

> ...whatever I meant there...

Leave a number. As soon as somebody figures it out we'll call you.

Wolfgang

[riverman]

Some pos(t)er stomped HisHer foot and pouted:
"How could others not find preventing the pain of suffocation and being

scaled alive through a DAMN EASY METHOD important! You all have the
power to prevent is, but most of you don't seem to want to lift a
finger to get a bucket of ice for the fish, or like the original post
said--use a scaling board and cut off the fish's head first."

Well, soupsandwich, for starters most of us here are catch and release
fisherman. Secondarily, when you are standing up to your balls (its
just an expression, don't get your panties in a knot) in a river,
'lifting a finger to get a bucket of ice for the fish' is laughable.
Thirdly, I don't keep a scaling board hanging off of my fly fishing
vest. Fourthly, being the guy who CAUSED the poor fish family to have
to hold sunday services for its poor departed cousin, it seems rather
incongruous to also be the one who dons surgical gloves and does fishy
mouth to mouth and brings flowers to ease its pain.

How many fish do you think die of old age, peacefully in their sleep?

--riverman

[Wolfgang]

"riverman" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> ...How many fish do you think die of old age, peacefully in their sleep?

Well, there's the vast majority of those I've pursued. And, having spent
time astream with Wayno, Jeffie, Mark, Tom, Tom, Tom, Ken, Bill, Bob, Steve,
Steve, Uncle Wally, John, George, Joel, Wayne, Kim, Mike, Frank, Frank,
Dave, Joe, and.....and.....uh.....well, sundry others, I'd say the odds are
looking pretty good. :)

Wolfgang
um.....on the other hand, there's willi....... :(

[jeffc]

I used to know an older fella (passed away now) would would literally fillet
his catch of panfish alive. i.e. *never* cut off the head. The fish went
from stringer to cleaning table and immediately into the bucket, still alive
but without their flesh. Now that was pretty disgusting.

[Frank Reid]

Barry,
As I mentioned, know your audience. One, 99% of the folks here are
catch and release 99% of the time. You figure how many we keep. Two,
trout don't have scales worth worrying about so we don't scale them.
Three, old item that trout fishermen who do keep their catch use is
called a priest. Small club used to stun and kill the fish
immediately. Four, we don't carry two differing bags of ice (one with
and one without water) out on a stream as we are often miles from any
vehicle.
So, your ranting, raving only serves to make you look more foolish than
you already are. Joined Mensa when I was 16. Joined Tabla too. Gave
it all up when I found that the vast majority of the folks didn't have
the sense God gave a goose. The one's with sense left too. So, shut
up, learn and move on.
Cheers
Frank Reid

[[email protected]]

riverman wrote:

> Well, soupsandwich, for starters most of us here are catch and release
> fisherman. Secondarily, when you are standing up to your balls (its
> just an expression, don't get your panties in a knot) in a river,
> 'lifting a finger to get a bucket of ice for the fish' is laughable.
> Thirdly, I don't keep a scaling board hanging off of my fly fishing
> vest. Fourthly, being the guy who CAUSED the poor fish family to have
> to hold sunday services for its poor departed cousin, it seems rather
> incongruous to also be the one who dons surgical gloves and does fishy
> mouth to mouth and brings flowers to ease its pain.

All I know about fly fishing is that you need little hairy things
called flies. I didn't have catch and release fisherman or wading in
mind.


> How many fish do you think die of old age, peacefully in their sleep?

I don't know. I'm just trying to make things easier for the ones on the
boat with the fisherman who caught them.

Do they make electrocution lures that electrocute only the fish that's
caught? That would be a little unsportsmanlike, but that wouldn't
bother me so much for food fishing if it worked well. Or some kid of
electrocution spear.

[[email protected]]

Frank Reid wrote:
> Barry,
> Small club used to stun and kill the fish
> immediately.

I referred to that early on. About 10 years ago, I asked on Compuserver
how I can find fish that were caught by someone who clubbed them as
opposed to just letting them suffocate, but nobody responded. I learned
about those clubs from a fishing show. The guy said that it actually
bothers some people to club the fish. I thought it was rare until now.

[Wolfgang]

> wrote in message
ups.com...

> All I know about fly fishing is that you need little hairy things
> called flies.

It isn't so much a matter of need as it is the fact that if you're out
there, you get 'em. :(

> I didn't have catch and release fisherman or wading in
> mind.

Or much of anything else, for that matter.

>> How many fish do you think die of old age, peacefully in their sleep?
>
> I don't know. I'm just trying to make things easier for the ones on the
> boat with the fisherman who caught them.

Maybe you could make formal introductions. That's always helped a lot in
social encounters in my experience.

> Do they make electrocution lures that electrocute only the fish that's
> caught? That would be a little unsportsmanlike, but that wouldn't
> bother me so much for food fishing if it worked well. Or some kid of
> electrocution spear.

A firecracker tucked well into the mouth works pretty well......and it's
much simpler (and cheaper) than fancy electrical devices.....not to mention
the bother of batteries or the very real risks associated with running a 440
line from shore. Then too, a .44 to the back of the head (.357 will do in a
pinch.....well, for panfish, anyway) rarely fails to do the job quickly and
with a minimum of fuss. Um.....DO remember to take along a bilge pump!

On the other hand, why not simply take the path of least resistance? If the
metaphysical angst of all these traumatized fish (and let us not forget all
of those other finny, feathery, and furry little beasties with......um,
shall we say 'proscribed lives'?) is just too too much for you to bear, why
then you can make it all go away in a flash.....so to speak. Just hold that
..44 real steady......turn it around.......and squeeze. Don't Jerk!
Squeeeeeeze. Nice and easy. Lights out. End of the world. Tie score all
the way around. :)

Wolfgang
to sleep......perchance to dream.....

[riverman]

You know, I've been convinced of the error of my ways.

Anyone know where I can get Lidocaine-impregnated hooks? I intend to
dip them in Betadine before I cast them, just to help with the healing
process. And I will only tie flies from materials harvested from
free-range animals, who died gently in their sleep. And I'll only use
floatant and other chemical materials from companies that refuse to do
animal testing. The tippet and leader material must be biodegradable,
and all labor for my gear, clothing and materials will be from
countries that do not have sweatshops, and have honored the UN
Declaration of Human Rights. I'll stop swatting mosquitoes, but use
Skin-so-soft instead. I'll ensure the gas in my car that I use to get
to the stream was from US fuel reserves, the car is a Hybrid that gets
at least 30 mpg, but I only use it for journeys in excess of 10 miles
(errr, I mean 16 kilometers) when I can't ride my bike, take public
transport or walk, and I will only drink american beer.

--riverman
Well, I might slip up on the beer thing.

[riverman]

"I used to know an older fella (passed away now) would would literally
fillet
his catch of panfish alive. i.e. *never* cut off the head. The fish
went
from stringer to cleaning table and immediately into the bucket, still
alive
but without their flesh. Now that was pretty disgusting."

Yeah, Klaus Barbie. I've heard of him.

--riverman

[[email protected]]

Wolfgang wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...

> > I didn't have catch and release fisherman or wading in
> > mind.
>
> Or much of anything else, for that matter.

I doubt that ANYONE here believes that. Certainly nobody who matters.


> Maybe you could make formal introductions. That's always helped a lot in
> social encounters in my experience.

Maybe you should re-read the replies in this thread. There's nothing
remotely formal about it. If my posts don't apply to the fisherman
here, they're still fishing related. Maybe people should pass on the
information instead of calling me sandwich names.

As for riverman's comments below (if you're reading this by date),
you'd think I was asking people to actually go out of their way for
something. Just put some freaking ice in the water and you could
prevent the pain of suffocation, or club the fish. That's all I'm
saying. Actually, I wasn't even saying anyone should do that until I
was attacked. I was just mentioning that someone said it works.

[Tim J.]

Frank Reid wrote:
> Joined Mensa when I was 16. Joined Tabla too.
> Gave it all up when I found that the vast majority of the folks
> didn't have the sense God gave a goose.

How were the rest of 'em as far as staying upright? I mean, maybe yer
brains make you fellers top-heavy. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

[Frank Reid]

Okay, these were the guys that would be your friend because you had a
hydroponics set-up in your attic. The hydroponics stuff, i.e. the
technical side, was really bitchin.
Hmm, we had one guy that was a tackle on the football team. If we ever
mentioned to anyone that in reality he was truely smart, he'd give you
an atomic wedgie.
Frank Reid

[Dave LaCourse]

On 17 Nov 2005 16:05:51 -0800, wrote:

>though a missing parent might mean death for for baby fish.

You have to either be a moron or a troll.

The "parents" of baby fish will EAT them, given the chance. And if
the baby fish grow bigger and stronger they some day may eat their
"parents". It is one helluva cruel world underneath that water.

wayno said it best: Soup Sandwich

Dave (who has yet to devour one of his offspring)

[Daniel-San]

barry wrote...

> All I know about fly fishing is that you need little hairy things
> called flies. I didn't have catch and release fisherman or wading in
> mind.
>
>

Hairy things? WTF? What's wrong with being a little more hairy than the next
guy? Jeez. Now I'm gonna be used to catch a fish....

Berry, you're a nutjob. Coming close to world-class level. Maybe you mean
well. Hell, I dunno. If you want to have some real fun, find a hunting NG
and start telling everyone how Bambi hates the arrow that suddenly got
shoved where the sun don't shine.

As an aside -- it's nuts like yourself, Berry (I'll call you 'Boysen' -- one
of my faves) that give the far right political wing all the leverage they
need.

"Damned liberals want to outlaw fishing. That ain't right!"
"Better vote for GOPCO's nominee. They'll let us fish in peace And hunt,
too. Nevermind the insidious intrusion of religion into our private lives."

Learn to pick your battles. And, while I'm a layman, I'd really suggest that
you get some therapy.

Dan
Yes, the spelling was intentional.

[Cyli]

On 17 Nov 2005 16:05:51 -0800, wrote:


(Snipped)

> you don't have to throw out every other important detail from me
>and from the woman I quoted.

There were no important details, Sally / Barry. Take my word for it.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[Cyli]

On 17 Nov 2005 18:23:36 -0800, wrote:

>Just put some freaking ice in the water and you could
>prevent the pain of suffocation, or club the fish. That's all I'm
>saying. Actually, I wasn't even saying anyone should do that until I
>was attacked. I was just mentioning that someone said it works.


Sally / Barry, here in Minnesota we have a fly fishing season that's
open January through about the first of April in the few trout streams
that don't ice _completely_ over.

THE FISH COME OUT OF WATER THAT"S GOT ICE IN IT, DOLT. Since it's a
catch and release season, they go right back in the water. And swim
happily away. You can't kill a trout by dumping it in ice water. You
can do a mercy kill on the fish from your aquarium that way, as
they're mostly tropicals, but not sturdy, hardy northern fish.

The reason you're getting answers that lack respect is that you
deserve them. You're neither respectable in your views of fish and
fishing nor respectful of others. Go now.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[Cyli]

On 17 Nov 2005 18:11:51 -0800, "riverman" > wrote:

(Snipped)

>I'll ensure the gas in my car that I use to get
>to the stream was from US fuel reserves

Isn't it going to cost you extra to have that imported to your
locality? Whichever foreign one you happen to be in at any given
moment?

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[[email protected]]

Daniel-San wrote:
> barry wrote...
>
> > All I know about fly fishing is that you need little hairy things
> > called flies. I didn't have catch and release fisherman or wading in
> > mind.
> >
> >
>
> Hairy things? WTF? What's wrong with being a little more hairy than the next
> guy? Jeez. Now I'm gonna be used to catch a fish....
>
> Berry, you're a nutjob....And, while I'm a layman, I'd really suggest that
> you get some therapy.

What are you talking about? I think I've seen "flies" sold for fishing,
and I thought they were hairy. Yeah, like these:
http://www.sea-ex.com/simkan/gallery.htm

[[email protected]]

Cyli wrote:

> THE FISH COME OUT OF WATER THAT"S GOT ICE IN IT, DOLT. Since it's a
> catch and release season, they go right back in the water. And swim
> happily away. You can't kill a trout by dumping it in ice water. You
> can do a mercy kill on the fish from your aquarium that way, as
> they're mostly tropicals, but not sturdy, hardy northern fish.

> The reason you're getting answers that lack respect is that you
> deserve them. You're neither respectable in your views of fish and
> fishing nor respectful of others. Go now.

Again, I need an example of my disrespect. Remember to consider what
I'm replying to.

Catch and release isn't what I had in mind, so maybe this doesn't
apply. For other fishing, the ice is meant to anesthetize the fish, as
it says in the original post. If a fish won't stay in the icy container
you put it in, then it won't work, though I'm thinking you can cover it
or use a deep container. If it doesn't work, that doesn't make me a
dolt. It make me someone who wants to prevent thousands of cases of
suffering per day, and the lack of support here, and lack of complaints
about people like you makes this newsgroup suck.

[[email protected]]

Dave LaCourse wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2005 16:05:51 -0800, wrote:
>
> >though a missing parent might mean death for for baby fish.
>
> You have to either be a moron or a troll.
>
> The "parents" of baby fish will EAT them, given the chance. And if
> the baby fish grow bigger and stronger they some day may eat their
> "parents". It is one helluva cruel world underneath that water.

It's a helluva big world underneath that water too, and I doubt what
you say is true for all fish, but after the sentence you quoted I said
I don't really know enough about fish to know. I'm a moron or troll for
that?

[riverman]

Not knowing and not caring are different things. Do you care if the
grass hurts when you walk on it? Do you care if a housefly suffers
needlessly when its plastered up against the sunny window in your
kitchen? Do you care how the WORM feels when its being dangled in front
of the fish?

Pain and suffering are a reality of life for <every single species of
animal life on the planet>. Humans may be unique in their ability to
reduce pain for humankind; that makes our particular trait rather
unnatural. To grant this to pets and other animals we have made a
personal bond to is touching, but a bit specie-centric. To extend this
to fish you are catching with the intent to kill and eat would be way
outside the rules of nature, it seems to me. They wouldn't do it for
us.

--riverman

[riverman]

On 17 Nov 2005 18:11:51 -0800, "riverman" > wrote:


(Snipped)



>I'll ensure the gas in my car that I use to get
>to the stream was from US fuel reserves


>Isn't it going to cost you extra to have that imported to your
>locality? Whichever foreign one you happen to be in at any given
>moment?

Not really. In the World According To Bush, its ALL ours. :-)

--riverman

[riverman]

"It make me someone who wants to prevent thousands of cases of
suffering per day..."

Thousands?? I bet the number is closer to the tens of millions, if you
consider all those deep see trawlers. Hmmm, where are they going to get
all that ice...

"...and the lack of support here, and lack of complaints
about people like you makes this newsgroup suck."

Soupsandwich, I suggest you don't let the swinging door hit you on the
ass on the way out. There may be a bug on it that would suffer
needlessly.

--riverman

[Cyli]

On 17 Nov 2005 21:51:29 -0800, wrote:

>Cyli wrote:
>
>> There were no important details, Sally / Barry. Take my word for it.
>
>Sorry, you'll actually have to point out something I said and argue
>against it.

Not if I regard what you said as unworthy of discussion and you as an
unworthy person to discuss things.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[riverman]

So whats the game? It didn't sell over at talk.politics.animal, so you
posted it here to see if you could get a rise?

http://tinyurl.com/cp2zw

--riverman

[Thomas Littleton]

> wrote in message
> Sorry, you'll actually have to point out something I said and argue
> against it. Don't you think it's good to know that ice could
> anesthetize fish? Do you think that fish suffer when they're dying
> after being caught?
>

dude, you've spent the better part of a day making it perfectly clear that
you have no clue what we do, and how. Perhaps an ice bucket to anesthetize
you before you babble more might be an idea....no, wait,
this thread is too much fun, and the weekend reading might be priceless!<g>
Tom

[[email protected]]

riverman wrote:
> So whats the game? It didn't sell over at talk.politics.animal, so you
> posted it here to see if you could get a rise?

I'm not looking for a rise. I'm just posting it in appropriate
newsgroups. I think there might be one more, but cross-posting is
frowned upon, and I've been rethinking the ideas about what's least
painful. Maybe I'd ice the fish, then cut of it's head while it's
alive, but I don't think that's what Sarah Fox suggested (I wish Google
Groups would let me review the thread as I'm replying). Too bad there's
no official word on what's best.

And yes, I give insects at least a little thought too. If I squish
them, I squish them extra hard, and I still wonder if I'm doing the
right thing. I wish that was seen as too cruel rather than too
bug-loving. I won't worry about plants until I hear that they might
suffer.

[Wolfgang]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>
>> > I didn't have catch and release fisherman or wading in
>> > mind.
>>
>> Or much of anything else, for that matter.
>
> I doubt that ANYONE here believes that. Certainly nobody who matters.

Well, that raises an interesting question. Who among us really does matter?
I mean, I'm perfectly willing to concede your point......nobody who believes
what I say matters. But then we find ourselves in the rather peculiar
position of having to admit that there are particular people who are worth
less than ANY fish, ALL of which we KNOW matter, else why would we be
concerned about easing their path into that good night, right? But wait!
Common sense dictates that agreeing with me on one minor issue (after all,
the nature, volume, condition, or psig of what resides between your ears is
not likely to be regarded as an issue of great import by any thinking
person) can hardly be the only test by which an individual's worth can be
determined. There must be someone....somewhere....who isn't even aware of
what I think about all of this. So, what test shall we apply in these
cases? I sure wish you would help me out here.

>> Maybe you could make formal introductions. That's always helped a lot in
>> social encounters in my experience.
>
> Maybe you should re-read the replies in this thread. There's nothing
> remotely formal about it.

Exactly! That's my point! In all of these casual encounters, nobody pays
much attention to the time honored niceties of the ettiquette of killing
precisely because they ARE casual. It's just another example of the
pervasive erosion of civility that follows inevitably from the blithe
acceptance of an increasingly permissive society. I swear to you that if
you would simply bend your considerable intellect and energies to the formal
introduction of fishermen (and women, let us not forget) to their partners
in this dance of death (the fish, in case you've lost track) you would see
an immediate difference. Implausible it may seem, but I wouldn't be a bit
surprised if, once they got to know one another as individuals, they didn't
soon cease these senseless hostilities and, recognizing one another's worth,
decided to have crumpets together instead.

> If my posts don't apply to the fisherman
> here,

We'll ask him......as soon as he arrives. You see, he isn't actually here
right now. As a matter of fact, we haven't heard much from him at all
lately. We're starting to get a little worried. :(

> they're still fishing related.

Who could doubt it? Has anyone said they are not? If so, name the bounder
and I will personally see to it that he is severely chastized and/or
rebuked.

> Maybe people should pass on the
> information instead of calling me sandwich names.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I think just about everyone
here has already passed on the information. That's sort of what they've
been trying to tell you. Oh, and a rube is not a sandwich......you're
probably confusing it with a Reuben.

> As for riverman's comments below (if you're reading this by date),

I'm actually reading this by candlelight, but I don't think that should make
a great deal of difference. Please, do go on.

> you'd think I was asking people to actually go out of their way for
> something. Just put some freaking ice in the water and you could
> prevent the pain of suffocation, or club the fish.

Actually, you ARE asking people to go out of their way. Streamside ice
machines may be a common feature where you live, but here in the upper Great
Lakes region they just haven't caught on.......yet. As things stand (by
date) a fisherman (or woman) here would have to walk all the way out of the
stream, climb up an often slippery bank (the stairs are typically in a
terrible state of repair due to budget cuts), and stumble around in the
woods for miles and hours searching for the nearest ice. Well, actually,
it's not all that bad in the winter......but in July or August scaling the
fish would be moot by the time a sufficent quantity of ice could be found.
And THEN there's still the problem of carrying sufficient loose change to
plug into the machine.....IF it's even working!

> That's all I'm saying.

It's enough.....believe me. Um......oh yeah, I guess that puts us right
back where we started, huh?

> Actually, I wasn't even saying anyone should do that until I
> was attacked.

Attacked? Oh, dear Sparky, you ain't seen nuthin' yet. :)

> I was just mentioning that someone said it works.

Oh.....well.....if that's all......

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> ...I won't worry about plants until I hear that they might
> suffer.

I can hear broccoli scream when I drop it in boiling water. This is why I
always put it in ice cold water and then heat it very slowly over a low
flame. It takes an hour or so for it to come to a boil. The broccoli never
knows what hits it. :)

Baby lima beans cry when I eat their parents. :(

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Dave LaCourse" > wrote in message
...

> Dave (who has yet to devour one of his offspring)

Neptune......being ironic. :)

Wolfgang
goya knew.

[rw]

Wolfgang wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Wolfgang wrote:
>>
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>>>>I didn't have catch and release fisherman or wading in
>>>>mind.
>>>
>>>Or much of anything else, for that matter.
>>
>>I doubt that ANYONE here believes that. Certainly nobody who matters.
>
>
> Well, that raises an interesting question. Who among us really does matter?
> I mean, I'm perfectly willing to concede your point......nobody who believes
> what I say matters. But then we find ourselves in the rather peculiar
> position of having to admit that there are particular people who are worth
> less than ANY fish, ALL of which we KNOW matter, else why would we be
> concerned about easing their path into that good night, right? But wait!
> Common sense dictates that agreeing with me on one minor issue (after all,
> the nature, volume, condition, or psig of what resides between your ears is
> not likely to be regarded as an issue of great import by any thinking
> person) can hardly be the only test by which an individual's worth can be
> determined. There must be someone....somewhere....who isn't even aware of
> what I think about all of this. So, what test shall we apply in these
> cases? I sure wish you would help me out here.
>
>
>>>Maybe you could make formal introductions. That's always helped a lot in
>>>social encounters in my experience.
>>
>>Maybe you should re-read the replies in this thread. There's nothing
>>remotely formal about it.
>
>
> Exactly! That's my point! In all of these casual encounters, nobody pays
> much attention to the time honored niceties of the ettiquette of killing
> precisely because they ARE casual. It's just another example of the
> pervasive erosion of civility that follows inevitably from the blithe
> acceptance of an increasingly permissive society. I swear to you that if
> you would simply bend your considerable intellect and energies to the formal
> introduction of fishermen (and women, let us not forget) to their partners
> in this dance of death (the fish, in case you've lost track) you would see
> an immediate difference. Implausible it may seem, but I wouldn't be a bit
> surprised if, once they got to know one another as individuals, they didn't
> soon cease these senseless hostilities and, recognizing one another's worth,
> decided to have crumpets together instead.
>
>
>>If my posts don't apply to the fisherman
>>here,
>
>
> We'll ask him......as soon as he arrives. You see, he isn't actually here
> right now. As a matter of fact, we haven't heard much from him at all
> lately. We're starting to get a little worried. :(
>
>
>>they're still fishing related.
>
>
> Who could doubt it? Has anyone said they are not? If so, name the bounder
> and I will personally see to it that he is severely chastized and/or
> rebuked.
>
>
>>Maybe people should pass on the
>>information instead of calling me sandwich names.
>
>
> Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I think just about everyone
> here has already passed on the information. That's sort of what they've
> been trying to tell you. Oh, and a rube is not a sandwich......you're
> probably confusing it with a Reuben.
>
>
>>As for riverman's comments below (if you're reading this by date),
>
>
> I'm actually reading this by candlelight, but I don't think that should make
> a great deal of difference. Please, do go on.
>
>
>>you'd think I was asking people to actually go out of their way for
>>something. Just put some freaking ice in the water and you could
>>prevent the pain of suffocation, or club the fish.
>
>
> Actually, you ARE asking people to go out of their way. Streamside ice
> machines may be a common feature where you live, but here in the upper Great
> Lakes region they just haven't caught on.......yet. As things stand (by
> date) a fisherman (or woman) here would have to walk all the way out of the
> stream, climb up an often slippery bank (the stairs are typically in a
> terrible state of repair due to budget cuts), and stumble around in the
> woods for miles and hours searching for the nearest ice. Well, actually,
> it's not all that bad in the winter......but in July or August scaling the
> fish would be moot by the time a sufficent quantity of ice could be found.
> And THEN there's still the problem of carrying sufficient loose change to
> plug into the machine.....IF it's even working!
>
>
>>That's all I'm saying.
>
>
> It's enough.....believe me. Um......oh yeah, I guess that puts us right
> back where we started, huh?
>
>
>>Actually, I wasn't even saying anyone should do that until I
>>was attacked.
>
>
> Attacked? Oh, dear Sparky, you ain't seen nuthin' yet. :)
>
>
>>I was just mentioning that someone said it works.
>
>
> Oh.....well.....if that's all......
>
> Wolfgang
>
>

Never argue with a fool. Others might not be able to tell the difference.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wolfgang]

"rw" > wrote in message
k.net...

> Never argue with a fool. Others might not be able to tell the difference.

Hee, hee, hee.

Wolfgang
wondering what descriptive label one might profitably apply to one who WILL
NOT learn. :)

[Jeff Miller]

jeffc wrote:

> ... The fish went
> from stringer to cleaning table and immediately into the bucket, still alive
> but without their flesh.
>
>

jeez...you haven't been married long enough to be writing stuff like
that. wait a few more years and you'll be in the "still alive but
without their soul" stage.

jeff (who'd be amazed to see a fleshless fish swimmin in a bucket...but
who has seen numerous mindless humans who shoulda been "skinned".)

[Wolfgang]

"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
news:Fwjff.25141$0l5.14998@dukeread06...
> jeffc wrote:
>
>> ... The fish went from stringer to cleaning table and immediately into
>> the bucket, still alive but without their flesh.
>
> jeez...you haven't been married long enough to be writing stuff like that.
> wait a few more years and you'll be in the "still alive but without their
> soul" stage.
>
> jeff (who'd be amazed to see a fleshless fish swimmin in a bucket...but
> who has seen numerous mindless humans who shoulda been "skinned".)

I once saw a gutless fish swimming.....well, finning and holding it's
position in a stream.

Wolfgang
who will forego commenting on the too too obvious human parallels. :)

[asadi]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Cyli wrote:
>
>> THE FISH COME OUT OF WATER THAT"S GOT ICE IN IT, DOLT. Since it's a
>> catch and release season, they go right back in the water. And swim
>> happily away. You can't kill a trout by dumping it in ice water. You
>> can do a mercy kill on the fish from your aquarium that way, as
>> they're mostly tropicals, but not sturdy, hardy northern fish.
>
>> The reason you're getting answers that lack respect is that you
>> deserve them. You're neither respectable in your views of fish and
>> fishing nor respectful of others. Go now.
>
> Again, I need an example of my disrespect. Remember to consider what
> I'm replying to.
>
> Catch and release isn't what I had in mind, so maybe this doesn't
> apply. For other fishing, the ice is meant to anesthetize the fish, as
> it says in the original post. If a fish won't stay in the icy container
> you put it in, then it won't work, though I'm thinking you can cover it
> or use a deep container. If it doesn't work, that doesn't make me a
> dolt. It make me someone who wants to prevent thousands of cases of
> suffering per day, and the lack of support here, and lack of complaints
> about people like you makes this newsgroup suck.
>

Thousands of cases of suffering....? This group sucks - for you , because
this is the wrong group to talk about killing fish.

john

[Stan Gula]

jeffc wrote:
> ... The fish went
> from stringer to cleaning table and immediately into the bucket, still
alive
> but without their flesh.

Jeff Miller wrote:
> jeez...you haven't been married long enough to be writing stuff like
> that. wait a few more years and you'll be in the "still alive but
> without their soul" stage.

Cold, cold, cold. Good thing my coffee cooled down because that would have
been a painful splork.

Still wondering why people are messing with this troll.

--
Stan Gula
http://gula.org/roffswaps
(hairy little flies, and some big ones too, but no soup sandwiches for you!)

[Frank Reid]

I think its because either he is either the most clueless person we've
ever encountered on this newsgroup or we are being toyed with by
greatness. If its the former, its kinda like poking an anthill with a
stick (black ants, not red). If its the latter, I want to be his
agent.
Frank Reid

[Conan The Librarian]

wrote:

> I'm not looking for a rise. I'm just posting it in appropriate
> newsgroups. I think there might be one more, but cross-posting is
> frowned upon, and I've been rethinking the ideas about what's least
> painful.

Trust me, there are plenty of other groups that would just love to
read your original troll.

Well, lookee here, I found a thread that might interest you. Too
bad it's old: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U22B42E2C

> Maybe I'd ice the fish, then cut of it's head while it's
> alive, but I don't think that's what Sarah Fox suggested (I wish Google
> Groups would let me review the thread as I'm replying). Too bad there's
> no official word on what's best.

"Officials" have better things to do than sit around and wonder if
baby fishes are traumatized when mama and papa fish are taken away, or
if a fish would prefer to be thrown in a bucket of ice water.

A question for you: Did you know that big fish eat little fish?

> And yes, I give insects at least a little thought too. If I squish
> them, I squish them extra hard, and I still wonder if I'm doing the
> right thing. I wish that was seen as too cruel rather than too
> bug-loving. I won't worry about plants until I hear that they might
> suffer.

I always put my tomatoes in an ice water bath as soon as I pull them
from the vine. You just can't be too careful these days.


Chuck Vance (supporting a kinder, gentler salad)

[[email protected]]

On 17 Nov 2005 22:10:31 -0800, wrote:

>Again, I need an example of my disrespect.

Well, first, not so much as a "by your leave, your most serene Grace,"
and then, SOMEONE forgot to curtsy...and I don't mean one of those rude
little hardly noticeable knee-flex moves, I mean a real honest-to-God,
presented-to-the-Queen debutante-shaming curtsy....

[Wolfgang]

"Stan Gula" > wrote in message
news:hxkff.15618$Sb.2306@trndny06...

> ...Still wondering why people are messing with this troll.

Mallory.....the mountain.....all that. :)

Wolfgang

[Dave LaCourse]

On 17 Nov 2005 22:14:05 -0800, wrote:

>and I doubt what
>you say is true for all fish

Ah, yes. I can see it now. Mama Trout watching her eggs turn into
iddy biddy fishes and she says to Dada Trout. "Oh, look. She has
your ears and my eyes and nose. We'll name her Henrietta after you
and me."

Once the eggs are hatched, the "parents" could shif a git what happens
to them, and when a baby trout (baby?) gets to be a little bigger, say
two inches, Mama or Dada would eat it in a NY second. *Now* we're
talking about pain.

[[email protected]]

On 18 Nov 2005 05:26:09 -0800, "Frank Reid" >
wrote:

>I think its because either he is either the most clueless person we've
>ever encountered on this newsgroup or we are being toyed with by
>greatness. If its the former, its kinda like poking an anthill with a
>stick (black ants, not red). If its the latter, I want to be his
>agent.

Um, assuming it to be only one or the other, what difference does it
make as far as all the conversation/arguing with and/or "explaining
things" to good ol' Barry the compassionate? "Barry" got what "he"
wanted the instant anything was taken (even the least bit)
seriously...and speaking of clueless, let's look back, shall we?

<wiggly picture-wiggly picture-wiggly picture>

"I found this on the web, but it's not there anymore for anyone to check
or anything. I don't really fish...well, except a couple times and
there was this high-dollar eel...anyway, so I thought I'd preserve this
venerable scre...er, treatise somehow, and so, TA-DA!!! HERE I IS!!!"
(picture a transsexual with an ice chest full of fish popping out of a
cake if it'll help - it probably won't...)

And thus, spaketh the Lord, the battle was joined -
Extra Consonants 12,945:1-3
"And amongeth them were brave ROFFian soldiers who stepped uppeth to
engageth, correct and otherwiseth educateth the interloper..."

Might I suggest yet a third possibility? Have you considered clueless
versus clueless? Not naming any names, mind you, merely suggesting the
concept for your consideration....

HTH (no, really),
R

[Tom Nakashima]

"Dave LaCourse" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ah, yes. I can see it now. Mama Trout watching her eggs turn into
> iddy biddy fishes and she says to Dada Trout. "Oh, look. She has
> your ears and my eyes and nose. We'll name her Henrietta after you
> and me."
>

Tobiko!
http://www.origamirestaurant.com/sushi/images/sushi_seasoned_tobiko.jpg
guys are making me hungry now.
-tom

[Daniel-San]

barry wrote ...
> Daniel-San wrote:
>> barry wrote...
>>
>> > All I know about fly fishing is that you need little hairy things
>> > called flies. I didn't have catch and release fisherman or wading in
>> > mind.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Hairy things? WTF? What's wrong with being a little more hairy than the
>> next
>> guy? Jeez. Now I'm gonna be used to catch a fish....
>>
>> Berry, you're a nutjob....And, while I'm a layman, I'd really suggest
>> that
>> you get some therapy.
>
> What are you talking about? I think I've seen "flies" sold for fishing,
> and I thought they were hairy. Yeah, like these:
> http://www.sea-ex.com/simkan/gallery.htm


Boysen,

That's called sarcasm. Admittedly a rather weak version thereof, but sarcasm
nonetheless.

As far as trolls go, I have to give you some credit. Even the legendary
Vandetroll on RB usually only replies once or twice to his diatribes. Then
he calls everyone a liar and loses interest. You, OTOH, have some staying
power. You've replied to almost everyone. Impressive.

You either feign ignorance in order to promulgate this 'ice is nicer' line,
or you truly are ignorant. Either way, you're a nutjob. Go find a PETA
meeting and talk about fish families. Someone there will surely give you a
shoulder to cry on. Maybe more. Just be careful -- given the author of your
OP, you never know what you'll find.

Dan
"I know all I need to know about the Crying Game.... "

[asadi]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> ...I won't worry about plants until I hear that they might
>> suffer.
>
> I can hear broccoli scream when I drop it in boiling water. This is why I
> always put it in ice cold water and then heat it very slowly over a low
> flame. It takes an hour or so for it to come to a boil. The broccoli
> never knows what hits it. :)
>
> Baby lima beans cry when I eat their parents. :(
>
> Wolfgang
>

I tried to hard boil an egg in the microwave. When it blew, grown chickens
were weeping....

john

[Conan The Librarian]

asadi wrote:

> I tried to hard boil an egg in the microwave. When it blew, grown chickens
> were weeping....

Babykiller!


Chuck Vance

[Frank Reid]

Well Tom, seems like you're just trying to stir the controversy pot.
There are some that enjoy tobiko and others, namely most of the catch
and release fishermen here in this group that thinks tobiko is
unethical and would rather just head out in the stream and go fish.
Its a Roe V. Wade kinda thing.

Frank Reid
(who's been waiting years for this opportunity)

[Tom Nakashima]

"Frank Reid" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Well Tom, seems like you're just trying to stir the controversy pot.
> There are some that enjoy tobiko and others, namely most of the catch
> and release fishermen here in this group that thinks tobiko is
> unethical and would rather just head out in the stream and go fish.
> Its a Roe V. Wade kinda thing.
>
> Frank Reid
> (who's been waiting years for this opportunity)
>

Frank, I'm sending Senator D. Feinstein (D) to awake you in your deepest
sleep to discuss this matter on Roe vs. Wade. Make sure you have a good
fresh catch on hand, cause she loves raw fish.

btw, the spell check for tobiko is tobacco.
-tom

[Wayne Knight]

Frank Reid wrote:

> Its a Roe V. Wade kinda thing.

What does evacuating New Orleans have to do with this?

[Tom Nakashima]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Frank Reid wrote:
>
>> Its a Roe V. Wade kinda thing.
>
> What does evacuating New Orleans have to do with this?
>

It was Miss V. Roe who had to wade out to the rescue team when her house was
flooded in New Orleans.
-tom

[[email protected]]

I must thank you all for making my argument that the industry can't
effectively self-regulate or even be trusted to provide guidelines for
the least painful method of handling fish. I'll be using this in the
future.

[Dave LaCourse]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 07:01:08 -0800, "Tom Nakashima"
> wrote:

>Tobiko!
>http://www.origamirestaurant.com/sushi/images/sushi_seasoned_tobiko.jpg
> guys are making me hungry now.

While stationed 15 miles west of Yokohama in the 50s, I ate sushi
before it became a popular U.S. dish, and yes, that included the eggs.
But my favorite Japanese food was pizza from the Marko Polo Restaurant
in Chinatown, Yokohama, with its "mystery" meat on top. It was
supposed to be pepperoni, but it only *resembled* pepperoni. It was
the only pizza joint in Yokohama.

[Stan Gula]

wrote:
<snipped for the sake of the fish children>

Wowee, wow, this is mind boggling. I'm thinking blinding headaches are
involved somehow.
--
Stan Gula
http://gula.org/roffswaps

[rw]

Dave LaCourse wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 07:01:08 -0800, "Tom Nakashima"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Tobiko!
>>http://www.origamirestaurant.com/sushi/images/sushi_seasoned_tobiko.jpg
>>guys are making me hungry now.
>
>
> While stationed 15 miles west of Yokohama in the 50s, I ate sushi
> before it became a popular U.S. dish, and yes, that included the eggs.
> But my favorite Japanese food was pizza from the Marko Polo Restaurant
> in Chinatown, Yokohama, with its "mystery" meat on top. It was
> supposed to be pepperoni, but it only *resembled* pepperoni.

Probably pickled lamprey.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[opie]

"riverman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> "It make me someone who wants to prevent thousands of cases of
> suffering per day..."
>
> Thousands?? I bet the number is closer to the tens of millions, if you
> consider all those deep see trawlers. Hmmm, where are they going to get
> all that ice...

Tens Of Millions? Hell the fgure has got to be in the neighborhood of
hundreds of billions of suffering, pain filled fishes!

I have to side with Soupy on this one. I think he/she/it has a
psychotically psychic connection to the fishies. Think about it, all of
those fishes with their skulls being bashed-in by all of those Catholic
church leaders. And then, suppose just one of those fishies escapes the
brutal beating only to be devoured bit by bit by it's own mother?! Oh the
HUMIDIY of it all!

> "...and the lack of support here, and lack of complaints
> about people like you makes this newsgroup suck."
>
> Soupsandwich, I suggest you don't let the swinging door hit you on the
> ass on the way out. There may be a bug on it that would suffer
> needlessly.

Once again, I have to agree with Soupy. I am giving up this dastardly NG
and flyfishing FOREVER! I have already bsted up all of my flyrods and I am
presently in the process of untying all of my flyz and will release all of
the hooks back to the wilds from which they came, first thing in the morn,
immediately after my usual breakfast of raw eggs, steak and baby kittens.

Love,

Opie

> --riverman
>

[Wolfgang]

"opie" > wrote in message
...
>
> "riverman" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> "It make me someone who wants to prevent thousands of cases of
>> suffering per day..."
>>
>> Thousands?? I bet the number is closer to the tens of millions, if you
>> consider all those deep see trawlers. Hmmm, where are they going to get
>> all that ice...
>
> Tens Of Millions? Hell the fgure has got to be in the neighborhood of
> hundreds of billions of suffering, pain filled fishes!
>
> I have to side with Soupy on this one. I think he/she/it has a
> psychotically psychic connection to the fishies. Think about it, all of
> those fishes with their skulls being bashed-in by all of those Catholic
> church leaders. And then, suppose just one of those fishies escapes the
> brutal beating only to be devoured bit by bit by it's own mother?! Oh the
> HUMIDIY of it all!
>
>> "...and the lack of support here, and lack of complaints
>> about people like you makes this newsgroup suck."
>>
>> Soupsandwich, I suggest you don't let the swinging door hit you on the
>> ass on the way out. There may be a bug on it that would suffer
>> needlessly.
>
> Once again, I have to agree with Soupy. I am giving up this dastardly NG
> and flyfishing FOREVER! I have already bsted up all of my flyrods and I
> am presently in the process of untying all of my flyz and will release all
> of the hooks back to the wilds from which they came, first thing in the
> morn, immediately after my usual breakfast of raw eggs, steak and baby
> kittens.
>
> Love,
>
> Opie

Hm......

Haste is ever the sworn enemy of reason. About those flies........

Raised in captivity.....doubtless with all the love and affection a
dedicated environmentalist (not to mention a proud surrogate parent) could
possibly lavish on them......they are simply not equipped, either by nature
or by nurture, to deal with a sudden release (in toto or piecemeal) into
the wild. I won't try to horrify you or burden you with guilt with grizzly
descriptions of the bloody and painful fate awaiting them at the murderous
claws and jaws of their enemies (natural or otherwise) just the other side
of the picket fence. Fortunately, there is a humane alternative. The Save
A Fly foundation is ever ready (despite the swindling funds that always
follow on the heels of a languishing economy and governmental cutbacks) to
provide them with a good home.

You know the address.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> ...despite the [deleted] funds that always...

Oops!.......heh heh....."D"windling......... :)

Wolfgang
for the foundation.

[riverman]

So what are you; Anti-egg or Pro-chicken??

--riverman
(and which came first?)

[Mike Connor]

The fish are already pretty clean, all that biological detergent works
wonders.

TL
MC

[Cyli]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:39:35 -0600, wrote:

(snipped)

>(picture a transsexual with an ice chest full of fish popping out of a
>cake if it'll help - it probably won't...)

Very evocative.

That brought up some awful images in my mind. Him / her popping out
of a cake, icy fish popping out of his / her chest. Thank all the
gods and goddesses that my mind went to grey right there.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[Thomas Littleton]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I must thank you all for making my argument that the industry can't
> effectively self-regulate or even be trusted to provide guidelines for
> the least painful method of handling fish. I'll be using this in the
> future.
>

Industry??

Tom

[Dave LaCourse]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:52:54 GMT, rw >
wrote:

>Dave LaCourse wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 07:01:08 -0800, "Tom Nakashima"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tobiko!
>>>http://www.origamirestaurant.com/sushi/images/sushi_seasoned_tobiko.jpg
>>>guys are making me hungry now.
>>
>>
>> While stationed 15 miles west of Yokohama in the 50s, I ate sushi
>> before it became a popular U.S. dish, and yes, that included the eggs.
>> But my favorite Japanese food was pizza from the Marko Polo Restaurant
>> in Chinatown, Yokohama, with its "mystery" meat on top. It was
>> supposed to be pepperoni, but it only *resembled* pepperoni.
>
>Probably pickled lamprey.

One could hope. We thought it was dog sausage.

[riverman]

So let me see if I get this right.

You post a bunch of insane crap on a fishing newsgroup, get a
less-than-warm response, and then decide that because a bunch of C&R
fishermen who think its idiotic to stand waist deep in icy water with a
cooler around their neck to anaesthetize some fish they plan on
releasing anyway give you a boatload of well deserved crap, that
somehow they represent the 'industry' and as such, you'd rather value
the opinions of people who you believe will already be more aligned
with your point of view in the first place.

Got it. Good luck with your political website, and have a nice life.

--riverman

Oh, and watch the door on the way out.

[Frank Reid]

> So let me see if I get this right.
>
> You post a bunch of insane crap on a fishing newsgroup, get a
> less-than-warm response, and then decide that because a bunch of C&R
> fishermen who think its idiotic to stand waist deep in icy water with a
> cooler around their neck to anaesthetize some fish they plan on
> releasing anyway give you a boatload of well deserved crap, that
> somehow they represent the 'industry' and as such, you'd rather value
> the opinions of people who you believe will already be more aligned
> with your point of view in the first place.
>
> Got it. Good luck with your political website, and have a nice life.
>
> --riverman
>
> Oh, and watch the door on the way out.

Not one whit of a beautiful summation snipped. One comment, you need two
coolers of ice (one with water, one without) to do what Barry's asking.
--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

[[email protected]]

riverman wrote:
> So let me see if I get this right.
>
> You post a bunch of insane crap on a fishing newsgroup, get a
> less-than-warm response

Be specific about the "insane crap" in my posts. "Less-than-warm" isn't
an appropriate description of the responses.


> and then decide that because a bunch of C&R
> fishermen who think its idiotic to stand waist deep in icy water with a
> cooler around their neck to anaesthetize some fish they plan on
> releasing anyway give you a boatload of well deserved crap

When that was mentioned on two occasions, I agreed that the ice
technique wouldn't be practical for them. I posted to a fly fishing
newsgroup, not a catch and release newsgroup, but more importantly, I
posted fishing-related information that might, in some cases, prevent
an incredible amount of suffering and be practical. I did have a
preconceived notion of people who would fish for sport, but I didn't
speak to any of you with that notion in mind, until I learned the way
you are from personal experience, and I'm still showing restraint.


> somehow they represent the 'industry' and as such, you'd rather value
> the opinions of people who you believe will already be more aligned
> with your point of view in the first place.

You all represent non-commercial fisherman in an unofficial way, which
is who this information applies in general, though it doesn't apply to
catch and release.

I'm absolutely not looking for people who are aligned with my point of
view. At this point, I'm looking for civilized experts, by any sane
standard (no name calling, no unreasoned insults, etc.) in animal
welfare to give me their opinion. If I thought I had enough information
to form a solid opinion, I wouldn't seek more. I think heard enough to
justify a post here though.

[[email protected]]

Frank Reid wrote:
One comment, you need two
> coolers of ice (one with water, one without) to do what Barry's asking.

In my original post, I quote Sarah Fox saying:

"One thing we did that helped was to "cold-anesthetize" the fish before

killing them. This was very easy: We dumped ice in the fish bucket.
Because the fish are cold blooded, loss of body heat is not distressing

to them, at least in the same sense as it would be to a bird or
mammal."

Sounds like one bucket is all you need. But I never really "asked"
anything in the beginning of this thread. Eventually, I said something
like "just put some freaking ice in the bucket" when someone who didn't
get it was being sarcastic.

[rw]

wrote:
> riverman wrote:
>
>>So let me see if I get this right.
>>
>>You post a bunch of insane crap on a fishing newsgroup, get a
>>less-than-warm response
>
>
> Be specific about the "insane crap" in my posts. "Less-than-warm" isn't
> an appropriate description of the responses.

The figure of speech Myron used is called litotes: Deliberate
understatement, especially when expressing a thought by denying its
opposite. It's a common and witty manner of expressing contempt,
completely within the bounds of polite discourse. Now the "insane crap"
is something else. :-)

Like at least one other person, I can't decide whether you're a
brilliant troll or the world's biggest fool. I'm leaning toward fool,
because I've never seen a troll that good. Not even close.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Mike Connor]

> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...
<SNIP>
> Be specific about the "insane crap" in my posts. "Less-than-warm" isn't
> an appropriate description of the responses.

My dear old fruitcake, if we were infected with your particular strain of
insanity, we would not be fishing. Precisely this, some might say extremely
fortunate lack of insanity, also prevents us from being at all moved by
such nonsense. In other words, most of the eminently sensible people here
think you are misguided.

Your posts are based on the false premise that fish "suffer". This is
physiologically impossible for fish, their brains and nervous systems are
not highly developed enough to allow them to "suffer". The only unnecessary
suffering going on around here is yours, and you are apparently attempting
to inflict a portion of it on us.

The simplest and most humane method of killing a fish, as some posters have
already explained to you, is to stun it with a blow to the head, it will
then either die outright, or suffocate while stunned. Nobody here would be
intentionally inhumane to a fish, for the most part they are obsessed with
fish, and their welfare.

If your goal is to obviate unecessary suffering, then your course of action
must be clear. Depart, and take your suffering with you.

MC

[riverman]

And what bucket would that be?

You still don't get it, do you?

--riverman
(enjoying this less and less. Its getting close to the wolfing hour, I
believe...)

[Wolfgang]

"riverman" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> And what bucket would that be?
>
> You still don't get it, do you?
>
> --riverman
> (enjoying this less and less. Its getting close to the wolfing hour, I
> believe...)

Hm......

That would be about the hour that some of us begin enjoying it more and
more, I believe. :)

Wolfgang
who has a hard time understanding why so many find the lunatic fringe
anything other than amusing.

[[email protected]]

Mike Connor wrote:

> Your posts are based on the false premise that fish "suffer". This is
> physiologically impossible for fish, their brains and nervous systems are
> not highly developed enough to allow them to "suffer".

The PHD I quoted disagrees with you. Maybe you think she's a fake. I
guess you think she's wrong about:

"As a neurobiologist, I've done quite a lot of work on cold-blooded
animals. It is an outright myth that they don't feel pain. They do.
I've personally recorded from nerve cells that transmit pain
information to the brain, so I know the pain information is there. An
animal would certainly have a difficult time surviving if it were
unconcerned about bodily injury, so pain pathways are quite necessary
in all animals!"

Am I so crazy and deserving of all this crap talk for thinking that it
might be true? Would you mind providing a reference for your statement
that it's impossible for fish to suffer? I've heard people argue that
there aren't enough cells in a fish's mouth to feel pain, so I won't
argue about that, but I already mentioned the fishing show I saw where
they demonstrated clubbing the fish so it doesn't suffer.


> The simplest and most humane method of killing a fish, as some posters have
> already explained to you, is to stun it with a blow to the head, it will
> then either die outright, or suffocate while stunned.

But you just said that fish can't suffer, so why club a fish to be
humane when they won't suffer anyway?

Anyway, that's one explanation I didn't need, since I was the first one
to mention the blow to the head, at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.outdoors.fishing.fly/msg/2e5f433eaf2dce39
where I said "I also heard that some people hit the fish in the head to
knock it out.
I wish SOME kind of humane treatment for fish was regulated." So, yes,
that might be acceptable too.


> Nobody here would be
> intentionally inhumane to a fish, for the most part they are obsessed with
> fish, and their welfare.

Doesn't seem that way, especially from the first few posts at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.outdoors.fishing.fly/browse_frm/thread/85161a95c6de5770/
and I'm sure the other posts are just as bad. As for THIS thread,
people have been pointing out how hard it is being a fish, getting
eaten and all, and that there are better things to do than think about
"if a fish would prefer to be thrown in a bucket of ice water." Wasn't
there also an outright "I don't care" somewhere in this thread?

[riverman]

Mike Connor wrote:
>> Your posts are based on the false premise that fish "suffer". This is
>> physiologically impossible for fish, their brains and nervous systems are
>> not highly developed enough to allow them to "suffer".


>The PHD I quoted disagrees with you. Maybe you think she's a fake. I
>guess you think she's wrong about:

>"As a neurobiologist, I've done quite a lot of work on cold-blooded
>animals. It is an outright myth that they don't feel pain. They do.
>I've personally recorded from nerve cells that transmit pain
>information to the brain, so I know the pain information is there. An
>animal would certainly have a difficult time surviving if it were
>unconcerned about bodily injury, so pain pathways are quite necessary
>in all animals!"


The PhD you quoted disagrees with lots of stuff, and a quick browse
through his/her website and writings reveals that he/she has lot of
personal issues. I could not find any references whatsoever that he/she
is a practicing neurologist; seems that he/she spends most of his/her
time these days as an activist for Transgendered folks, and trying to
look 'oh, so marvelous'. He/she also has lots of articles about feeling
'oh, so fem' and being 'oh so prejudiced against', so my feeling is
that your hero is someone who likes to throw themselves in front of
trains to make them stop. Posting the initial article to a baitcasting
site was exactly that type of thing: "Oh, listen to MEEEE!" he/she
said, again and again. And guess what; that's all you're saying too!



Besides, you gotta love his/her 'scientific' assurances: everything in
the article was opinion and supposition, colored with pretty blatant
bias. Let me be specific, in all caps so you can find it:

THE ARTICLE STARTED WITH AN EDITORIAL BY THE WEBMASTER/HOST:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

** Those of us who fish have on frequent occasion, wonder to what
extent fish feel pain during the process of catching and cleaning them.



We certainly are concerned with the survival of those species that we
release, taking care to make sure that they swim away to "fight another



day." But what about those that make into our coolers?


What is the most humane way of dealing with the basic living creatures?



For the answer, here are the thoughts of neurobiologist Dr. Sarah Fox,
who has done extensive research into the sensory aspects of fish.

(NOTE: THE WEBMASTER SAYS "EXTENSIVE RESEARCH"...)

By Sarah Fox, Ph.D.
(NOW THIS IS OUR SOUPSANDWICH TALKING)

As a neurobiologist who has done some work with fish,

(NOTE: NOT "EXTENSIVE RESEARCH"..."**SOME** RESEARCH". NOR EVEN A
REFERENCE ABOUT WHAT CAPACITY OF RESEARCH. JUST A PLEA TO "LISTEN TO
MEEEEEEE. I'M AN EXPERT!!")

and as a recent
observer of the fishing/cleaning process, I'm quite concerned at some
practices (not mentioned in the article) that have been time-honored
common practice, at least among sport fishermen. I have a few very well



educated thoughts, and I would appreciate your making your readers
aware of them somehow.

(OH, THIS IS TOO GOOD. A 'RECENT OBSERVER' WHO IS NOW AN EXPERT ON
'TIME HONORED PRACTICES', ONES THAT WEREN'T EVEN MENTIONED IN THE
PREVIOUS ARTICLE. WHY BRING THEM UP THEN?? I MEAN, OTHER THAN FOR A
CHANCE TO SAY...."LISTEN TO MEEEEEE!! I HAVE A FEW **VERY WELL
EDUCATED** THOUGHTS..."

My concern isn't so much how to *clean* a fish as it is how and when to



*kill* it.

(OH, AND NOW ITS NOT EVEN ABOUT WHAT THE INTRO SAID IT WAS ABOUT. "I'D
LIKE TO GIVE YOU MY VERY WELL-EDUCATED THOUGHTS ABOUT SOMETHING YOU
WEREN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT, AND ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT EVEN WHAT
I'M TALKING ABOUT. BUT LISTEN TO MEEEEE!!")

I was horrified to watch as one fisherman pulled a live fish


out of a bucket and clumsily started scaling it. When he was done with
the scaling, he cut the head off. He explained that he needed the head
to hold, in order to do the scaling. I pointed to a scaling board (with



a tail clamp) about 3 feet from him, suggesting that he could cut the
head off first, and *then* scale the fish on the board. He didn't want
to do it that way.

AND GOD FORBID THAT OUR CLUMSY FISHERMAN COULD DO IT THE WAY HE WANTED.
IMAGINE, HE WAS CLEANING A FISH THAT HE HAD CAUGHT, AND SOME
TRANSGENDERED INDIVIDUAL LOOKING LIKE FRANK N. FURTER STARTED TELLING
HIM HOW TO CLEAN IT RIGHT. I CAN HARDLY IMAGINE THAT OUR GOOD PhD GOT A
WARM RESPONSE....SORT OF LIKE WHAT YOU GOT HERE, EH? I WONDER JUST WHAT
PROMPTED OUR HERO TO WRITE THAT ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PLACE. HEY, JUST
LIKE YOU: HE/SHE GOT A LESS-THAN-WARM RECEPTION, THEN THREATENED TO
TAKE IT TO THE PRESS.

He said the fish didn't feel anything anyway,
because it's a cold-blooded animal.


As a neurobiologist, I've done quite a lot of work on cold-blooded
animals. It is an outright myth that they don't feel pain. They do.
I've personally recorded from nerve cells that transmit pain
information to the brain, so I know the pain information is there. An
animal would certainly have a difficult time surviving if it were
unconcerned about bodily injury, so pain pathways are quite necessary
in all animals!

PAIN AND NEUROLOGICAL SIGNALS ARE NOT THE SAME THING, AND ANY
NEUROLOGIST WITHOUT A "LISTEN TO MEEEEEE" AGENDA KNOWS IT. SURE, FISH
HAVE SENSATIONS. HOW CAN OUR DEAR NEUROLOGIST KNOW THAT THOSE
SENSATIONS ARE IN FACT, PAIN? THE ANSWER: HE/SHE CAN'T, DESPITE HAVING
DONE LOTS OF WORK ON COLD-BLOODED ANIMALS. NOT UNTIL THOSE ANIMALS
LEARN TO TALK.


My friend

"MY FRIEND". OH HOW SWEET. AND GUESS WHAT, "MY FRIEND" IS A <SHE>. NOT
A SMELLY OLD MEANINE LIKE THAT MAN! HE = BAD AND CLUMSY. SHE = GOOD AND
HUMANE. AND I'M A PhD, LISTEN TO MEEEEEE!!

took a much more humane approach and cut off the head before
doing anything else. However, her cut left just enough of the muscle
behind that I could see the fish (i.e. its head) writhing for a few
minutes thereafter. I had always trusted the folk wisdom that
decapitation means instant death and loss of consciousness. Apparently
that's a myth too.

"APPARENTLY"???? THIS IS A HIGHLY EDUCATED NEUROLOGIST WHO HAS DONE
"EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON FISH", AND HE/SHE IS REJECTING FOLK WISDOM AND
REPLACING IT WITH 'APPARENTLYS". SORRY, SOUPY, YOUR HERO IS RAPIDLY
LOSING CREDIBILITY AS A SCIENTIST.

This would especially be true in a cold blooded
animal, as its rate of oxygen consumption (hence, suffocation) is quite



low. The head did not die from loss of circulation or neural input. It
slowly suffocated (and almost certainly with a great deal of pain).

"ALMOST CERTAINLY." WHY, OF COURSE...


One thing we did that helped was to "cold-anesthetize" the fish before
killing them. This was very easy: We dumped ice in the fish bucket.
Because the fish are cold blooded, loss of body heat is not distressing



to them, at least in the same sense as it would be to a bird or mammal.


OKAY. SO WHY WOULD SUFFOCATION BE DISTRESSING TO THEM THE SAME WAY AS
IT IS TO A BIRD OR MAMMAL?


There is no thermal setpoint to fight. As the fish cools off, its
metabolism slows too, entering into what would be very similar to a
hibernation state for a mammal. When it stops moving, it's effectively
"anesthetized." In this state, it can be cleaned rather painlessly.
Ultimately, though, there is a suffocation issue for the head. When it
warms back up, it becomes metabolically active again.


OH, THIS IS TOO PRECIOUS. A DECAPITATED HEAD, SEPARATED FROM ITS BLOOD
SOURCE AND WITH A SEVERED SPINAL COLUMN WILL REMAIN IN SUSPENDED
ANIMATION UNTIL IT IS WARMED UP, THEN IT WILL GO THROUGH DEATH THROES
AND FEEL PAIN. I WOULD <<LOVE>> OUR HERO/HEROINE TO SHOW SOME
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THIS WILD CLAIM. HMMMM, SOUNDS LIKE A JOB FOR A
NEUROLOGIST. ANYONE SEEN ONE?

However, there is no question that there would very little pain this
way.

NO QUESTION AT ALL... I GUESS.....DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT OUR PhD WAS
TALKING ABOUT HERE?? JUST A SECOND AGO, HE/SHE SAID IT <<WOULD>> FEEL
PAIN FROM HAVING ITS HEAD CUT OFF.

OH, AND HERE COMES THE RASH OF OPINION. "HIGHLY EDUCATED OPINION"
THOUGH. "LISTEN TO MEEEEEEE"


Commercially, fish are flung out of the water and allowed to suffocate
in the air. While this may seem a difficult fate, it is perhaps a more
humane one.

"...PERHAPS..."

If suffocation is inevitable, either before or after
decapitation, then why not suffocate before decapitation and not have
to endure the pain of being scaled and cut up? Some fishermen have a
practice of pulling their catch out of the water and throwing it
directly into an ice chest. This is a method of cold anesthesia, which
when combined with suffocation, is probably more humane still.

"...PROBABLY..."

Perhaps

"...PERHAPS..."

the ultimate technique in humane fishing would be to throw the catch
into a bucket of ice water, where it can still breathe, but where it
will quickly be anesthetized.

EXCEPT FOR THOSE FISH THAT ACTUALY LIVE IN ICE WATER. AND OUR
EVER-SO-EDUCATED NEUROLOGIST FORGOT TO MENTION THE PAIN OF SALT WATER
FISH BEING IMMERSED IN FRESH WATER.

Then throw it on ice, where it will
suffocate slowly during a prolonged state of anesthesia.

AND NOW, THE SERMON. THE PETA COMES OUT.

It is invitable that we must kill something to live, whether it is a
cow or a chicken or a fish or a vegetable. These are all life forms
that have their own right to life, just like ours. Inevitably, we can't



all live, so one creature must inevitably be consumed by another. None
of us should have any problem with that. However, there is no reason,
as smart as we are, that we cannot be merciful in the way we gather our



food. That is the least we can do for the creatures that lose their
lives to sustain ours.

LISTEN TO MEEEEE. AND CHECK OUT MY SIG....I'M COOL!

Peace,
Sarah Fox, Ph.D.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, soupsandwich, you're backing a strange horse here. I don't see
that Sarah Fox, PhD has any more credibility beyond that of an
anesthetised fish, and that his/her entire post on that fishing page
was an effort to push his/her own opinionated and unsubstantiated
agenda. Flashing credentials for credibility in the name of science is
the worst crime a scientist can commit, so forgive me if I think Sarah
Fox, PhD is full of ****. If folks think you are her/him, it might be
because you are doing the same "listen to meeeeee" thing here, with the
same message.

As it has been explained to you a half dozen times, we have given more
thought to how fish are treated than you ccan possibly know...we
analyze how we handle them to release them, if we keep them I would say
we almost universally use a priest to kill (not stun; KILL) them
outright and quickly, and we give every effort to resuscitate them
carefully when we do release them. No, we don't care about Sarah Fox
PhD or her solution. We don't really care if fish feel pain, because we
pretty universally conclude that they don't, for the sake of our
'sport'. We aren't an industry, and we could care less about industry
standards; we are pretty good at analyzing and debating it ourselves,
thanks. The solution that Sarah Fox PhD proposes (using an ice chest to
cold-anesthetize them) is so impractical to us as to be gaggingly
idiotic, and your insistence that we keep "Listening to youuuuuuuu" is
similarly idioticly gagging. Go home now.

Oh, and for the edification of all of us, I'd love to know where and
how you came across that article in the first place that so inspired
you to repost it in several newsgroups. Or are you just practicing your
own version of standing in front of trains, saying "listen to meeeeee"?

--riverman

[[email protected]]

riverman wrote:
> No, we don't care about Sarah Fox
> PhD or her solution. We don't really care if fish feel pain, because we
> pretty universally conclude that they don't, for the sake of our
> 'sport'.

Even you didn't conclude that, or at least you didn't explain your
reasoning. You gave no information to support the view that fish can't
suffer, and you came to no reasoned conclusion one way or the other
based on the information that's available. Think there's not enough
information available? Fine, I won't argue with you, but doesn't that
mean that you don't know whether fish feel pain? You mainly emphasized
the fact that Sarah Fox used some less than definitive terms. But I do
agree that you might be supporting the "fish feel no pain" side for the
sake of your sport.


> The solution that Sarah Fox PhD proposes (using an ice chest to
> cold-anesthetize them) is so impractical to us as to be gaggingly
> idiotic, and your insistence that we keep "Listening to youuuuuuuu" is
> similarly idioticly gagging. Go home now.

You wouldn't need to keep listening to me if you heard me to begin
with. Nobody said that an ice chest is practical for people standing in
the water or people who catch and release. I've explained that several
times already. (I'm thinking "floating ice chest" but I won't say
anything...)

> Oh, and for the edification of all of us, I'd love to know where and
> how you came across that article in the first place that so inspired
> you to repost it in several newsgroups.

I don't remember, but I don't think I got it from the website you
referred to (but didn't specify). It was only in Google's cache of some
page when I read it.

[riverman]

No, you don't remember where you got it, do you. My guess is that, if
you DID find it yourself, you found it here:

http://tinyurl.com/d6fq9

Interesting what I came across while looking for Captian Mel's page,
though: check <this> out. http://tinyurl.com/abzhd

Same type of "Gee I read this elsewhere on the internet" intro. Pure
bait. So whats the game, soupsandwich? You really ARE a troll, aren't
you?

By the way, to get an idea of what you have on your feet and are
tracking all over the kitchen floor, do a google search on "do fish
feel pain". Then start measuring your hero/heroine's credentials up
against the rest of the "industry". Here's one link for you:
http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm

And again, for a real laugh, do some research on your hero/heroine.
Google "sarah fox neurobiology". A Ph.D. in neurobiology, I'm sure.
--riverman

[Cyli]

On 20 Nov 2005 01:27:14 -0800, wrote:


>You wouldn't need to keep listening to me if you heard me to begin
>with. Nobody said that an ice chest is practical for people standing in
>the water or people who catch and release. I've explained that several
>times already. (I'm thinking "floating ice chest" but I won't say
>anything...)


Do you recall the information about trout (and other salmonoids) not
being bothered in the least by icy water? They are NOT anesthetized
by it. Not that, by now, I'd have expected you to have paid attention
to verifiable facts.

By the by, what's that woman's Ph.D. field? What are her peer
reviewed papers?

You have obviously never stood / waded in water with a current. You
don't have anything in there that the current can grab and take,
pulling you under / along with it.

Hmm. You go try it. Find a nice trout stream, wade out to your waist
with something nice and floatie tied onto you. Then come back and
tell us more. But it's more likely you'd find yourself becoming one
with the fishes. They do like to nibble on unresisting flesh.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[[email protected]]

riverman wrote:
I have no desire to follow your links without seeing a relevant quote
in this thread, especially when you resort to name calling. Why are you
calling me names now? Because I didn't find bad stuff about Sarah Fox
like you claim to have found? Or are you assuming I posted the article
on that other website...as if there's something wrong with that? Isn't
that a low standard for calling someone names?

Is there a Charter for this newsgroup?

[riverman]

Stomp, pout.

--riverman

[[email protected]]

Cyli wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2005 01:27:14 -0800, wrote:
>
> Do you recall the information about trout (and other salmonoids) not
> being bothered in the least by icy water? They are NOT anesthetized
> by it. Not that, by now, I'd have expected you to have paid attention
> to verifiable facts.

I recall someone saying something like that, but I think their argument
was just that the cold water fish can still jump, and there was a
misconception that I said cold water would kill the fish. I don't
believe the post you're referring to mentioned anesthetizing anything.
I don't know how cold the water has to be, or how cold a bucket of ice
water is compared to the sea you're talking about, or whether it works
for all fish. Maybe it doesn't work at all. I just heard one opinion
that it does, which may not be much, but based on it and the
"arguments" here, I'm heavily leaning toward believing it. If you
don't, fine. I'll look into it more. You'll go fishing.


> By the by, what's that woman's Ph.D. field? What are her peer
> reviewed papers?

I have no idea.


> Find a nice trout stream, wade out to your waist
> with something nice and floatie tied onto you. Then come back and
> tell us more. But it's more likely you'd find yourself becoming one
> with the fishes. They do like to nibble on unresisting flesh.

If this is about the floating cooler idea that I didn't mention, I
don't know. Maybe anchor it?

[Frank Reid]

> I don't know how cold the water has to be, or how cold a bucket of ice
> water is compared to the sea you're talking about, or whether it works
> for all fish. Maybe it doesn't work at all. I just heard one opinion
> that it does, which may not be much, but based on it and the
> "arguments" here, I'm heavily leaning toward believing it. If you
> don't, fine.

Are you on the Kansas Board of Education? "I just heard one OPINION that is
does (work)..."
As I've mentioned many times before, know your FACTS before you come in and
try to change someone's mind, aka educate yourself before you attempt to
educate others.
You remind me of a religious zealot. Blind to the natural world around him,
ignoring anything that doesn't fit into his or her perfect little concept.
As a matter of fact, what you're doing is applying the group think of
religion to science.

--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

[riverman]

(sigh) Why anchor the cooler, or even HAVE a cooler, if we are
practicing catch and release? And why bother with the cooler if we use
a priest for the times we DO kill the fish? And what good is the ice
anyway, if we are pulling the fish out of icy water in the first place?


You aren't listening at all, are you?

--riverman

[rw]

riverman wrote:
> (sigh) Why anchor the cooler, or even HAVE a cooler, if we are
> practicing catch and release? And why bother with the cooler if we use
> a priest for the times we DO kill the fish? And what good is the ice
> anyway,

Well, it would be someplace to keep the beer. Maybe Barry has a point.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[[email protected]]

Frank Reid wrote:
> Are you on the Kansas Board of Education? "I just heard one OPINION that is
> does (work)..."
> As I've mentioned many times before, know your FACTS before you come in and
> try to change someone's mind

Sometimes the purpose of posting something is part of the process of
learning the facts, but I'll review what I do know below.


> You remind me of a religious zealot. Blind to the natural world around him,
> ignoring anything that doesn't fit into his or her perfect little concept.

A minute ago I admittedly didn't know the facts, and now I have a
perfect little concept and am blind to something?

Here's what we know. Sarah Fox isn't saying not to eat fish or not to
fish, or that a hook causes pain, or even that fish contains too much
mercury. If she has no reason to believe that cold-anesthesia can
reduce suffering, why would she say it does? It's all about reducing
pain. Her argument would be a very inefficient way of saving lives of
fish, so I don't think that's what's motivating her. Her methods are
simple and worth using, at least in some cases. If this thread teaches
people nothing else, I hope it teaches people that there's a
possibility (I'd say a likelihood) of fish feeling pain, and you
shouldn't gut or clean them without at least cutting off the head. Or
do whatever you think will cause the least pain.

[[email protected]]

There's "A Reference Source for Analgesia & Analgesics in Animals" at
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/awic200002.htm in case anyone's
interested. It includes a reference to:

Yoshikawa, H.; Ueno, S.; Mitsuda, H., (1989), Short and long-term cold
anesthesia in carp.
Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi Bulletin of the Japan Society for Science and
Fisheries. v. 55 (3), p. 491-498. ISSN: 0021-5392.
NAL Call no: 414.9 J274
Descriptors: cold anesthesia, long term, short term, carp.

I haven't tried to track it down.

[Thomas Littleton]

edited to fit the picture more fully..........
> wrote in message

I'll review what I do know below.

[Mike Connor]

> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...
> Mike Connor wrote:
>
>> Your posts are based on the false premise that fish "suffer". This is
>> physiologically impossible for fish, their brains and nervous systems are
>> not highly developed enough to allow them to "suffer".
>
> The PHD I quoted disagrees with you. Maybe you think she's a fake. I
> guess you think she's wrong about:

No, she apparently disagrees with current scientific opinion.

Since your premises are based on what you believe, and not on proven fact,
or on logic in view of the known facts, it is quite impossible for anybody
else to either prove or refute them.

You are wasting your time offering specious argument here.

MC

[[email protected]]

Mike Connor wrote:

> No, she apparently disagrees with current scientific opinion.
>
> Since your premises are based on what you believe, and not on proven fact,
> or on logic in view of the known facts, it is quite impossible for anybody
> else to either prove or refute them.

She does use logic in view of the known facts. I quoted her in the top
post of this thread. Maybe you should read it again. Evidence can be
scientific and trustworthy and something that's worthy of putting to
use even when it's not 100% proven. I can think of no better example
than the subject if this thread. Playing it safe is easy and might
prevent the suffering of suffocation thousands or millions of times per
day.

You make it sound like there's scientific evidence that refutes her,
like evidence that fish can't suffer. If so, I'd like to hear it. But I
guess you're just saying that her evidence that fish feel pain and how
to relieve it is lacking. I suggest you rethink the purpose for those
clubs (justices?). If you want to do a little research, you can look at
some of the studies on fish anesthesia, particularly cold anesthesia. I
referenced one earlier today. I'll be looking it up myself eventually.

[Frank Reid]

> A minute ago I admittedly didn't know the facts, and now I have a
> perfect little concept and am blind to something?

Yes, you are still blind to who your audience is. Who are you addressing
here? Commercial fishermen? No. Bait fishermen who take home tons of
crappie, no. You are addressing fly fishermen who fish primarily for a COLD
WATER FISH (not carp, not bass, not crappie), trout. A fish that thrives in
34-40 degree water. A fish that would be unaffected by the COLD WATER
BECAUSE THATS WHAT THEY LIVE IN!!.
Also, you are addressing folks who RELEASE THE FISH THEY CATCH!!! We strive
not to kill them. I've not kept a trout in almost 20 years.
You are talking to the wrong people as this is a fly fishing group. Now,
there is one group that may be interested in your theories.
rec.outdoors.fishing.bass Try it. What do you have to loose?
So, now do you have a CLUE AS TO WHAT YOU'VE BEEN IGNORING????

--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

[[email protected]]

Frank Reid wrote:
> there is one group that may be interested in your theories.
> rec.outdoors.fishing.bass Try it. What do you have to loose?
> So, now do you have a CLUE AS TO WHAT YOU'VE BEEN IGNORING????

Some people here have been engaging me in this conversation and had
misconceptions that needed correcting, and despite some people's claims
that most of you are catch and release fishermen, I still have no
reason to believe that these ideas don't relate to the title of this
newsgroup--rec.outdoors.fishing.fly. Who knows who's lurking out there.
If you're one of the apparent majority who this doesn't relate to, and
you're not interested, find another thread to read. But you're probably
correct that rec.outdoors.fishing.bass is a more appropriate newsgroup
for this.

Could someone define fly fishing for me?

[riverman]

>...I still have no
>reason to believe that these ideas don't relate to the title of this
>newsgroup--rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.

>...Could someone define fly fishing for me?

I think your last question answers your first, in more ways than one.

--riverman

[Wolfgang]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> ...Who knows who's lurking out there....

Well, we may be a bit slow, bubba, but we're getting a pretty good idea long
about now. :)

Wolfgang
who, let it not be denied, is having a hard time not splitting a gut over
the notion that adults apparently take this rag seriously.

[[email protected]]

Frank Reid wrote:
> You are addressing fly fishermen who fish primarily for a COLD
> WATER FISH (not carp, not bass, not crappie), trout. A fish that thrives in
> 34-40 degree water. A fish that would be unaffected by the COLD WATER
> BECAUSE THATS WHAT THEY LIVE IN!!

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/ntrout.asp

"It's simple: cold-water fish such as trout and salmon thrive in
streams with temperatures of 50 to 65 degrees Fahrenheit."

[[email protected]]

riverman wrote:
> >...I still have no
> >reason to believe that these ideas don't relate to the title of this
> >newsgroup--rec.outdoors.fishing.fly.
>
> >...Could someone define fly fishing for me?
>
> I think your last question answers your first, in more ways than one.

Maybe you should have given me that reason or answer that I needed
instead of being sarcastic. I don't think need it now because saw that
"fly fishing" is in the dictionary, and it means what I'd already said
I knew about it. Nothing about cold or warm water or about catch and
release. It's just that I'm still getting criticism about posting this
stuff in this newsgroup, so I wanted to confirm that I was right. But
you all know each other's fishing preferences better than me and I
admit that there might not be many people here who would find it
practical or necessary to ice a fish.

[riverman]

"Maybe you should have given me that reason or answer that I needed
instead of being sarcastic."

Oh, I'm sorry. My bad. I thought you had at least a modicum of
understanding about fly fishing, since you were posting to a fly
fishing newsgroup.

--riverman

[Conan The Librarian]

Stan Gula wrote:

> wrote:
> <snipped for the sake of the fish children>
>
> Wowee, wow, this is mind boggling. I'm thinking blinding headaches are
> involved somehow.

I vote for a helmet lined with tin-foil.


Chuck Vance (and the voices)

[Conan The Librarian]

wrote:

> [snippety-do-dah]
>
> I'm still showing restraint.

You misspelled, "I'm in need of restraint" (and a nice long rest in
a room with padded walls).

HTH.

> You all represent non-commercial fisherman in an unofficial way,

You're new to ROFF and Usenet, aren't you?

> I'm absolutely not looking for people who are aligned with my point of
> view. At this point, I'm looking for civilized experts, by any sane
> standard (no name calling, no unreasoned insults, etc.)

You're new to ROFF and Usenet, aren't you?


Chuck Vance

[Frank Reid]

>If you're one of the apparent majority who this doesn't relate to, and you're not interested, find another thread to read.

You imperious little twerp. You will not tell me what to read, nor
will you tell me what to reply too. Interested, yes. I'm always
interested when some person tries to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and
despair) about anything. Most publications call it propaganda. No,
you will never convince the members of this forum that your point of
view is correct. Unfortunately, you may give an idea to someone who's
not formed an opinion based upon fact and reasoning. That's why I have
attempted reasoned arguments and clarification of points. All of which
you have ignored. You have not the sense that God gave a goose.

>But you're probably correct that rec.outdoors.fishing.bass is a more appropriate newsgroup for this.

I sent you there because its a trap. For the most part, those people
will shred you limb from limb. I tell you this now, because you're
going to ignore this and go there anyway. It should be fun.

>Could someone define fly fishing for me?

Fly fishing is more than a technique, it is a concept. It has been
more than adequately defined in this thread. Then again, you're lack
of cognitive skills has caused you to ignore the information given to
you.
Barry, many folks here tried to help you. They were attempting to
explain the love of their sport and quarry. You chose, either
purposefully or through a base inability to comprehend, to ignore their
input. Well, now its time to ignore you. EOT (and since you choose
not to follow links I won't even mention where you could find the
meaning of this) for me.
Frank Reid

[Tom Nakashima]

"Dave LaCourse" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 07:01:08 -0800, "Tom Nakashima"
> > wrote:
>
>>Tobiko!
>>http://www.origamirestaurant.com/sushi/images/sushi_seasoned_tobiko.jpg
>> guys are making me hungry now.
>
> While stationed 15 miles west of Yokohama in the 50s, I ate sushi
> before it became a popular U.S. dish, and yes, that included the eggs.
> But my favorite Japanese food was pizza from the Marko Polo Restaurant
> in Chinatown, Yokohama, with its "mystery" meat on top. It was
> supposed to be pepperoni, but it only *resembled* pepperoni. It was
> the only pizza joint in Yokohama.
>

Pretty funny, I'll ask my wife about Marko Polo's.
Yokohama is a port in Japan and back then had a large Military Base, so I'm
not surprised they had restaurants catered to Americans.
My wife is from Yokohama, she actually introduced me to Japanese foods;
sushi and sashimi, and I introduced her to Pizza's and Calzoni's. Her father
was in the service and stationed in Yokohama, so she had her education on
the base.
It was rare for me to meet a gal from Japan who didn't have a Japanese
accent and could speak english better than I. Her first job was on the
military base working in the kitchen, and her biggest mistake was washing
the huge 10 year old (never washed) metal coffee percolator with soap. She
told me they wanted to put her on the firing squad.
-tom

[riverman]

Hi Barry; Making any new friends? Convincing anyone of anything? <g>

And you posted a study without even reading it first?? Wow,
how.....scientific....of you.

FYI, its about how to anesthetise fish, NOT about whether or not they
feel pain. And its about using CO2, not ice. Also FYI, I already
provided you a link with an article (peer reviewed, cross referenced,
published in a professional journal and all that) that states that fish
can not feel pain because of the makeup of their brains. If you'd
really like to know the evidence, then read it. But your statement
above tells me that you actually percieve Sara Fox, Ph.D's ("I have a
PhD.....in SCIENCE!") opinion as 'evidence', and actually being
scientific, and logical. Whether or not fish feel pain is, like most
science, debated, but not by Sara Fox, PhD. His/her entire article was
busybody opinion...incredibly uninformed opinion....a lot like what you
are presenting here.

Gee, do you research your political website as well as you researched
this? Or do you just let your emotions run you in circles there, too?

--riverman

BTW, its called a PRIEST. Its been spelled out for you at least a half
dozen times, and it works a hell of a lot better than either an
icebucket or a killfile.

[Tom Nakashima]

"riverman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Hi Barry; Making any new friends? Convincing anyone of anything? <g>
>

Barry, I'll have to agree with rw. Most of the folks in this group are
pretty friendly. If you're coming here to make waves or pick an argument,
this probably isn't the newsgroup for you. I've found this newsgroup to be
very useful as many of them are experts in the field of fly-fishing. You can
use this newsgroup to gain knowledge to your advantage if fly-fishing is
what you're interested in. Many of these fine fisherman might think twice
the next time you ask for advice.
fwiw,
-tom

[[email protected]]

riverman wrote:

> And you posted a study without even reading it first?? Wow,
> how.....scientific....of you.

I only posted a reference because I don't know where to find the study
yet. Don't you think it's good to offer people information like that
about what's being discussed? I made no claims about the study. It's
nitpicking like that (in addition to childish name calling) that made
me not care about your link.


> FYI, its about how to anesthetise fish, NOT about whether or not they
> feel pain. And its about using CO2, not ice.

Quote the part about the CO2 if you read it. Where did you find the
article? Does it even matter what they used for the cold anesthesia?
Ice is cold too. Here's the reference again:
-----------
Yoshikawa, H.; Ueno, S.; Mitsuda, H., (1989), Short and long-term cold
anesthesia in carp.
Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi Bulletin of the Japan Society for Science and
Fisheries. v. 55 (3), p. 491-498. ISSN: 0021-5392.
NAL Call no: 414.9 J274
Descriptors: cold anesthesia, long term, short term, carp.
-----------

Here's one with an abstract:

-----------
Yoshikawa H, Ueno S, Mitsuda H (1989) Short- and long-term
cold-anesthesia in carp. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi/ Bulletin of the
Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries. 55(3):491-498

The efficacy of cold anesthesia in the transportation of live fish was
evaluated using carp (Cyprinus carpio) acclimated at 23°C. The carp
could be safely maintained in an anesthetic state for 5 h in water kept
at 4°C and in the anesthetized or sedated state for 24 h at 8-14°C.
Some anesthetized carp showed signs of convulsion when they received
external stimuli, and bled mainly from gills. Hemorrhage became
distinct with the decrease in temperature and the duration of the cold
treatment. The sedated carp showed no such excitement and bleeding. The
sedated state is considered to be adequate for transportation,
regardless of the anesthetic time; 14°C seems to be the optimal
temperature when the carp are acclimated to 23°C.
-----------

> Also FYI, I already
> provided you a link with an article (peer reviewed, cross referenced,
> published in a professional journal and all that) that states that fish
> can not feel pain because of the makeup of their brains.

Ok, I followed the link ( http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
). I see no indication that it was peer reviewed or published in a
professional journal, and it doesn't say that fish can't feel pain.
See, this is why I want specifics before I spend my time following your
links. It was published on a website about "Conserving, protecting and
restoring Colorado's coldwater fisheries."

[Others here need to throw some specifics in their attacks to]

> Whether or not fish feel pain is, like most
> science, debated...

That's enough for me to not skin a fish alive, which was one of the
things I want people to know. It took over 100 posts for someone to
admit that and to post any kind of reference. Pathetic.

> BTW, its called a PRIEST. Its been spelled out for you at least a half
> dozen times, and it works a hell of a lot better than either an
> icebucket...

I'm not so sure about that, unless you kill the fish swiftly with it,
and then it serves a different purpose than the ice.

[riverman]

>Ok, I followed the link ( http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
). I see no indication that it was peer reviewed or published in a
professional journal, and it doesn't say that fish can't feel pain.
See, this is why I want specifics before I spend my time following your

links. It was published on a website about "Conserving, protecting and
restoring Colorado's coldwater fisheries." <

Actually, that was a summary article. The original was posted in
'Review of Fisheries Science' and was much more extensive in nature.
Although it only took a few seconds to find it, I know you won't
actually chase it down, so here is a link to the original:

http://www.animal-health-online.de/drms/rosefish.pdf

I can see that this is going nowhere, and will certainly continue to do
so. You go ahead and pretend to want to learn anything, and I'll let
others here pretend to try and illuminate you. Have a nice day.

--riverman

[Wolfgang]

"riverman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ...You go ahead and pretend to want to learn anything, and I'll let
> others here pretend to try and illuminate you....

Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! Pick me!

Wolfgang
aw, c'mon coach......put me in......i can DO it!

[Cyli]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:54:33 -0600, Conan The Librarian
> wrote:


>> I'm absolutely not looking for people who are aligned with my point of
>> view. At this point, I'm looking for civilized experts, by any sane
>> standard (no name calling, no unreasoned insults, etc.)
>
> You're new to ROFF and Usenet, aren't you?
> Chuck Vance


This is one of the most restrained and civilized threads / responses
I've ever seen on the 'Net to a blatant troll. I suspect we've only
been kind to Sally / Barry because he / she can spell and form
complete sentences.

And we're just settling into the start of cabin fever. Toward spring,
there's no telling how those of us in the frozen north would respond
to him / her.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[Cyli]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:51:11 -0600, "Wolfgang" >
wrote:

>
>"riverman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>> ...You go ahead and pretend to want to learn anything, and I'll let
>> others here pretend to try and illuminate you....
>
>Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! Pick me!
>
>Wolfgang
>aw, c'mon coach......put me in......i can DO it!
>


Goferit. Light up her / his life.

May I watch?

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: (strip the .invalid to email)

[[email protected]]

riverman wrote:

> I can see that this is going nowhere, and will certainly continue to do
> so.

Don't pile up the incorrect statements so high and everything will be
fine.

I looked through some of the article. The first thing I noticed was the
emphasis that fish are highly evolved and different kinds of fish
differ greatly from each other and "Human-centered perspectives on
fishes are inappropriate because the evolutionary histories of fishes
and mammals have been separate for about 400 million years." Later, the
article compares fish brains with human brains, and despite several "as
humans do" qualifications, comes to a fairly strong conclusion that
fish don't suffer, though it leaves the possibility open and suggests
what would be needed by a future study in order to demonstrate that
fish could suffer. One or two informal reviews of the article seem to
agree that fish probably don't suffer, despite a stress response. I
haven't searched for any formally published rebuttal or new studies.

Some things that come to mind are comments I've heard on how little we
know about the brain, the discovery a few years ago of a new bone found
in the human face that we never knew about due to an unusual autopsy
technique being used (wouldn't you have figured x-rays or something
would catch that?), and of course, the extraordinarily immature
response of the fishing community (judging by this thread and the other
pain thread I linked to) and outright refusal to consider that fish
might feel pain (except for those who said they don't care) without
knowing of anything to support that belief (despite this study, which
was finally referred to 100+ posts later).

So, can we now say that fish don't experience any unpleasant feelings?
I wouldn't assume that, and I'd use practical methods of anesthetizing
any fish I caught, unless I was releasing it, though I wouldn't fish
for sport at all. I certainly wouldn't skin or gut it when it was
alive. But now you can all point to that study and the argument that
fish feel pain is weaker, and in the future, people like me might think
you're all merely rude rather than have thoughts of the days when it
was debated whether black people were human and when the methods of
medieval punishment were considered appropriate. You should all be
proud.

[Stan Gula]

wrote:
<mindless ramble snipped>
> , and in the future, people like me might
> think you're all merely rude rather than have thoughts of the days
> when it was debated whether black people were human and when the
> methods of medieval punishment were considered appropriate. You
> should all be proud.

Wow. People poke fun at your posts because of the lack of content, and you
compare them to racists and torturers? Right there you lost any chance of
convincing anybody that you're worth reading. At least you didn't bring up
the Nazis.

--
Stan Gula
http://gula.org/roffswaps
(wondering if his head hurts all the time, or just when he's thinking)

[[email protected]]

Stan Gula wrote:
> wrote:
> <mindless ramble snipped>

The vast majority of that "mindless ramble" was either a direct quote
or summary of information published in peer reviewed journals, and of
webpages that SUPPORT the conclusions in the study that fish probably
don't feel pain. Part was:

"the extraordinarily immature
response of the fishing community (judging by this thread and the other

pain thread I linked to) and outright refusal to consider that fish
might feel pain (except for those who said they don't care) without
knowing of anything to support that belief (despite this study, which
was finally referred to 100+ posts later)."

Feel free to refute it.


> Wow. People poke fun at your posts because of the lack of content, and you
> compare them to racists and torturers? Right there you lost any chance of
> convincing anybody that you're worth reading. At least you didn't bring up
> the Nazis.

The reason people here remind me of racists who argued that blacks
weren't human is because they have no consideration for the possible
pain that can be caused by words or actions, and they're basing their
ideas on bad science (in the case of the racists) or even no science
that they could quote (in the case of this newsgroup). In the case of
fish, it's people's actions that matter, but the words matter because
they influence others to act (treat fish) like them.

They're like torturers because the possibility of suffering isn't
important to them.

Nazis--same thing.

[Tim J.]

typed:
> Stan Gula wrote:
>> wrote:
>> <mindless ramble snipped>
>
> The vast majority of that "mindless ramble" was either a direct quote
> or summary of information published in peer reviewed journals, and of
> webpages that SUPPORT the conclusions in the study that fish probably
> don't feel pain. Part was:
>
> "the extraordinarily immature
> response of the fishing community (judging by this thread and the
> other
>
> pain thread I linked to) and outright refusal to consider that fish
> might feel pain (except for those who said they don't care) without
> knowing of anything to support that belief (despite this study, which
> was finally referred to 100+ posts later)."
>
> Feel free to refute it.
>
>
>> Wow. People poke fun at your posts because of the lack of content,
>> and you compare them to racists and torturers? Right there you lost
>> any chance of convincing anybody that you're worth reading. At
>> least you didn't bring up the Nazis.
>
> The reason people here remind me of racists who argued that blacks
> weren't human is because they have no consideration for the possible
> pain that can be caused by words or actions, and they're basing their
> ideas on bad science (in the case of the racists) or even no science
> that they could quote (in the case of this newsgroup). In the case of
> fish, it's people's actions that matter, but the words matter because
> they influence others to act (treat fish) like them.
>
> They're like torturers because the possibility of suffering isn't
> important to them.
>
> Nazis--same thing.

Tweeeeeet! Time out! We'll need a ruling from the Rules Committee on this
one, 'cause it's fairly tangential. Does this envoke Godwin's Law?
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

[[email protected]]

Tim J. wrote:

> Tweeeeeet! Time out! We'll need a ruling from the Rules Committee on this
> one, 'cause it's fairly tangential. Does this envoke Godwin's Law?

That's a cool law. I can't say that I disagree with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Anyway, I wanted to clarify that I don't see someone as evil just
because they fish before doing science research. I can picture some guy
who's been fishing since he was a kid, and now he fishes with his
family and they all have a good time, and now for the first time some
guy (me--yes, I'm a guy) mentions something horrible that he might be
responsible for. He knows he's not a horrible person, so he gets
defensive or maybe feels guilty or whatever. If it never crossed your
mind that your doing something bad, or if you heard somewhere that it's
not bad, then that's not enough for me to get on your case (hmmm...how
badly did I get on anyone's case anyway?). But if someone (me) says, "I
heard this, and it seems true, or it might be true, so I think we
should do things this way to possibly prevent something horrible" and
then he gets crap from just about everyone, I'd like to hear something
that justifies the crap.

[rw]

wrote:

> But if someone (me) says, "I
> heard this, and it seems true, or it might be true, so I think we
> should do things this way to possibly prevent something horrible" and
> then he gets crap from just about everyone, I'd like to hear something
> that justifies the crap.

Well, for me it was when you started going off about a fish's family
"mourning" for it. That was way over the top, and I knew when I read it
that no one would ever take you seriously.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Wolfgang]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Tim J. wrote:
>
>> Tweeeeeet! Time out! We'll need a ruling from the Rules Committee on this
>> one, 'cause it's fairly tangential. Does this envoke Godwin's Law?
>
> That's a cool law. I can't say that I disagree with it.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Really? It's not all that difficult if you approach it the right way. Try
this: write it out on a sheet of paper and then simply read the words aloud.
Voila! Works every time.

> Anyway, I wanted to clarify that I don't see someone as evil just
> because they fish before doing science research.

Well, that's mighty generous of you. You have just singlehandedly saved
literally billions of people from being evil.

> I can picture some guy
> who's been fishing since he was a kid, and now he fishes with his
> family and they all have a good time,

Yeah, I can picture that too. It's actually kinda pretty. Hey! Wouldn't
it be cool if we could have that blown up and posted in public places all
over the world.....sort of a reminder of what life COULD be?

> and now for the first time some
> guy (me--yes, I'm a guy)

Um......o.k.,......we'll take that on faith.....for now.

> mentions something horrible that he might be
> responsible for.

Dang! I KNEW it was too good to be true! O.k., maybe we'd better hold off
on the posters till we get this all sorted out. :(

> He knows he's not a horrible person, so he gets
> defensive or maybe feels guilty or whatever.

Much as we'd like to believe that he's not a horrible person, I'm afraid
that there's just no getting around it. We have it from an unimpeachable
source that he is in fact inherently evil. If you think about it, this is
also made obvious by the fact that he feels guilty and gets defensive.
After all, these reactions make no sense whatsoever if he's
innocent.......right?

> If it never crossed your
> mind that your doing something bad,

Never is a long time....but, DO go on.

> or if you heard somewhere that it's not bad,

There HAVE been rumors to that effect.

> then that's not enough for me to get on your case

Um.......I think we'll reserve judgment on that one for just now.

> (hmmm...how
> badly did I get on anyone's case anyway?).

Oh, you DEFINITELY need to work on that. Sensitive as we all are, I don't
think you've quite brought anyone to tears yet.

> But if someone

Who?

> (me)

Oh.

> says, "I
> heard this, and it seems true, or it might be true, so I think we
> should do things this way to possibly prevent something horrible" and
> then he gets crap from just about everyone, I'd like to hear something
> that justifies the crap.

I see. Well, we're going to have to think about that for a while. We'll
get back to you just as soon as we can. Um......how long can you hold your
breath?

Oh, and by the way, if simply finding someone who appears to agree with an a
priori assumption qualifies as "doing science research" I've got some
colleagues who are going to be VERY disappointed to learn that they have
expended so much time and effort for so many years in doing it the hard way.

Wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

"Cyli" > wrote in message
...
> ...Light up her / his life.
>
> May I watch?

Kinky. :)

Yeah, go ahead.

Wolfgang

[[email protected]]

sorry, until one "animal" starts to be concerned about management of
resources or about other animals' pain and suffering while they proceed
to eat it, there is no need to worry or be concerned about "pain,
suffering" or doing anything "horrible" to the animals.

sorry, there is a huge gulf between humans and other "animals".
ethically, we don't want to be inhumane because it degrades US, not
because of any potential harm it might do to the animal.

we fish (hunt whatever) because we can. that's the only justification
needed.

[[email protected]]

Wolfgang wrote:

> Who?
>
> > (me)
>
> Oh.

Actually, I'm not sure you understood who all of my pronouns referred
to. Maybe I should have specified it more.

> Oh, and by the way, if simply finding someone who appears to agree with an a
> priori assumption qualifies as "doing science research" I've got some
> colleagues who are going to be VERY disappointed to learn that they have
> expended so much time and effort for so many years in doing it the hard way.

It depends, but I don't need too much to not think someone's evil. I
save that for special people.

[[email protected]]

Wolfgang wrote:

> > But if someone
>
> Who?
>
> > (me)
>
> Oh.

Actually, I think I should have specified who my pronouns referred to
more often because I'm not sure whether you misunderstood some stuff or
not.

> Oh, and by the way, if simply finding someone who appears to agree with an a
> priori assumption qualifies as "doing science research" I've got some
> colleagues who are going to be VERY disappointed to learn that they have
> expended so much time and effort for so many years in doing it the hard way.

That's not always so scientific, but it still could be enough for me
not to think the researcher is evil.

[[email protected]]

rw wrote:
> wrote:
>
> Well, for me it was when you started going off about a fish's family
> "mourning" for it. That was way over the top, and I knew when I read it
> that no one would ever take you seriously.

That was just a bad typo. I'm glad someone brought that to my
attention. I cleared that up at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.outdoors.fishing.fly/msg/8fa9166e4af68ed8?hl=en&
but unfortunately some people probably missed it.

Many animals are known to suffer distress after the loss of a mate and
die soon afterwards, but I wasn't making that point.

[Wolfgang]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Wolfgang wrote:
>
>> Who?
>>
>> > (me)
>>
>> Oh.
>
> Actually, I'm not sure you understood who all of my pronouns referred
> to.

Actually, if that were so, it would make two of us.

> Maybe I should have specified it more.

Maybe. Try it some other time, and let's see what happens.

>> Oh, and by the way, if simply finding someone who appears to agree with
>> an a
>> priori assumption qualifies as "doing science research" I've got some
>> colleagues who are going to be VERY disappointed to learn that they have
>> expended so much time and effort for so many years in doing it the hard
>> way.
>
> It depends, but I don't need too much to not think someone's evil. I
> save that for special people.

Well, good......you wouldn't want to squander that.

Wolfgang

[mackdesoz]

Fortunately, the seafood catch healthy and humane way to much of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska seafood sustainability, especially in highly respected researchers.