I need help.
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 6:11 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:57:35 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer



wrote:
On Apr 23, 5:34 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:05 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
On Apr 23, 11:01 am, notbob wrote:
On 2008-04-23, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish.

I don't get your drift. What? It becomes domesticated upon
leaving your
hand/net?

nb

Exactly. The terms are at odds.

Um...I got a bayou or two full of gators and water moccasins...care to
come do some layin' on of the hands, er, "domestication"...? This is
among the places you go off the rails, IMO - a single instance of
catching doesn't "domesticate" a fish (or anything else), and IAC, if
you believe catching domesticates the fish, you can't eat a wild one.
You've "ruined" the fish by your act of catching it, and eating it
serves no purpose as far as utilizing "wild" game. And what about
animals catching a fish? Do you think that domesticates it? Suppose
the fish escapes the clutches of whatever animal it was that caught
it?
You're gonna leave footprints, too, Tim, even if you CnK...

TC,
R

Halfordian Golfer

R,

Wild is a 'relative' term describing the presence or lack thereof from
humans. Humans can not stand shoulder to shoulder in a fishery and say
that it is "wild". It's *less* wild, by definition. Now, the term
"wild" has come to mean "stream born" but this is very confusing
because multi year holdovers and fish stocked as fry are also
considered "wild" by these standards. I just emailed the Idaho F&G to
ask them if they clip the adipose fins of trout stocked as fry or sub-
catchables. Will let you know the answer.

Regarding your swamp analogy all I can say is "Gator McGoo Wednesdays
at 9"http://www.grizzlyadams.net/

Your pal,

TBone

OK. And what does your response have to do with the inability to catch
and release a wild trout? You must not use the definition of "stream
born" as "wild" because it would obviously be possible to catch and
release a "stream born" trout, so that eliminates all but trout NOT born
in the stream. Why can't you release those?

HTH,
R

Dude...it's philosophical, not literal.

It stems from TU's license plate frame "Catch and Release Wild Trout"
and back to notbob's precise definition of the situation. People see
"wild trout" as come kind of "conservation goal" even and up to the
point that these "wild trout" that we "catch and release" particularly
are the genetic offspring of the california redband that *is* causing
species extinction and competition for "indiginous" species. The
state trout of Colorado was the Rainbow trout...a fish that is not
native to Colorado. We had the extremely good sense to change the
state trout to the highly endangered greenback cutthroat.

Given that the experts can't identify a greenback cutthroat, that they
propagated, stock and protected the wrong "wild" fish for twenty years, it
is hardly surprising that it is endangered.

Every last
rainbow trout in Colorado is either stocked or the descendant of a
stocked fish. And, somehow, TU has sold people the idea that
protecting them is "conservation" and "knowledgable" anglers release
them like they were the precious remnants of a lost race and not the
invasive species that they are. OK. Yeah. That makes sense. Not. The
problem is that the the rainbow trout is genetically more similar to
some cutthroat trout than between some species of cutthroat trout.
They hybridize.

In other words, they are all simply local variants of the same species.
This is not news. Some of us have known this for decades.

The risk of genetic extinction through hybridization
is real.

I don't think so. There you are, and monkeys and humans are still doing
fine, thank you very much.

Our fisheries managers will not correct that because of "the
email that they'd receive". Probably from TU and the guides in Aspen.

Email is pretty scary stuff.

Your pal,

You're a liar.

Halfordian Golfer

Moron.

Wolfgang

I need help.
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...

LOL. And you call me a troll.

OBROFF: I'd still like to hear from the original author what he meant
by "hating to see bait fishermen with stringers of dead fish". I might
owe him an apology and you know I'd rather crap glass from a broken
shiner bock bottle.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Putting words in peoples mouth again eh? He said nothing about dead fish...

The OP's original post:
"I have been out FF four times so far this year. Today I was at the Black
River in Hackelbarney. I have not had any luck yet. I used GRHE,Pheasant
Tail,Royal Coachman Wet, and a Adams dry. I used a 7.5 to 9 FT leader
including tippit( both 4X). The thing that I hate is I see bait guys
with a stringer full of fish.This is basically my second season FF. Is
my lack of success normal. I am tying my own flies, but do buy
sometimes. I dont know what else to try. Any suggestions?"

You misunderstood what he was saying. Do as you will, however I would
suggest you go crap some glass...

Good luck with those demons,
JT
Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream
viability for the future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing.

I need help.
 

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

On Apr 23, 10:43 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:24:21 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer



wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:11 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:57:35 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
On Apr 23, 5:34 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:05 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
On Apr 23, 11:01 am, notbob wrote:
On 2008-04-23, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish.

I don't get your drift. What? It becomes domesticated upon leaving your
hand/net?

nb

Exactly. The terms are at odds.

Um...I got a bayou or two full of gators and water moccasins...care to
come do some layin' on of the hands, er, "domestication"...? This is
among the places you go off the rails, IMO - a single instance of
catching doesn't "domesticate" a fish (or anything else), and IAC, if
you believe catching domesticates the fish, you can't eat a wild one.
You've "ruined" the fish by your act of catching it, and eating it
serves no purpose as far as utilizing "wild" game. And what about
animals catching a fish? Do you think that domesticates it? Suppose
the fish escapes the clutches of whatever animal it was that caught it?
You're gonna leave footprints, too, Tim, even if you CnK...

TC,
R

Halfordian Golfer

R,

Wild is a 'relative' term describing the presence or lack thereof from
humans. Humans can not stand shoulder to shoulder in a fishery and say
that it is "wild". It's *less* wild, by definition. Now, the term
"wild" has come to mean "stream born" but this is very confusing
because multi year holdovers and fish stocked as fry are also
considered "wild" by these standards. I just emailed the Idaho F&G to
ask them if they clip the adipose fins of trout stocked as fry or sub-
catchables. Will let you know the answer.

Regarding your swamp analogy all I can say is "Gator McGoo Wednesdays
at 9"http://www.grizzlyadams.net/

Your pal,

TBone

OK. And what does your response have to do with the inability to catch
and release a wild trout? You must not use the definition of "stream
born" as "wild" because it would obviously be possible to catch and
release a "stream born" trout, so that eliminates all but trout NOT born
in the stream. Why can't you release those?

HTH,
R

Dude...it's philosophical, not literal.

It stems from TU's license plate frame "Catch and Release Wild Trout"
and back to notbob's precise definition of the situation. People see
"wild trout" as come kind of "conservation goal" even and up to the
point that these "wild trout" that we "catch and release" particularly
are the genetic offspring of the california redband that *is* causing
species extinction and competition for "indiginous" species. The
state trout of Colorado was the Rainbow trout...a fish that is not
native to Colorado. We had the extremely good sense to change the
state trout to the highly endangered greenback cutthroat. Every last
rainbow trout in Colorado is either stocked or the descendant of a
stocked fish. And, somehow, TU has sold people the idea that
protecting them is "conservation" and "knowledgable" anglers release
them like they were the precious remnants of a lost race and not the
invasive species that they are. OK. Yeah. That makes sense. Not. The
problem is that the the rainbow trout is genetically more similar to
some cutthroat trout than between some species of cutthroat trout.
They hybridize. The risk of genetic extinction through hybridization
is real. Our fisheries managers will not correct that because of "the
email that they'd receive". Probably from TU and the guides in Aspen.

OK, that still doesn't answer the question - why can't you catch and
release a wild trout? And why not avoid the whole thing and say that TU
is full of, and run by, dumbasses who don't have clue as to what they
are doing...because I mean, well, TU IS full of, and run by, dumbasses
who don't have a clue as to what they are doing...

IAC, as I see it, it's not the CnR of all fish that you're really
against, it's only the release part when people catch fish you don't
want where they are, and it's because you feel that since they are a
introduced species, they ought to be removed. How do you feel about the
cutthroat - CnR, CnK, or no fishing allowed? Suppose you catch a fish
you don't want to eat while fishing for fish you do want to eat?

TC,
R



Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

What?

Perfect.

/daytripper (boy, that really put Richard in his place ;-)

I need help.
 

wrote in message
...

Suppose you catch a fish you don't want to eat while fishing for fish you
do want to eat?

TC,
R

Don't be surprised by the response you got. I've asked Mr. Bone the same
question several time, he generally dances around it. In your case, he just
acted dumb...

It's a waste of time trying to get honest answers, many have tired.

JT
Catch & Release is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for the
future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing.

I need help.
 

On Apr 22, 6:21*pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Apr 22, 5:45 pm, wrote:





On Apr 22, 2:19 pm, Halford's Golfer wrote:

On Apr 22, 4:57 pm, rw wrote:

Halfords Golfer wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:02 pm, rw wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

* Despite Tim's constant protestations, I'd venture a guess that most
Ruffians attitudes are similar. *We don't have problems with areas that
are C'n'R; if we choose to fish them we follow the rules. *But it's not
an all or nothing situation for us like it is for Tim. *We are
comfortable in how we approach the sport. *Tim isn't, therefore he's
trying to drag everyone else down to his level.

I've run into C&R bigots on the water, typically when I'm seen killing a
fish. They're extremely annoying, but rare.

I don't know of a single C&R bigot on ROFF. There is, however, a C&K bigot.

BTW, I'll gladly kill trout that are stocked. (I think stocked fish cook
up very well -- perfect pan size and well fed if freshly stocked :-).

I'm loathe to kill a wild trout unless it's fatally hooked. Anyway,
keeping a wild trout is usually illegal where I fish locally (unless
they're brook trout).

The "subsistence" argument for anti-C&R is absurd.

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

You can't tell the difference between a wild and a stocked trout.

Yes I can.

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

You can tell a fish that was born in the river versus one that was
stocked as fry or that was stocked as a catchable and is a multi-year
holdover? Unless you're talking about Steelhead with clipped fins, I'd
sure like to hear how you can tell.

Your pal,

TBone- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Color
Crowding wear signs
Plump too early in year
Uniformity
Stupidity
Lack of muscle tone
etc etc etc

Stupidity, eh?

Interesting comment.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe you would like "lack of wariness" better? Like being gobbled by
the herons following the trucks.

Dave

I need help.
 

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:51:51 -0700, "JT"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

Suppose you catch a fish you don't want to eat while fishing for fish you
do want to eat?

TC,
R

Don't be surprised by the response you got.

I'm not surprised by any response around here.

I've asked Mr. Bone the same
question several time, he generally dances around it. In your case, he just
acted dumb...

It's a waste of time trying to get honest answers, many have tired.

Ah, well, see, there's something in my favor - I didn't give a hoot in
hell about the honesty of his answers.

JT
Catch & Release is a conservation effort to protect stream viability for the
future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing.

"Catch and Release," as in catching targeted fish with the intent of
releasing them, for sporting purposes, is not conservation and it does
nothing to protect "stream viability." The only rational is so that
humans can tell themselves such stuff. If the fish need protecting,
humans shouldn't be fishing for them. Conservation is limiting catches,
slot limits, etc., and there is no need for "conservation" when the fish
are farmed/stocked for the sole purpose of allowing humans to catch
them. There's no reason, on waters that are (objectively) fishable, to
prevent people from releasing "sporting" species (invasive species that
need to be removed are another story) if they wish to, but that does not
translate into the releasing of such fish being necessary or
"conservation."

TC,
R

I need help.
 

On Apr 22, 5:51 pm, rw wrote:
[snip]
In Idaho (at least in my parts) the apipose fins of all stocked rainbow
trout are clipped -- not just steelhead. If the fish is a multi-year
holdover its fin is still clipped. They don't grow back. Wild rainbows
(i.e., those with intact apipose fins) must be released.

Hi rw,

I checked with Idaho F&G and I hate to tell you that you've been
releasing stockers.

Just keeping it real, however ineloquently.

Please see entire email chain below my .sig and let me know any
questions.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release wild trout.

---------- email thread below -------------

Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:55 AM
To: IDFGINFO
Subject: Identification of stream born versus stocked trout

Idaho does not clip all the trout that we stock. We occasionally clip
some trout when conducting research projects to evaluate the success
of
our stocking programs but the majority of stocked catchable size and
fingerling size trout are not clipped.

We do clip most of the hatchery steelhead and Chinook salmon that are
released into the Clearwater and Salmon River drainages to go to the
ocean so anglers can harvest these hatchery fish when they return to
Idaho. Anglers are required to release wild fish along with the
unmarked hatchery fish destined for recovery populations.

Fred E. Partridge

-----Original Message-----
From: ]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:48 PM
To: IDFGINFO
Subject: Identification of stream born versus stocked trout

This message was sent from the IDFG website.

Hello,

I understand that Idaho clips the adipose fins of all stocked trout in
the state to identify them from stream born fish of the same species.
Is
this universally true in the state and do you also clip the fin of
trout
fry and subcatchables when they are stocked, or just the catchables?

Thanks very much,

Tim

I need help.
 

On Apr 23, 3:09 pm, "Charlie Wilson"
wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote:
Unless timmie steered you to Mr. Kerasote's work, I fail to see the
connection.

He didn't, I stumbled into Kerasote when the C+R vs. C+K debate was
raging nine or ten years ago. I think I posted something back then, to the
effect that, if Tim spoke as eloquently as Kerasote (defending the same
point of view), he wouldn't seem like such a nutcase. All the same, I still
practice C+R because flyfishing for trout is just too much fun to quit after
catching dinner, and on a normal day on my home river I'd have to quit in
10-15 minutes. Driving home after having a HUGE day, I sometimes wonder how
many carefully released fish still perished for the sake of my amusement. I
make the justification that's it's probably OK, since their molecules will
be recycled by the biomass that will feed future trout.

Hey Charlie,

Will you please recommend some reading by Ted?

Thanks man.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

I need help.
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Apr 22, 5:51 pm, rw wrote:
[snip]

In Idaho (at least in my parts) the apipose fins of all stocked rainbow
trout are clipped -- not just steelhead. If the fish is a multi-year
holdover its fin is still clipped. They don't grow back. Wild rainbows
(i.e., those with intact apipose fins) must be released.


Hi rw,

I checked with Idaho F&G and I hate to tell you that you've been
releasing stockers.

Oh my God! How can I ever live with myself? :-)

I don't mind releasing stockers. I mind killing wild fish.

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

I need help.
 

On Apr 24, 8:48 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
[snip]
Given that the experts can't identify a greenback cutthroat, that they
propagated, stock and protected the wrong "wild" fish for twenty years, it
is hardly surprising that it is endangered.
[snip]

I'm glad you brought that up Wolfman. That's an excellent point.

Yet here people claim they can tell the difference between a stream
born versus stocked trout simply because they're 'stupid'.

And people wonder why....oh never mind.

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.