Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

[unattributed text]
you'd owe me an apology.
[unattributed text]

I'd rather crap a 6 inch Rapala.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:52:52 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Charlie Choc wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I'll be goddamned if I'm going to let
some crackpot trot out the holier-than-thou ad hominems

Irony doesn't get any better than this.

LOL ! Quoting sentence fragments to distort and then
posting snarky comments on the distortion is a play
right out of Tim's playbook.

In this instance it's the author that makes it ironic, not the context. Anyone
interested in the full text can easily see it in the original message, and it
doesn't change my comment.

**** you, Choc.

Only in your dreams, 40.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:11:46 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

So, large fish genetics aside, we can agree that there's never any
management reason to establish a pure C&R policy for the simple fact
that we can set our limits targetted just outside (or inside) some
range that makes it so for all practical purposes. Further we can
agree that there are serious benefits to doing so, the least of which
is that it puts "managing the fishery for yield" back in to the
equation, which is eternally defensible.

No, we can NOT agree. The humann being factor has completely escaped
your model. With pur c&R there are still those that will kill and
remove a brook trout, especially a big one. With any kind of
harvesting, you will have the bozo that will take a 15 inch fish, kill
it (or worse, keep it alive on a stringer), only to replace it later
when he catches the 17, or 18 incher. So now you have two, or three,
maybe even four fish killed simply to conform with what YOU think is
fair. I've seen it happen on the Rapid with Salmon, and I have seen
the greed in these meat gatherers so as not to trust any of them, with
the possible exception of you. Pure c&r worked on the Rapid. Leave
it alone with your willingness to continue experimenting simply so
that you can kill a fish.

Tim, it is patently clear that you suffer from great guilt. You
should not be fly fishing or hunting at all. The best thing for you
would be to fish without a hook - simply cut off the hook at the bend
and fish with the shank and its fly. No mortality, no stress, no
change in blood chemistry, no nothing (except fooling the fish).

Dave
(who has reached his limit on the subject)

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
On Mar 10, 10:19 am, "JT" wrote:
Wrong again... I didn't answer your question true for the simple fact
that I
didn't agree with everything in your question.

OK...

I changed it slightly and made it very specific.

"Fish are stressed or maimed or killed when caught by hook and line"

True or False

I agree that catching a fish will stress it, however the rest could be true
or false.

Thanks,

Your welcome,
JT

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
[unattributed text]
you'd owe me an apology.
[unattributed text]

I'd rather crap a 6 inch Rapala.

Like I said, your character is as lacking as your
silly jihad is incoherent. You can't even make your
crackpot argument without resorting to distortions,
double talk and ad hominem.

Your pal,

I am not your pal.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
If that's his argument then he is a hypocrite for going
fishing at all and I'll be goddamned if I'm going to let
some crackpot trot out the holier-than-thou ad hominems
against fishermen on a fly fishing newsgroup.

To be clear Ken. I am a damned hypocrite on this issue. I know that
it's wrong to stress a wild animal for pleasure but, dude, I'm hooked.
I guess I view the laws and prevailing attitude as "enablers for my
addiction".

Here's what some crackpot had to say about your "addiction".

"While I do not believe mortality alone is a litmus of ethicity, this
stark and wanton disregard for killing wildlife solely for your
pleasure shocked even me.

"It spanks of no conscience."

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Charlie Choc wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
LOL ! Quoting sentence fragments to distort and then
posting snarky comments on the distortion is a play
right out of Tim's playbook.

In this instance it's the author that makes it ironic, not the context. Anyone
interested in the full text can easily see it in the original message, and it
doesn't change my comment.

Ah, I see. Well then,

**** you, Choc.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 10, 11:00 am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:11:46 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
So, large fish genetics aside, we can agree that there's never any
management reason to establish a pure C&R policy for the simple fact
that we can set our limits targetted just outside (or inside) some
range that makes it so for all practical purposes. Further we can
agree that there are serious benefits to doing so, the least of which
is that it puts "managing the fishery for yield" back in to the
equation, which is eternally defensible.

No, we can NOT agree. The humann being factor has completely escaped
your model. With pur c&R there are still those that will kill and
remove a brook trout, especially a big one. With any kind of
harvesting, you will have the bozo that will take a 15 inch fish, kill
it (or worse, keep it alive on a stringer), only to replace it later
when he catches the 17, or 18 incher. So now you have two, or three,
maybe even four fish killed simply to conform with what YOU think is
fair. I've seen it happen on the Rapid with Salmon, and I have seen
the greed in these meat gatherers so as not to trust any of them, with
the possible exception of you. Pure c&r worked on the Rapid. Leave
it alone with your willingness to continue experimenting simply so
that you can kill a fish.

Tim, it is patently clear that you suffer from great guilt. You
should not be fly fishing or hunting at all. The best thing for you
would be to fish without a hook - simply cut off the hook at the bend
and fish with the shank and its fly. No mortality, no stress, no
change in blood chemistry, no nothing (except fooling the fish).

Dave
(who has reached his limit on the subject)

Hi Dave,

Your argument would imply that no regulations would suffice because
people would become poachers and ignore the law. Personally, I have
more faith in my fellow man but, this becomes not a management issue
but one of enforcement.

BTW - You are wrong about the 'pointless' fishing and stress. Much
like paintball hunting deer.

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 10, 11:03 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...

On Mar 10, 10:19 am, "JT" wrote:
Wrong again... I didn't answer your question true for the simple fact
that I
didn't agree with everything in your question.

OK...

I changed it slightly and made it very specific.

"Fish are stressed or maimed or killed when caught by hook and line"

True or False

I agree that catching a fish will stress it, however the rest could be true
or false.

Thanks,

Your welcome,
JT

I'm a developer so boolean logic is kind of my deal.

The fact is, if the rest 'could' be true, than it is true sometimes
and therefore holds true, so there's really no sense qualifying it.
So, given the true case of:

(No sense arguing this point...really...mortality is never considered
to be 0)

Following the line of reasoning for debate...let's try out another
truth.

Fish are killed when caught and released.
Yes, of course, this happens. Yet, Plato, it does not matter because
human's recreation justifies it.
By that reasoning Socrates, humans can stress, maim and kill animals
for pleasure alone, this includes dogs and cats.
No, No Plato you must understand, Fish are different.
Why are they different Socrates and where will we draw the line?
.....


Your pal,

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 10, 11:28 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Here's what some crackpot had to say about your "addiction".

"While I do not believe mortality alone is a litmus of ethicity, this
stark and wanton disregard for killing wildlife solely for your
pleasure shocked even me.

"It spanks of no conscience."

Yes, I agree with him! Thank you for posting! Have you extended an
invite to alt.flyfishing to this person? He sounds remarkably
intelligentand he's spot-on of course.

We often look only at mortality only in the equation but don't
consider the stress, handling, disease, bacterial infections that can
occur much later after handling. I guess that, as long as the fish
doesn't die, we can do whatever to it, for fun? Of course not,
mortality alone is not a litmus of ethicity. This is clear. If it were
not clear, for example, we would not be discussing waterboarding,
would we? I mean...the people live through that, right?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer