Quuick question
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

You seriously underestimate me Op.

I've never tried to estimate you at all, Tim.

Trust me on one thing, I use my
terms carefully.

"wet golfing"? Um...thats' when someone golfs during a rainstorm, IMMHO.

That I fully understand the difference between a sport
and a pastime should be clear. As Thomas McIntyre suggests, a pastime
is playing frisbee on the beach or 3 putting the 9th, while true sport
as Ortega y Gasset, the Spanish philospher says, involves homage,
dedication and the death of a wild animal. That it is serious business,
and I quote:

So, a "sport" is only when something has to die? Funny, they call football,
baseball, basketball....sports. Of course, there are no wild animals
involved in those sports. 'coon hunters don't always kill their prey nor do
bear hunters, yet they are still hunters, I think. It's pretty common,
around these parts, for bear and 'coon hunters to tree their prey and not
kill them. Sometimes it's for training, sometimes it's because the bear or
'coon is a female with cubs and whatever 'coon babies are called, sometimes
it's just for that sport of it! They just love to hear their dogs baying.


"One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in
order to have hunted...If one were to present the sportsman with the
death of the animal as a gift he would refuse it. What he is after is
having to win it, to conquer the surly brute through his own effort and
skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in
the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction
from his job.
Jose Ortega y Gasset, Meditations on Hunting.

That this fella believes the way that he does/did, doesn't make it gospel!
You can quote others until the cows come home, but it don't make it a fact!

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt repolaced the creel

Quuick question
 

cheeses of nazareth wrote in message
...
I had hoped this group would be a departure from the idiot conversations
and stupid Ideas sometimes expressed at Roff but I see its just another
rubber room for the lunitic fringe. I will not bother with it again. good
day.

Geez, cheeze whiz. What's got your panties in a sticky mess? If ya ain't
got anything to offer, other than a whiny assed post, I'd figure ya coulda
just passed on by, without a cryin'!

Op

Quuick question
 

Sorry for the possible redundancy. I think I may have e-mailed this to
walketim and I wanted to post it here. I am new to posting on newsgroups but
thought I would add my $.02 Can. worth......Kerry

I think there is more to the question and answer than first seems apparent.
Some of the C&R streams are too small with a very limted population, to
sustain any catch and keep regulation. The argument could be made to not
fish that body of water at all, but I believe that in many cases, if there
are no folks fishing it, there are fewer folks protecting it from
development or effects of potential industrial pollution. I would say that
in at least some instances, trade-off's are necessary. I believe some
countries and possibly states have gone the way you have suggested, on at
least some bodies of water.
I believe that if we stop using a resource and start looking at it, we will
lose it. I know this topic could be argued and discussed forever without
resolution.
wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi All,

If the regulations wherever you lived were changed such that you had to
kill fish within a slot, but quit fishing when you had a limit, how
would this affect your fishing? Would you continue to fish and would
you support a regulation like this? Do you think the quality of
fishing, interms of quality fish caught as well as quality of the
experience (people astream) would go up or down?

Thanks,

TBone
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.