|
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
wrote in message oups.com... Wolfgang wrote: "Cyli" wrote in message ... On 25 Jul 2006 09:30:58 -0700, wrote: (snipped) That said, I agree with you given the time span that timmy has stipulated for the success of his venture. If the slavering anti-fishing hordes invade the backwoods of northern Curdistan or da Yoop in 2020 the venture will lend new and poignant meaning to the term "blood sport." :) That attitude, and basic unpreparedness, is precisely what will win it for them. I think he was referring to the backwoods attitudes. Small town WI and UP is a bit more forceful about what they think their rights are than the left and right coast urbanites are. Actually, small town backwoods anywhere is pretty forceful, though sometimes they're quiet and subtle about it. Sometimes not so subtle. As I'm sure you remember, we came very close to a shooting war over fishing rights in northern Wisconsin as recently as fifteen years ago. There were numerous violent incidents. It is little short of a miracle that no one got killed.....this time. The fire is under control, for the moment, but it is by no means out. I'll be much surprised if it doesn't flare up again in the not too distant future. Of course, this particular set of circumstances was exacerbated by virulent racism but any attempt to ban fishing (in the instant case, it was only about the perception that one group was getting more than its fair share......well, ostensibly, anyway) WOULD be met with lethal opposition. Wolfgang These people are not releasing their catch because they're real fishermen (as opposed to wet golfers). Which people? They're not in danger of losing anything. Well, all of the parties directly involved were in danger of losing their health, their livelihood, their liberty, their property, their right (or privilege....or whatever else one cares to call it) to fish, money in the amount of whatever fines might be levied for various offenses.......and their lives. Dumbass. Wolfgang |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
wrote in message ups.com... As I have already documented, starting with the state parks. http://www.animalrights.net/archives...02/000019.html http://www.mosportsmen.com/fishing/fishnews2.htm http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/1129 Your pal, TBone Guilt replaced the creel. how does "Peta has requested....." translate into anything, Tim?? I mean, I would like Pennsylvania to give me a 2% cut from the upcoming slot machine parlors, and could put that request to the Governor, but I doubt anything will come of it. Twenty loons sending a petition is similar in impact. As was stated, show us any sign of progress since you first posted this hypothesis...... Tom |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Tom Littleton wrote: wrote in message ups.com... As I have already documented, starting with the state parks. http://www.animalrights.net/archives...02/000019.html http://www.mosportsmen.com/fishing/fishnews2.htm http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/1129 Your pal, TBone Guilt replaced the creel. how does "Peta has requested....." translate into anything, Tim?? I mean, I would like Pennsylvania to give me a 2% cut from the upcoming slot machine parlors, and could put that request to the Governor, but I doubt anything will come of it. Twenty loons sending a petition is similar in impact. As was stated, show us any sign of progress since you first posted this hypothesis...... Tom With all due respect, the question RalphH asked was what strategy was PETA going to follow. I provided a very clear answer with the links that showed the strategy in the form of incrementalism, starting with State Parks. The links are clear regarding this intent, if not immediate success with the tactic, a claim I did not make. Fact is, fishing is banned more and more in wetlands and wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries etc. It is closed at Hanging Lake in colorado as 'incompatible with the harmony' and, it would not suprise me to see it banned in city and state parks as the first cut. Your pal, Tim |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
wrote in message With all due respect, the question RalphH asked was what strategy was PETA going to follow. I provided a very clear answer with the links that showed the strategy in the form of incrementalism, starting with State Parks. The links are clear regarding this intent, if not immediate success with the tactic, a claim I did not make. Fact is, fishing is banned more and more in wetlands and wildlife and waterfowl sanctuaries etc. It is closed at Hanging Lake in colorado as 'incompatible with the harmony' and, it would not suprise me to see it banned in city and state parks as the first cut. Your pal, Tim Still, you made the claim that by 2020, we would see a "ban on sportfishing", and I see little, if any real traction on that front. I don't fear banning or limiting activities in wildlife refuges as a threat. Frankly, if one can accept streams regulated for fishing, one should accept other areas(even streams) regulated towards other aims. Tom |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
With all due respect, the question RalphH asked was what strategy was PETA going to follow.... that wasn't my question at all ... I asked you: "how do you see this ban progressing? Given that many states (and the Province in Canada I live in) have legislation guaranteeing the right to fish, what political jurisdictions do you think will be the bell weather locations for the progression of the ban? Can you name one jurisdiction where such a ban has had serious political momentum" I didn't mention PETA at all. cheers |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
RalphH wrote:
With all due respect, the question RalphH asked was what strategy was PETA going to follow.... that wasn't my question at all ... I asked you: "how do you see this ban progressing? Given that many states (and the Province in Canada I live in) have legislation guaranteeing the right to fish, what political jurisdictions do you think will be the bell weather locations for the progression of the ban? Can you name one jurisdiction where such a ban has had serious political momentum" I didn't mention PETA at all. I misunderstood your question. The way I see this progressing is that animal rights interest groups will have steadily increasing public support and will become more and more organized. They will go after specific bans and various 'minor' successes then build on that. This would be coincedent with a population that is ever more urbanized. I believe that the last census, for example, saw people retreating from wilderness. The city 'loft' society, if you will. The tournements and pure catch and release sportsfishing (modern 'trophy' hunters with no biological reason for harming fish) will be the initial target, and, perhaps, the last target. I believe it will be impossible, in the foreseeable future anyway, that these groups can have the same affect on subsistence or other management (with sound biological reasons) strategies. We must always question our relationship with animals and chose an ethical strategy. I've always felt that pure catch and release offered the least defense of all the options, it will have to be compromised, IMO. Good yakkin' with ya Ralph. Halfordian Golfer |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
On 27 Jul 2006 18:51:46 -0700, wrote:
RalphH wrote: With all due respect, the question RalphH asked was what strategy was PETA going to follow.... that wasn't my question at all ... I asked you: "how do you see this ban progressing? Given that many states (and the Province in Canada I live in) have legislation guaranteeing the right to fish, what political jurisdictions do you think will be the bell weather locations for the progression of the ban? Can you name one jurisdiction where such a ban has had serious political momentum" I didn't mention PETA at all. I misunderstood your question. So why not "name one jurisdiction where such a ban has had serious political momentum"? And how about some 'documentation' that is less than 5 years old. -- Charlie... http://www.chocphoto.com |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Conan The Librarian wrote: wrote: The way I see this progressing is that animal rights interest groups will have steadily increasing public support and will become more and more organized. They will go after specific bans and various 'minor' successes then build on that. You may feel that way, but none of the links you posted support that claim. If you have any evidence that efforts like those you cited have been garnering "steadily increasing public support", please do post them. http://www.peta.org/feat/annualreview05/numbers.asp Your pal, TBone Greed replaced the sport. |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
On 28 Jul 2006 15:02:37 -0700, wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote: wrote: The way I see this progressing is that animal rights interest groups will have steadily increasing public support and will become more and more organized. They will go after specific bans and various 'minor' successes then build on that. You may feel that way, but none of the links you posted support that claim. If you have any evidence that efforts like those you cited have been garnering "steadily increasing public support", please do post them. http://www.peta.org/feat/annualreview05/numbers.asp Can't be more than a few hundred people in that picture... /daytripper (another forecast shot to hell ;-) |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
daytripper wrote: On 28 Jul 2006 15:02:37 -0700, wrote: Conan The Librarian wrote: wrote: The way I see this progressing is that animal rights interest groups will have steadily increasing public support and will become more and more organized. They will go after specific bans and various 'minor' successes then build on that. You may feel that way, but none of the links you posted support that claim. If you have any evidence that efforts like those you cited have been garnering "steadily increasing public support", please do post them. http://www.peta.org/feat/annualreview05/numbers.asp Can't be more than a few hundred people in that picture... And a LOT of them look like they had bacon for breakfast*. :) /daytripper (another forecast shot to hell ;-) Wolfgang *often. |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
wrote:
As I have already documented, starting with the state parks. http://www.animalrights.net/archives...02/000019.html http://www.mosportsmen.com/fishing/fishnews2.htm http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/1129 Your pal, TBone Guilt replaced the creel. A quote from one of the articles YOU cited. (Although I find this pretty surprising) "In fact, while many Americans might be ambivalent about hunting, fishing remains very popular. In a Harris poll of Americans which asked people to rank their favorite leisure activities, fishing came in 3rd tied with spending time with family and kids, and behind only reading and watching television." As long as this is the case, I don't think we need to be concerned about banning sport fishing. Willi |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Willi wrote: wrote: As I have already documented, starting with the state parks. http://www.animalrights.net/archives...02/000019.html http://www.mosportsmen.com/fishing/fishnews2.htm http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/1129 Your pal, TBone Guilt replaced the creel. A quote from one of the articles YOU cited. (Although I find this pretty surprising) "In fact, while many Americans might be ambivalent about hunting, fishing remains very popular. In a Harris poll of Americans which asked people to rank their favorite leisure activities, fishing came in 3rd tied with spending time with family and kids, and behind only reading and watching television." As long as this is the case, I don't think we need to be concerned about banning sport fishing. [sig snipped] Willi, You should know better. Fishing will not be banned, only golfing for fish will be banned. Fishing for sound biological management reasons will never be banned. This, very specifically, will be the major concession point between pure sportsfishers and animal rights groups, which do force us to examine our ethical stance with wilderness at all times. This affects our group of anglers [flyfishing] more directly than any other group specifically which is why we should discuss it here and probably take it a bit more seriously. If our tactics include simply calling these folks 'loons', we've got a long row to hoe. I point to the Norwegian document, as tired as it is, often, because, I believe it is the most defensable stance and a good, fair, one most folks would probably agree with. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
On 29 Jul 2006 08:34:46 -0700, wrote:
I point to the Norwegian document, as tired as it is, often, because, I believe it is the most defensable stance and a good, fair, one most folks would probably agree with. Just out of curiosity, what changes in fishing can you point to that are a direct result of the Norwegian document? -- Charlie... http://www.chocphoto.com |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Dave LaCourse wrote: On 29 Jul 2006 08:34:46 -0700, wrote: You should know better. Fishing will not be banned, only golfing for fish will be banned. Fishing for sound biological management reasons will never be banned. Oh, now I get it. Sound biological reasons are like those they imposed on the Rapid River a few years ago. With a dropping native brook trout population because of meat collectors, Maine fisheries management put a C and R policy on the Rapid. In a few short years the brook trout population rebounded and catching five pound (and larger!) brook trout is now the norm. I no longer have to go to Labrador to catch big brook trout - C&R has made it possible in the Rapid (but only in the spring and early fall when the river temp is sufficiently low). Catch and Kill almost killed the Rapid. Dave, who is heading back to Labrador in August for Landlocks and brout trut. A (2) over 18", mandatory kill, would have worked as well, would it not? There is no sound biological reason, ever, for pure catch and release. If the fishery can not withstand the mortality incident to catch and release, it must be closed to fishing. The distinction may be subtle but it is a vitally important one. Your pal, TBone Guilt replaced the creel |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Charlie Choc wrote: On 29 Jul 2006 08:34:46 -0700, wrote: I point to the Norwegian document, as tired as it is, often, because, I believe it is the most defensable stance and a good, fair, one most folks would probably agree with. Just out of curiosity, what changes in fishing can you point to that are a direct result of the Norwegian document? -- Charlie... http://www.chocphoto.com None and that's the point. Traditional fishing has been going on feeding the animals and people of this unbelievable planet for the 10's of thousands of years. It has been redfined in a few places in the past 40.The Norwegians clearly understand fishing and fisheries management. But mostly they speak of 'respect for life" which is impossible when we exploit, stress, maim and kill an animal solely for our own pleasure, is this not true Choc? From the report: "Summary A form of angling where fish, once caught, are then released, known as "catch and release", is prevalent in a number of countries. The authorities are now considering whether the concept should be introduced as a way of limiting catches in some Norwegian rivers. The "catch and release" concept is a new principle in natural resource management compared with the catch regulation measures adopted previously. "Catch and release" completely separates fishing from its original purpose, which was to procure food. In the view of the Council, it is important to support and develop attitudes that safeguard natural resources and manage them in a sustainable manner. This also entails a respect for life. There is little doubt that fish experience pain and stress in connection with fishing, regardless of whether they are killed or released. The difference is that a fish that is caught and released is subjected to this stress merely to satisfy people's need for recreation. The suffering and damage inflicted on the fish in this connection is disregarded. The Council does not find it ethically acceptable to use live animals in this way. If the fishing stock is so low that it will not tolerate harvesting the alternative in the view of the Council is not to fish. Against this background, the Council advises against the introduction of "catch and release" as a resource management measure in Norway." TBone Guilt replaced the creel |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
On 30 Jul 2006 07:28:48 -0700, wrote:
Charlie Choc wrote: On 29 Jul 2006 08:34:46 -0700, wrote: I point to the Norwegian document, as tired as it is, often, because, I believe it is the most defensable stance and a good, fair, one most folks would probably agree with. Just out of curiosity, what changes in fishing can you point to that are a direct result of the Norwegian document? -- Charlie... http://www.chocphoto.com None and that's the point. Traditional fishing has been going on feeding the animals and people of this unbelievable planet for the 10's of thousands of years. It has been redfined in a few places in the past 40.The Norwegians clearly understand fishing and fisheries management. Norway does not prohibit catch and release fishing. -- Charlie... http://www.chocphoto.com |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
wrote in message oups.com... A (2) over 18", mandatory kill, would have worked as well, would it not? There is no sound biological reason, ever, for pure catch and release. If the fishery can not withstand the mortality incident to catch and release, it must be closed to fishing. The distinction may be subtle but it is a vitally important one. Your pal, TBone Guilt replaced the creel Well Tim given the numerous ways you have exhibited a serious impairment when it comes to logical thought, I shouldn't be surprised by that line of reasoning. In a likely futile effort to show you the falaciousness of the line of thought you expressed above, I offer the following for you to think through: 1. What is the sound biological superiority of a system where numerous fish in the smaller more vulnerable to injury size classes ar caught, handled, measured and released before killing 2 fish over the size that includes most of the breeding stock, over a system where all fish regardless of size are released - usually with less handling involved? 2. Given the drive of many "meat" fishermen to "get their limit" , there is a strong liklihood that a slot limit (especially where the ratio of fish "in the slot" to the total # of fish present is low) can easily lead to a situation where more fish are caught & released (and handled more) than if pure C&R regs were in place. For someone such as youself that believes that the fish suffer from C&R, that only fishing to feed your gut can be morally supported, and that all fishing regs must be for sound biological reasons, about the only system that would meet your criteria and still alow fishing would be one that required you to kill & keep every fish you catch - REGARDLESS OF SIZE - until you had reached the determined limit. Social science is far more the driving factor behind slot limits than is biological science. Indeed, that is the case for most regulations that allow any sport fishing whatsoever. Biological science generally only comes into play to achieve or at least give the perception of progress toward achievement of socially deesired outcomes. And I have no problem with that approach.. Bob Weinberger |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Dave LaCourse wrote: ...The normal and comfortable size of the people fishing the dam today is 7.... DAMN! Wouldn't ya just know it! :( Wolfgang size 12......if becky's cami.......um.....well, never mind. |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote: You may feel that way, but none of the links you posted support that claim. If you have any evidence that efforts like those you cited have been garnering "steadily increasing public support", please do post them. http://www.peta.org/feat/annualreview05/numbers.asp And exactly where was the part that showed that the public is increasingly supporting efforts to end sport-fishing? Chuck Vance |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Bob Weinberger wrote: wrote in message oups.com... A (2) over 18", mandatory kill, would have worked as well, would it not? There is no sound biological reason, ever, for pure catch and release. If the fishery can not withstand the mortality incident to catch and release, it must be closed to fishing. The distinction may be subtle but it is a vitally important one. Your pal, TBone Guilt replaced the creel Well Tim given the numerous ways you have exhibited a serious impairment when it comes to logical thought, I shouldn't be surprised by that line of reasoning. In a likely futile effort to show you the falaciousness of the line of thought you expressed above, I offer the following for you to think through: 1. What is the sound biological superiority of a system where numerous fish in the smaller more vulnerable to injury size classes ar caught, handled, measured and released before killing 2 fish over the size that includes most of the breeding stock, over a system where all fish regardless of size are released - usually with less handling involved? 2. Given the drive of many "meat" fishermen to "get their limit" , there is a strong liklihood that a slot limit (especially where the ratio of fish "in the slot" to the total # of fish present is low) can easily lead to a situation where more fish are caught & released (and handled more) than if pure C&R regs were in place. For someone such as youself that believes that the fish suffer from C&R, that only fishing to feed your gut can be morally supported, and that all fishing regs must be for sound biological reasons, about the only system that would meet your criteria and still alow fishing would be one that required you to kill & keep every fish you catch - REGARDLESS OF SIZE - until you had reached the determined limit. Social science is far more the driving factor behind slot limits than is biological science. Indeed, that is the case for most regulations that allow any sport fishing whatsoever. Biological science generally only comes into play to achieve or at least give the perception of progress toward achievement of socially deesired outcomes. And I have no problem with that approach.. 1) You mean as opposed to the complete randomness of year class mortality with unlimited catch and release while carring and stressing the population? Or do you mean by the increased number of fishermen catching and releasing trout and the effects on the stream side biota from increased angling? Or from the benefit of removing large, piscavorious specimen who are taking more from the system (forage) than return (growth stunt)? Maximizing yield is just one of the goals of management. Slot limits, culling equal sound management. Pure catch and release equal target of opportunity for the animal rights groups. It's that simple. 2) The fact is, this is the very way in which most excellent fisheries are managed in Colorado. Pure catch and release is the exception and, where it does exist, the quality of fishing is usually pathetic if non-existant. I can't imagine anyone who honestly feels standing elbow to elbow in the Frying Pan river is a quality fishing experience. Your pal, TBone It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout. |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Dave LaCourse wrote: On 30 Jul 2006 07:17:32 -0700, wrote: A (2) over 18", mandatory kill, would have worked as well, would it not? No. Those are breeding stock, and there were NONE after the hundred of people flocked to the river to catch their trophy brook trout. They took what they caught, small, medium, large, trouphy, it mattered not. If you caught an 18 inch brookie in those days, it was rare, if indeed it ever happened. There is no sound biological reason, ever, for pure catch and release. If the fishery can not withstand the mortality incident to catch and release, it must be closed to fishing. You miss the point, Tim: The Rapid CAN and HAS withstood the mortality incident to catch and release. It has flourished. It is once more a river where brookies grow to unelievable sizes. What it could NOT withstand was all the meat takers killing the brookies. At one point on a Sunday afternoon about 17 years ago, I counted 20 people *waiting* for a spot to fish the river at the dam. There was already 15 fishing it. The normal and comfortable size of the people fishing the dam today is 7. Other parts of the river were filled with fly fishermen trying to catch a big brookie to kill. And when they had raped the river and taken just about all the brookies from 6 to 26 inches, they left and never returned because the state saw their error and made the river catch and release for brook trout. I took an unheard-of-17-years-ago-brookie in May that measured about 24 inches. It was seven pounds, at least, and is now alive and well in the river waiting for me. The river has come back from the catch and kill days and is now a famous world class brookie stream thanks to c&r. The distinction may be subtle but it is a vitally important one. So, you are willing to close a rare river, one that holds a unique strain of brook trout just to feed yourself. Now *that* sounds not only selfish, but foolish to boot. And, I suppose, you would be willing to then stock the river with, let me guess, browns and rainbows? Then we could all go and catch cookie cutter fish, bred especially for meat eaters, but they taste like....... fish food. We could use a pellet flies, or worms......mmmmm, sounds like fun. Your argument reminds me of my wife who does not think we need a hunting season on deer because enough of them get killed by cars. Great, so lets manage our fisheries based on random mortality introduced by stressing the **** out of the population. I hate to say it but you folks won't last 30 seconds with Ingrid. As far as the second question, the recovery of the green back cutthroat is a good indication of how this can work. You MUST kill every brook trout, and you are required to release all Greenbacks. Now, when the greenbacks can withstand some mortality, that will be allowed. As it is, the culling of all the brook trout is beneficial, even considering the mortality of C&R. Catch and release dogma. It's really, really bad. Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout. |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
rw wrote: wrote: You should know better. Fishing will not be banned, only golfing for fish will be banned. Fishing for sound biological management reasons will never be banned. What make you think that C&R trout fishing isn't a sound biological management practice in many cases? It's never, ever necessary. A 'practical; slot limit can be set just above or below the target. Imagine a 1 trout over 5 pounds limit, for example. Far more defensable to fish for food than to fish for fun, again, the Norwegians explain this better than I can. Your pal, TBone A cash flow runs through it |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
wrote in message oups.com... Bob Weinberger wrote: wrote in message oups.com... A (2) over 18", mandatory kill, would have worked as well, would it not? There is no sound biological reason, ever, for pure catch and release. If the fishery can not withstand the mortality incident to catch and release, it must be closed to fishing. The distinction may be subtle but it is a vitally important one. Your pal, TBone Guilt replaced the creel Well Tim given the numerous ways you have exhibited a serious impairment when it comes to logical thought, I shouldn't be surprised by that line of reasoning. In a likely futile effort to show you the falaciousness of the line of thought you expressed above, I offer the following for you to think through: 1. What is the sound biological superiority of a system where numerous fish in the smaller more vulnerable to injury size classes ar caught, handled, measured and released before killing 2 fish over the size that includes most of the breeding stock, over a system where all fish regardless of size are released - usually with less handling involved? 2. Given the drive of many "meat" fishermen to "get their limit" , there is a strong liklihood that a slot limit (especially where the ratio of fish "in the slot" to the total # of fish present is low) can easily lead to a situation where more fish are caught & released (and handled more) than if pure C&R regs were in place. For someone such as youself that believes that the fish suffer from C&R, that only fishing to feed your gut can be morally supported, and that all fishing regs must be for sound biological reasons, about the only system that would meet your criteria and still alow fishing would be one that required you to kill & keep every fish you catch - REGARDLESS OF SIZE - until you had reached the determined limit. Social science is far more the driving factor behind slot limits than is biological science. Indeed, that is the case for most regulations that allow any sport fishing whatsoever. Biological science generally only comes into play to achieve or at least give the perception of progress toward achievement of socially deesired outcomes. And I have no problem with that approach.. 1) You mean as opposed to the complete randomness of year class mortality with unlimited catch and release while carring and stressing the population? Or do you mean by the increased number of fishermen catching and releasing trout and the effects on the stream side biota from increased angling? Or from the benefit of removing large, piscavorious specimen who are taking more from the system (forage) than return (growth stunt)? Maximizing yield is just one of the goals of management. Slot limits, culling equal sound management. Pure catch and release equal target of opportunity for the animal rights groups. It's that simple. 2) The fact is, this is the very way in which most excellent fisheries are managed in Colorado. Pure catch and release is the exception and, where it does exist, the quality of fishing is usually pathetic if non-existant. I can't imagine anyone who honestly feels standing elbow to elbow in the Frying Pan river is a quality fishing experience. Your pal, TBone Which do you think does the most to shred the tattered remnants of your credibility; the speciousness of your arguments, the inanity of their presentation, your absolute inability to understand the questions put to you, or your complete mystification as to the nature of the issues under consideration? It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout. Dumbass. Wolfgang |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
wrote in message ps.com... rw wrote: wrote: You should know better. Fishing will not be banned, only golfing for fish will be banned. Fishing for sound biological management reasons will never be banned. What make you think that C&R trout fishing isn't a sound biological management practice in many cases? It's never, ever necessary. A 'practical; slot limit can be set just above or below the target. Imagine a 1 trout over 5 pounds limit, for example. Far more defensable to fish for food than to fish for fun, again, the Norwegians explain this better than I can. That's because for those of us who read only English, their explanations (in the original) are a great deal more comprehensible than yours. Wolfgang |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
wrote in message ps.com... It's never, ever necessary. A 'practical; slot limit can be set just above or below the target. Imagine a 1 trout over 5 pounds limit, for example. Far more defensable to fish for food than to fish for fun, again, the Norwegians explain this better than I can. Your pal, TBone A cash flow runs through it When I fished Alaska, I got a chance to talk with the locals. When I mentioned catch and release, they laughed. Other than being upset with the outfitters, advertisements and hoards of fisherman that upset their rivers, they only fish to feed their families. On the river, we saw a boat with two Eskimos, husband and wife on our last day on the river, they caught one king salmon and that was it, back to home. They probably come out once a week for their catch. We also chat with Eskimos from the village of Quinhagak, Alaska, our last campout before pickup. I was amazed to see how primitive they still were, where the whole village still goes out to hunt whale. They actually ring a village bell when a whale is spotted off shore. Nothing is wasted of a whale when they catch them. fwiw, -tom |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
wrote: In article om, says... Your argument reminds me of my wife who does not think we need a hunting season on deer because enough of them get killed by cars. Great, so lets manage our fisheries based on random mortality introduced by stressing the **** out of the population. I hate to say it but you folks won't last 30 seconds with Ingrid. Oh yeah, it'd be tough to argue with Ingrid: "Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." -Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Washingtonian, August 1986 "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses." -Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983. "There's no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all animals." - Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86 "I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don't have any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at least I wouldn't be harming anything." - The Washington Post, 11/13/83 "Eating meat is primitive, barbaric, and arrogant." - Washington City Paper, 12/20/85 Yeah, I think that C&K fishing will go over well with her. She's a loon, is well recognized as a loon. Trying to use her to justify your own tortured ethics isn't going to work. You don't like C&R, that fine, but if you try to force your ethics on others, you are no better than she is. - Ken The fact that she has extreme views on man's relationship to animals is not a good argument for the simple fact that, when 250 million people are asked the question: Is it ethical to hurt, mutilate, deform, stress and kill a wild animal, solely for fun?", you will get at least 249,999,982 million "No's". The other 18 are the bedwetters that will grow up to be serial killers. I think it's that simple. BTW - it is the C&R wet golfers who are the ones BY FAR that are trying to foist their Anti-Ethics on the rest of the real-fishing public, so be very, very careful with that double-edged axe Eugene. Your pal, TBone |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Dave LaCourse wrote: On 31 Jul 2006 08:16:02 -0700, wrote: You MUST kill every brook trout, and you are required to release all Greenbacks. Now, when the greenbacks can withstand some mortality, that will be allowed. As it is, the culling of all the brook trout is beneficial, even considering the mortality of C&R. Uhhh, there ain't any greenbacks in the Rapid. There wouldn't have been any brookies either if the state didn't make it C&R. Really? Even if it had been limited fishing? Even if it had been 1 brook trout over 30 pounds? C'mon, I know you're smarter than this Dave. Regarding the "Breeding stock" - is there some problem in your drainage with the viability of eggs or the survivabilty of the fry, or is there some genetic predisposition towards smaller fish that is being compensated for. And what is the management goal, as many fish as possible of as many large fish as possible. Tim |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
On 31 Jul 2006 11:55:33 -0700, wrote:
The fact that she has extreme views on man's relationship to animals is not a good argument for the simple fact that, when 250 million people are asked the question: Is it ethical to hurt, mutilate, deform, stress and kill a wild animal, solely for fun?", you will get at least 249,999,982 million "No's". The other 18 are the bedwetters that will grow up to be serial killers. Or rodeo cowboys... I think it's that simple. Simple is as simple does. -- Charlie... http://www.chocphoto.com |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter