| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Fishing for stocked fish.
I also have plenty of paper sonny, but why should I bother wasting my
time citing it, as you and others would merely ridicule it. http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_...tion/index.cfm http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00011/art00032 http://www.albany.edu/ihe/salmonstudy/faqs.html http://www.advancedbionutrition.com/..._fishmeal.html Make sure you eat plenty of farmed fish sonny, maybe you could send Fortenberry and LaCourse some as well? maybe slather it in your sauce? MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
|
Fishing for stocked fish.
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:14:20 -0700, Mike
wrote: On 17 Sep, 05:04, wrote: Seems you did some research. Ya think? And might you guess that someone with a coupla-three books that cost nearly $1000USD, readily at hand, would have at least some info on the subject? Makes no difference, the wild protein to fishmeal conversion ratio is the same, regardless of the percentage of the fishmeal in the feed, and the various feed percentages are taken into account when calculating THE AMOUNT OF FISHMEAL required to achieve a certain poundage of farmed fish, this is regardless of the rest of the feed involved. And the amount of fish (wet pounds) going into a wet pound of "finished product" is dropping dramatically, which you might know if you had done more than skim Google links. It has dropped from about 3 lbs. just 3-4 years ago to close to 1.5 lbs now and is on its way to about 1 lb. by 2010. And with mad cow, the agriculture protein is consuming more of the fishmeal via feed than the aquaculture - IOW, basically, EU cows are eating more fish than the fish... If you had been somewhat more thorough, you would have discovered that, and also that one can not grow on farmed salmonids without the fish meal. The lipids in meal or oil additives are essential. Yes, one can, and no, they aren't. But either way, fish meal isn't a poison in and of itself, and not all fish meal has elevated levels of PCB, dioxin, etc. IAC, various veg oils can be and are used, as is other sources of protein. So **** you as well sonny boy. Hee-hee-hee, R MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
One final point sonny boy, the only way many salmon and trout farmers
could meet regulations for their toxic fish, was by cutting off all the fatty parts and selling the rest. The removed parts were supposed to be dumped as toxic waste, but a few farmers were found feeding this back to the fish. There are still only a couple of extremely expensive solutions for replacing fishmeal in salmonid diets, and none of them is available on the massive scale required. MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On 17 Sep, 05:45, wrote:
- IOW, basically, EU cows are eating more fish than the fish... R MC Fishmeal is banned in the EU for agricultural feed sonny boy. MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
Fishmeal is banned in the EU for agricultural feed sonny boy. MC Since 2001, it has been illegal to feed fishmeal to ruminants. Although there have been several very strong moves to lift the ban, up to now, good sense has prevailed. MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On 17 Sep, 06:10, Mike wrote:
Fishmeal is banned in the EU for agricultural feed sonny boy. MC Since 2001, it has been illegal to feed fishmeal to ruminants. Although there have been several very strong moves to lift the ban, up to now, good sense has prevailed. MC Maybe you need some new books? MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
Several of your other statements were false as well, but that does not
surprise me. I didnīt expect anything else. I am certainly not going to waste any of my time pointing them out to you. If anybody else posts, I might answer, but you, Fortenberry, and Lacourse are now killfiled. The firstt time in my life I have ever used one. MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:56:35 -0700, Mike
wrote: On 17 Sep, 05:45, wrote: - IOW, basically, EU cows are eating more fish than the fish... R MC Fishmeal is banned in the EU for agricultural feed sonny boy. No, it isn't. It is banned from usage as feed to mature ruminants whose products are destined for human consumption and as such, my offhand use of "cows" was improper. But my preceding comment, which you snipped, was correct - more fish meal consumption in the EU is by agriculture protein rather than aqua - so, OK: EU hogs, chickens, non-ruminants are eating more fish meal than then the fish. And the reason the fish meal was banned had nothing to do with the fish - it was animal protein that was banned, and IIRC, fish meal was banned in various "steps" rather than the immediate, absolute ban of other animal protein. And many seem to think the ban on fish meal was a pretty poor overreaction as the "mad cow" the ban was intended to stop wasn't transmitted by the fish meal. I've even heard there is some talk about repealing the fish meal ban altogether, at least as far as non-imported sources is concerned. HTH, R |
Fishing for stocked fish.
Some more reading for those who might be interested;
http://www.salmonfarmmonitor.org/guestoctober2004.shtml http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/p...03-vegfish.pdf http://www.robedwards.com/2002/07/study_proves_ca.html http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodm...951686,00.html http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/foo...rition/NU00292 http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...ticlekey=56763 http://aqua.ucdavis.edu/dbweb/outreach/aqua/223FS.PDF http://www.aquaculturecouncilwa.com/species/trout/diet There are a lot more, but I donīt suppose many of you will read them. MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
wrote in message ... On 16-Sep-2007, Mike wrote: I am disgusted and ****ing outraged with what people and corporaions do to this planet Esp in that the US is the largest single violator of world polution standards I am ****ing outraged by the wars that we perpetuate in the name of liberty , frredom and the AAmerican way while all they are is methiods for the wealth to exploit the poor - Jus another facet of American - world imperialism Bush, Cheney and their posse are only figurehgeads but thry are guilty of the most heinous war crimes and environmental damage. All for the ****ing dollar. What can I do ? - not much Use it in more positive ways. My 2 cents Fred DemoRAT?? ;-) Rick |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On Sep 16, 7:33 pm, Mike wrote:
On 17 Sep, 03:09, Halfordian Golfer wrote: On Sep 16, 10:16 am, Mike wrote: Good post Mike. There is definitely counter points to be, respectfully, made. 1) In Colorado, there is an exceptional fishery in the mountain and plain lakes that, up until a 100 years ago were completely devoid of fish. A lot of private hatcheries stocked the water including the famous boulder rod and gun club. This activity *created* teh fishery. 2) There is also the consideration that stocked trout in places like St. Vrain State Park, old gravel quarries, absorb a tremendous amount of recreational pressure. 3) The license revenue generated from stocked trout draws interest and moneys for research. 4) 100% of the Brown, Rainbow and Brook trout fishery is the descendant result of stocking programs. 5) In many cases the very nicest fish you catch, one full of color, fight and firm healthy trout is simply the multiple year hold over. Personally, I get the Jones to bang a few stockers and eat them at least once or twice a season. Some of the new diets makes the flesh orange and the fish relatively tasty, especially brined and smoked. I'm not too proud to crack a cool one and take a few of the stocked trout out of he http://parks.state.co.us/Parks/StVrain/ In fact, they did something pretty cool out there last year. What used to be the back ponds that you could drive all around have been closed off as hiking access only. If you walk a mile or two you can leave just about all the rest of the fishermen. Best regards, Tim If stocking is done with fry, or even fingerlings, in a natural manner, and these fish are allowed to grow naturally, it can be, and often is, extremely beneficial. Grown on stock fish rarely are, they are a massive drain on resources. If that same money and effort was invested in improving the environment, there would be far fewer problems. The argument that stocked fish relieve pressure on wild fish is an attractive and plausible one, but when one considers the three pounds minimum of wild fish protein required to produce one pound of stock fish, it crumbles completely. This ratio n is actually often a great deal higher. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, never works. I have not eaten a stocked fish for nearly forty years now, and I never will. I donīt eat any of the farmed stuff on offer either. I know how it is produced, and have seen quite a few analyses of the stuff. Whatever, I am quite obviously wasting my time here. TL MC Hi Mike, I do not think you're wasting your time at all. It is very much appreciated here. There are a few waters in Colorado that have warnings, mostly Mercury in some of the larger impoundments. Being so far upstream (the San Juans) has always been, to me, like "If it's not OK to eat a trout caught from 12,000', where *is* it safe to eat trout. My daughter and her boyfriend caught and baked a large rainbow from the stream below this and they claimed it made them ill and caused mild hallucinations. No joking, please, they were very concerned about it and I understand Mercury can cause this. Still it seems that any 'material' difference between a fish that is the product of aquaculture, such as that trout burniere from Chez Pierre, is from a farm, likely from Idaho (though there are more options these days), as opposed to a planted catchable (Stocker) is minimal, if any. I think these places, like St. Vrain State Park as I pointed out, have a place and I will continue to harvest once or twice a year from these places. While this will sound like heresy, I have eaten stockers from these places that have been better table fare than some of the trout from the 'wild' fisheries. Makes sense, a diet of ants and nymphs versus a diet of paprika pellets? The best trout I've eaten was a very large brown from Taylor Creek reservoir where there are grizzly shrimp and various scuds. Please recall, however, that I believe the only ethically justifiable fishing is that fishing which is intended to capture the animal for food, so I do not feel unlimited catch and release of a wild fish is more noble than catching and harvesting a fish that has been stocked for that express purpose. We have changed our very definition of quality angling as the result of catch and release. At one time it was about the quality of the fish caught and, more importantly, about engaging with the animal on somewhat more natural terms regarding the number of people pursuing it. A great day astream could be ruined by even a few other parties on the creek or river. The opportunity for fishing an unspooked section was a given. Now, we tolerate people in every other hole and have exchanged catching and eating a few over catching and releasing hundreds in a good day of ripping lips. I contend that this 'attitude' is just as easily satiated by farm ponds as it is more wild sources. Indeed, the catch and release 'tank' fishing is growing in popularity. This might seem orthogonal to your subject but I suggest that it is not. Fishing, first and foremost, should be about reaping the bounty of the earth. To ignore or to eschew what we produce as legitimate "agriculture" efforts makes no sense to me. We augment what we eat all the time. Yes, we find wile asparagus in the fence ditch some springs if we get there first but, if we want asparagus, we normally have to get it from a farmer. No question the former is usually better, but it is not always the case. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish. |
Fishing for stocked fish.
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Please recall, however, that I believe the only ethically justifiable fishing is that fishing which is intended to capture the animal for food, Boy, none of us saw *that* coming. [snip of the same old tired song-and-dance] So how's that self-loathing coming along? Chuck Vance (a guilt complex runs through it) |
Fishing for stocked fish.
"Mike" wrote in message ups.com... On 16 Sep, 20:12, wrote: Use it in more positive ways. My 2 cents Fred Sounds quite sensible Fred, but asking "what can I do", is not a sensible substitute for actually doing something. It requires very considerable patience and fortitude to do some things at all. For many years I have been involved in the rearing, stocking, and release of sea-trout for instance, only to see vast numbers of them caught on the high seas by drift netters, or ambushed at river mouths, the size of the few returnees steadily and constantly decreasing as their ocean food chain is destroyed, among many other things to produce artificial sterile monstrosities for other "anglers" But still I continue, as do others, even though many of us think it is mainly a rearguard action eventually doomed to failure. It "might" work, if enough people come to their senses and actually do something. But if nobody does anything at all then the chances dwindle to less than zero. One requires reliable information in order to achieve anything at all, and one must ACT upon it. Even in a small way. Fortenberry does not "drive me nuts" as you put it, he is just a major nuisance in this environment. He prevents it working as it should, for the free interchange of information. he never disagrees with anybody about anything on the basis of fact, he just says something or other must be so because he says it is. All you have to do to see that, is to read his posts. He launches personal attacks and propaganda campaigns. Most people give up and let him get away with it, or decide to ignore him. I am just not the type to give up, either with sea-trout or Fortenberries. You can see the same effect creeping in with others. Look at Lacourses reply to my post on Triploid fish. He doesnīt know anythingat all about it, and he doesnīt want to. The selfish ******* couldnīt care less as long as he can use his money to get what he wants in his lifetime. He doesnīt care whether you or anybody can fish, or even if there are any fish, except where he wants to catch them on his terms. There is not only point in accepting such, it is a major part of the problem. Now I am sure you mean well with your advice, and even think it is good advice, as do many others. But it is not good advice. It is sticking oneīs head in the sand, and no good will ever come of it. TL MC Yeah...I can see how Fortenberry and the high seas have a lot in common.....but, it took a twelve step group! snicker snicker.... john |
Fishing for stocked fish.
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... Mike wrote: Considerations on angling for stock fish. I have a numbre of objections to angling for stocked rainbow trout. These are based entirely on the facts known to me, and are not a result of "snobbery" or any other such silly considerations, as some people seem to assume. This is considerably more temperate and reasonable than what you posted on fishing for stocked fish just three days ago: "No responsible and conservation minded angler in full possession of his senses, and the knowledge of what he is fishing for, how it was obtained and treated, quite apart form the side-effects of eating such heavily chemically treated filth, would even contemplate "angling" for such." 1. The use of such fish is a massive drain on the environment. ... And this is quite different than this from three days ago: "Doubtless, but fishing for stocked rainbows causes heavy environmental damage." Most of your arguments against fish stocking are informed by an unreasonable conflation of aquaculture and fisheries management but at least you've learned to state them in a civil fashion without calling those who fish for stocked fish, (which includes the vast majority of roff btw), "criminally ignorant". -- Ken Fortenberry Is ignorance of the law an excuse? john |
Fishing for stocked fish.
In article .com,
Halfordian Golfer wrote: Please recall, however, that I believe the only ethically justifiable fishing is that fishing which is intended to capture the animal for food, so I do not feel unlimited catch and release of a wild fish is more noble than catching and harvesting a fish that has been stocked for that express purpose. I agree with this. Lazarus |
Fishing for stocked fish.
In article .com, Halfordian Golfer wrote: Please recall, however, that I believe the only ethically justifiable fishing is that fishing which is intended to capture the animal for food, so I do not feel unlimited catch and release of a wild fish is more noble than catching and harvesting a fish that has been stocked for that express purpose. I had forgotten completely that you felt that way...g Tom |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On 17 Sep, 19:54, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
This might seem orthogonal to your subject but I suggest that it is not. Fishing, first and foremost, should be about reaping the bounty of the earth. To ignore or to eschew what we produce as legitimate "agriculture" efforts makes no sense to me. We augment what we eat all the time. Yes, we find wile asparagus in the fence ditch some springs if we get there first but, if we want asparagus, we normally have to get it from a farmer. No question the former is usually better, but it is not always the case. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish. That is basically an ethical standpoint, and although I agree with most of it, it is a personal view. Pressure on the environment is increasing all the time, and anything which increases that pressure purely in order to produce inferior creatures mainly as playthings, is not a good idea. Many anglers consider themselves nature lovers and conservationists. This is hardly reconcilable with angling for stocked fish. Not many people go hunting for domesticated animals either. Quite a few people who are made aware of how stocked trout are produced cease to fish for them. Also, the main reason for introducing catch and release on many stocked trout fisheries, is that people donīt want the fish, they just want to play with them. There are many instances of people catching such fish on stocked non catch and release fisheries, and discarding them afterwards. One can not do much about these things, merely try to make people aware of them. What the individual then decides to do, is a matter for him to decide. In those cases where catch and release is being used to relieve pressure on wild fish stocks, it may be justifiable, although personally I believe that catch and release is an angler management tool, and has little to do with saving the fish. Catch and release of stocked sterile fish, is a different matter, and is indeed purely an angler management tool. More anglers pay more money to catch the same fish. The quality of the experience also deteriorates considerably. There are invariably large concentrations of anglers at such places, and their behaviour also changes. They often stand in one spot all day long, guarding it fiercely. Much of the happy anticipation of a normal river angler, who might catch a nice fish on a river now and again, is gone. All the fish are a certain size, much larger than one might catch under normal conditions, and some are very large indeed. There are also many more of them. Indeed, in many places there simply are no smaller fish at all. I donīt really think there are any solutions to these problems, they have become normal, and people accept them as such. The only way to solve many of the current problems, would be to reduce the population considerably, and educate the rest, and this is not likely to happen. TL MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
Articles like this one, ( extract from this link;
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodm...951686,00.html ) QUOTE Atlantic Salmon Who farms it? Mainly Norway, followed by Chile and the UK. Worldwide production exceeds one million tonnes a year. How? Juveniles are produced from eggs 'stripped' from female broodstock by hand and artificially inseminated. They are reared in freshwater tanks (as parr), then 'put to sea' (as smolts) in cages housing 5,000 to 50,000 fish. What's in it? The colourings astaxanthin (E161j) and canthaxanthin (E161g) are used to dye flesh pink, though the permitted concentration of canthaxanthin was reduced by the EU in 2002 due to links with retina damage in humans. Fish are treated with antibiotics, some of which may remain as residues, and routinely injected with vaccines. The fungicide malachite green (a carcinogen) was banned last year, but traces have since been found in four samples of Scottish salmon and two from Norway. Because they are fed on fishmeal and oil extracted from 'trash fish' living in polluted waters, farmed salmon may contain cancer-causing PCBs, dioxins and mercury as well as pesticides. They contain more fat than wild fish. Are the fish harmed? Though intensive farms are cleaning up their act, overstocking is still a problem. This contributes to the spread of diseases such as ISA (infectious salmon anaemia). Fish are starved before slaughter, then stunned with a blow to the head, followed by gill cutting to bleed them to death. Some are anaesthetised in CO 2 , which irritates the gills, then bled. What about the planet? Diseased salmon can easily escape from cages and infect wild stock. Farmed fish that have lost their ability to migrate can breed with wild salmon, diminishing their urge to spawn. The chemicals cypermethrin, azamethiphos, teflubenzuron and emamectin benzoate (used to treat sea lice), together with faecal waste, pollute the oceans. Rainbow Trout Who farms it? France, Italy, Denmark and the UK. Britain produces 16,000 tonnes a year, or 35 million fish. How? Young female brood stock are fed or injected with testosterone, turning them into functional males; sperm from these 'males' contains only X chromosomes, so resulting progeny are female (females mature later than males, retaining better flesh quality). Equally common is triploidy, where eggs are manipulated using heat or pressure to produce sterile offspring; these grow more efficiently and cannot breed with wild stock if they escape. Raised in freshwater tanks and weaned on to fishmeal pellets, fry are transferred to earth ponds ('stews') or gravel raceways fed by rivers. What's in it? The same E colourings are used for trout as for salmon. Antibiotics and vaccines are routinely given for diseases such as PKD (proliferative kidney disease) and ERM (enteric redmouth). Many trout contain geosmin, a chemical produced by a soil bacterium which gives the flesh a muddy taint, the result of poor water quality. Are the fish harmed? Trout are kept at even higher stocking densities than salmon, some equivalent to 27 portion-sized fish sharing a bathtub of water. On muggy days, they gasp for breath. Fin damage and injuries are common. Further stress is caused by grading, where trout are pumped from the pond and filtered through grids to sort them by size. Slaughter is by suffocation on ice (to increase shelf life), though some favour CO +2baths or electrocution. What about the planet? Trout may escape and breed with wild stock, or spread disease. UNQUOTE Are increasing public awareness slowly. Other organisations are doing their best to point out the problems and dangers, but as in many things, money still rules. There are very many people who simply refuse to believe what is published on the matter anyway. TL MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On Sep 18, 3:04 am, Mike wrote:
Articles like this one, ( extract from this link;http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodm...951686,00.html) QUOTE Atlantic Salmon Who farms it? Mainly Norway, followed by Chile and the UK. Worldwide production exceeds one million tonnes a year. How? Juveniles are produced from eggs 'stripped' from female broodstock by hand and artificially inseminated. They are reared in freshwater tanks (as parr), then 'put to sea' (as smolts) in cages housing 5,000 to 50,000 fish. What's in it? The colourings astaxanthin (E161j) and canthaxanthin (E161g) are used to dye flesh pink, though the permitted concentration of canthaxanthin was reduced by the EU in 2002 due to links with retina damage in humans. Fish are treated with antibiotics, some of which may remain as residues, and routinely injected with vaccines. The fungicide malachite green (a carcinogen) was banned last year, but traces have since been found in four samples of Scottish salmon and two from Norway. Because they are fed on fishmeal and oil extracted from 'trash fish' living in polluted waters, farmed salmon may contain cancer-causing PCBs, dioxins and mercury as well as pesticides. They contain more fat than wild fish. Are the fish harmed? Though intensive farms are cleaning up their act, overstocking is still a problem. This contributes to the spread of diseases such as ISA (infectious salmon anaemia). Fish are starved before slaughter, then stunned with a blow to the head, followed by gill cutting to bleed them to death. Some are anaesthetised in CO 2 , which irritates the gills, then bled. What about the planet? Diseased salmon can easily escape from cages and infect wild stock. Farmed fish that have lost their ability to migrate can breed with wild salmon, diminishing their urge to spawn. The chemicals cypermethrin, azamethiphos, teflubenzuron and emamectin benzoate (used to treat sea lice), together with faecal waste, pollute the oceans. Rainbow Trout Who farms it? France, Italy, Denmark and the UK. Britain produces 16,000 tonnes a year, or 35 million fish. How? Young female brood stock are fed or injected with testosterone, turning them into functional males; sperm from these 'males' contains only X chromosomes, so resulting progeny are female (females mature later than males, retaining better flesh quality). Equally common is triploidy, where eggs are manipulated using heat or pressure to produce sterile offspring; these grow more efficiently and cannot breed with wild stock if they escape. Raised in freshwater tanks and weaned on to fishmeal pellets, fry are transferred to earth ponds ('stews') or gravel raceways fed by rivers. What's in it? The same E colourings are used for trout as for salmon. Antibiotics and vaccines are routinely given for diseases such as PKD (proliferative kidney disease) and ERM (enteric redmouth). Many trout contain geosmin, a chemical produced by a soil bacterium which gives the flesh a muddy taint, the result of poor water quality. Are the fish harmed? Trout are kept at even higher stocking densities than salmon, some equivalent to 27 portion-sized fish sharing a bathtub of water. On muggy days, they gasp for breath. Fin damage and injuries are common. Further stress is caused by grading, where trout are pumped from the pond and filtered through grids to sort them by size. Slaughter is by suffocation on ice (to increase shelf life), though some favour CO +2baths or electrocution. What about the planet? Trout may escape and breed with wild stock, or spread disease. UNQUOTE Are increasing public awareness slowly. Other organisations are doing their best to point out the problems and dangers, but as in many things, money still rules. There are very many people who simply refuse to believe what is published on the matter anyway. TL MC "There are very many people who simply refuse to believe what is published on the matter anyway" And why shouldn't they. The observer is a classic tabloid that relies on tits on the front page and yellow press sensationalism in the articals. There must be a lot of paranoid people in the UK. Andrew Purvis could never write an article on the subject of how good something is., it wouldn't sell papers. Selling papers requires articals about the sky falling and the evils of fish farmers, chicken producers, broccoli grown over leach fields and the mistreatment of peasants by multinational corporations. I am sure all the ills of modern society can be traced to the fact that we don't keep pig sties in the back yard, grow our own corn etc. etc. A good nuclear war would fix the problem. Those that are left could catch wild fish, keep pigs and chicken in the yard, grow their own vegetable etc. Oh for the healthy good old days. |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On 18 Sep, 18:14, BJ Conner wrote:
Andrew Purvis could never write an article on the subject of how good something is., it wouldn't sell papers. You on the other hand, with your impeccable spelling and grammar, healthy views on politics, or indeed anything at all of which you seem to be almost totally ignorant, are very good at writing how bad something is, and even better at writing something badly, as we are all most painfully aware. MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On Sep 18, 9:38 am, Mike wrote:
On 18 Sep, 18:14, BJ Conner wrote: Andrew Purvis could never write an article on the subject of how good something is., it wouldn't sell papers. You on the other hand, with your impeccable spelling and grammar, healthy views on politics, or indeed anything at all of which you seem to be almost totally ignorant, are very good at writing how bad something is, and even better at writing something badly, as we are all most painfully aware. MC Nothing misspelled. You have never had an original thought in your life. |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On 18 Sep, 18:45, BJ Conner wrote:
Nothing misspelled. You have never had an original thought in your life. "articals about the sky falling " "Good" nuclear wars are very rare. You would not recognise an original thought even if it somehow managed to stray into your obviously clouded brain. As you never have anything interesting or positive to say, I will go back to ignoring you. Have you noticed that quite a few others seem to be ignoring you too? Fortenberry trashes people in order to boost his ego, and I suppose you do it for much the same reason, unfortunately, you are a very great deal more stupid than he is, and the results are simply pathetic. You would be well advised to stop even trying. MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
"Mike" wrote in message ps.com... On 18 Sep, 18:45, BJ Conner wrote: Have you noticed that quite a few others seem to be ignoring you too? Fortenberry trashes people in order to boost his ego, and I suppose you do it for much the same reason, unfortunately, you are a very great deal more stupid than he is, and the results are simply pathetic. You would be well advised to stop even trying. MC The only one I have seen Fortenberry trash is you, and with good cause. Now if you where to take into consideration the sarcasm that Mr. Conner wrote the comment about a good nuclear war would fix things, you would actually have a clue. BUT wait, you have no clue you mindless waste of Oxygen. Rick |
Fishing for stocked fish.
"Rick" lanr-at-centurytel.net wrote in message et... "Mike" wrote in message ps.com... On 18 Sep, 18:45, BJ Conner wrote: Have you noticed that quite a few others seem to be ignoring you too? Fortenberry trashes people in order to boost his ego, and I suppose you do it for much the same reason, unfortunately, you are a very great deal more stupid than he is, and the results are simply pathetic. You would be well advised to stop even trying. MC The only one I have seen Fortenberry trash is you, and with good cause. Now if you where to take into consideration the sarcasm that Mr. Conner wrote the comment about a good nuclear war would fix things, you would actually have a clue. BUT wait, you have no clue you mindless waste of Oxygen. Rick Wow, you cheeseheads are a HARSH bunch! :( Wolfgang |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On 18 Sep, 20:33, "Rick" lanr-at-centurytel.net wrote:
The only one I have seen Fortenberry trash is you, and with good cause. Now if you where to take into consideration the sarcasm that Mr. Conner wrote the comment about a good nuclear war would fix things, you would actually have a clue. BUT wait, you have no clue you mindless waste of Oxygen. Rick Well, taking into consideration that you are obviously an idiot, I am bound to assume that the best way to deal with you is to ignore you. Well done, I usually wait for a couple of posts, in order to determine whether what some people write is merely a temporary lapse of good sense and judgement, or a permanent aberration. Congratulations, you are on the ignore list almost immediately. MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:02:28 -0700, Mike
wrote: On 18 Sep, 20:33, "Rick" lanr-at-centurytel.net wrote: The only one I have seen Fortenberry trash is you, and with good cause. Now if you where to take into consideration the sarcasm that Mr. Conner wrote the comment about a good nuclear war would fix things, you would actually have a clue. BUT wait, you have no clue you mindless waste of Oxygen. Rick Well, taking into consideration that you are obviously an idiot, I am bound to assume that the best way to deal with you is to ignore you. Well done, I usually wait for a couple of posts, in order to determine whether what some people write is merely a temporary lapse of good sense and judgement, or a permanent aberration. Congratulations, you are on the ignore list almost immediately. Translation: "I'll be posting 4 to 6 replies, each roughly the size of 'War and Peace' and containing not less than 23 links, to every reply of yours!" Dickie boy |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On 18 Sep, 21:09, wrote:
Translation: "I'll be posting 4 to 6 replies, each roughly the size of 'War and Peace' and containing not less than 23 links, to every reply of yours!" Dickie boy Although that is unlikely in the extreme Dickie boy, like a lot of other rubbish you write, it pleases me that the thought of it ****es you off. Shouldnīt you be festooning nails or something? MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:02:28 -0700, Mike
wrote: Congratulations, you are on the ignore list almost immediately. Count your blessings, Rich. If only Fortenberry, Richard, Wolfgang, me, et al were on his ignore list. Dave |
Fishing for stocked fish.
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:02:28 -0700, Mike wrote: Congratulations, you are on the ignore list almost immediately. Count your blessings, Rich. If only Fortenberry, Richard, Wolfgang, me, et al were on his ignore list. I'm o.k. where I'm at. Thanks. Wolfgang |
Fishing for stocked fish.
"Mike" wrote in message ups.com... On 18 Sep, 20:33, "Rick" lanr-at-centurytel.net wrote: Well, taking into consideration that you are obviously an idiot, I am bound to assume that the best way to deal with you is to ignore you. Well done, I usually wait for a couple of posts, in order to determine whether what some people write is merely a temporary lapse of good sense and judgement, or a permanent aberration. Congratulations, you are on the ignore list almost immediately. MC Alright!!! I made the list!!!!! This is fun.. Now a little to the left... Arm up... up, down, turn around.. Now bow.. Hey this puppet thing is a lot of fun.... Rick |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:13:45 -0500, "Rick" lanr-at-centurytel.net
wrote: Alright!!! I made the list!!!!! This is fun.. Now a little to the left... Arm up... up, down, turn around.. Now bow.. Hey this puppet thing is a lot of fun.... Rick Push and pull, Rick. Twist and twirl. Watch the Mikey Monkey jump. |
Fishing for stocked fish.
On 18 Sep, 21:52, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:02:28 -0700, Mike wrote: Congratulations, you are on the ignore list almost immediately. Count your blessings, Rich. If only Fortenberry, Richard, Wolfgang, me, et al were on his ignore list. Dave Errr.... Wolfgang is not on my ignore list, or my **** list. I may not agree with him on some things, and he may not agree with me. That īs about the extent of it. He does not post a lot of ridiculous **** all the time. Screwing up every single thread with some ridiculous and totally pointless personal agenda, like you and your halfwitted cronies. You are so confused by your hatred for me, that you have lost all sense and decorum. It has got to the stage where even people who liked and respected you before, just think you are a pathetic old windbag who has lost his marbles. It does not matter what you post. I hate to repeat myself, but the people who take my advice on these matters know it works, and they could not care less about your ranting. You canīt even get the guyīs name right, you are ostensibly "supporting", he signs his posts "Rick". Maybe a Freudian slip? Whatever you write has no effect on me, it merely makes you look more stupid. Even assuming that what you and your idiot allies write about my character was even remotely true,it would not make any difference to the people who take my correct advice. They want correct advice, they donīt much care where it comes from. MC |
Fishing for stocked fish.
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:13:45 -0500, "Rick" lanr-at-centurytel.net wrote: Alright!!! I made the list!!!!! This is fun.. Now a little to the left... Arm up... up, down, turn around.. Now bow.. Hey this puppet thing is a lot of fun.... Rick Push and pull, Rick. Twist and twirl. Watch the Mikey Monkey jump. :-) Lol Rick |
Fishing for stocked fish.
"Mike" wrote in message ups.com... On 17 Sep, 19:54, Halfordian Golfer wrote: This might seem orthogonal to your subject Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish. That is basically an ethical standpoint, and although I agree with most of it, it is a personal view. .... this is a case of not knowing your moral ass from your ethical elbow. |
Fishing for stocked fish.
In article . com,
Mike wrote: 3. Although such fish may appear outwardly similar to wild fish, after a period in suitable conditions, they do not behave like wild fish. In many cases being almost tame, and can be caught easily using various tricks, or completely outlandish concoctions such as power bait, to which they have been accustomed artificailly. They may also be easily caught using crushed trout pellets. Many of the flies used to catch such fish have no counterparts in nature, and are taken by the fish mainly as a result of their extreme conditioning during rearing to react to food items in a particular manner. They have been been conditioned to do so, and rarely possess even a fraction of the wariness of wild fish. Especialy when in shoals, which they often maintain until they are caught or die, they are extremely competitive. This is simply wrong. I have fished for stockers and had a great time catching 20 plus fish on a dry. The fight aint so great, but catching a bunch on dry flies sure is. I have caught newly planted fish on dry flies and nymphs. |
Fishing for stocked fish.
Red wrote:
Mike wrote: 3. Although such fish may appear outwardly similar ... This is simply wrong. ... Nothing His Loony Mikeness posts is ever "simply" wrong. He never uses one word when forty grandiloquent words will do. But in this case I agree with him. Some stockers can be caught with pellets and most stockers are not as wary as wild fish. I don't doubt your anecdote but that doesn't disprove what His Loony Mikeness is saying here. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Fishing for stocked fish.
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message et... Red wrote: Mike wrote: 3. Although such fish may appear outwardly similar ... This is simply wrong. ... Nothing His Loony Mikeness posts is ever "simply" wrong. He never uses one word when forty grandiloquent words will do. But in this case I agree with him. Some stockers can be caught with pellets and most stockers are not as wary as wild fish. I don't doubt your anecdote but that doesn't disprove what His Loony Mikeness is saying here. -- Ken Fortenberry F'n elitists. How many people would get to fish for trout if only wild stock were available? |
Fishing for stocked fish.
In article ,
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Red wrote: Mike wrote: 3. Although such fish may appear outwardly similar ... This is simply wrong. ... Nothing His Loony Mikeness posts is ever "simply" wrong. He never uses one word when forty grandiloquent words will do. But in this case I agree with him. Some stockers can be caught with pellets and most stockers are not as wary as wild fish. I don't doubt your anecdote but that doesn't disprove what His Loony Mikeness is saying here. I absolutely agree that they are not as wary, they have been in captivity and feed by humans. And just *sitting* in a pond doesnt do much for their muscles or fighting ability. One thing I can say about stockers is at least in california, fish hatchery's have gotten smart and started feeding them shrimp so they have a beautiful red streak and pink meat. |
Fishing for stocked fish.
Red wrote:
One thing I can say about stockers is at least in california, fish hatchery's have gotten smart and started feeding them shrimp so they have a beautiful red streak and pink meat. "Shrimp." :-) Oh well, at least it gives the flesh the color resident trout are suppos.... , er, ...... - JR |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004 - 2006 FishingBanter