|
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
jeff wrote:
wrote: 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. well...um...what do you do with the 30,000 brook trout under 30 pounds you catch while trying to catch the one over 30 pounds? jeff (serial killer of fish) This 30-pound restriction is onerous and unreasonable. I propose loosening it up a bit: 1 brook trout at least twice the current world record by weight -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
rw wrote:
wrote: 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. That would effectively be C&R almost everywhere all the time. I've caught quite a few trout this year (it's been a very good year so far) and none of them were close to five pounds except for a bull trout (strictly C&R). Furthermore, a laboratory study (I can't find the source at the moment) showed strong evidence that culling larger fish led to genetic changes on the population in a surprisingly short time, reducing the average size of the fish. If anything, people should be allowed to keep smaller fish and be required to release "trophy" fish. "One trout over 5 lbs" is not a slot limit. The slot limit for trout on the lower Deschutes is a model: two fish between 10" and 13" per day. Simple AND highly effective. All rainbows in the lower Deschutes (a unique strain called redsides hereabouts) are wild and native, and they are thriving. Although artificial lures and gear are allowed, most people fly fish, by choice. Most also fish 100% C&R, again by choice. Those who do take fish, within the slot, have essentially no impact on population numbers. If more people killed fish, the slot could be further tightened (one fish between 10" and 13", for example, or two fish between 10" and 12"). Lots of options available. Such a true, highly restrictive slot limit could, I believe, have served the same purpose as the mandatory C&R reg on the Rapid, without turning the fishery into the common trout petting zoo, where "sportsman" engage in harassment of wildlife for fun. -- John Russell aka JR |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
jeff wrote:
dave...tim's real argument is that you're being mean to the fish. it's a moral dilemma - kill them and eat them, or be mean to them and release them. I'm glad someone finally distilled that "argument" to its essence. That's exactly what he seems to be saying. You either show your "love" by killing the fish outright, or you show your "hatred" by releasing it to fight again. Chuck Vance |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Conan The Librarian wrote:
I'm glad someone finally distilled that "argument" to its essence. That's exactly what he seems to be saying. You either show your "love" by killing the fish outright, or you show your "hatred" by releasing it to fight again. Has nothing to do with "being mean," "hatred" or "love." In one case, you're catching a fish for a serious purpose. A purpose that can justify the suffering inflicted on the fish. In the other, you're doing it for amusement, for a passing lark. Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to playthings. Some folks have no problem with that; others do. -- John Russell aka JR |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
JR wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote: I'm glad someone finally distilled that "argument" to its essence. That's exactly what he seems to be saying. You either show your "love" by killing the fish outright, or you show your "hatred" by releasing it to fight again. Has nothing to do with "being mean," "hatred" or "love." In one case, you're catching a fish for a serious purpose. A purpose that can justify the suffering inflicted on the fish. In the other, you're doing it for amusement, for a passing lark. Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to playthings. Some folks have no problem with that; others do. I think C&R can be approached respectfully. If the angler takes care to try to avoid harming the fish (pinching barbs, landing them quickly and properly, not catching as many as he might, etc.) I think he's acting respectfully. On the other hand, I think someone who spends hundreds or thousands of dollars on gear and travel to catch and kill a few fish is deluding himself if he thinks the killing makes his motives pure. Also, there is plenty of hunting that trivializes the prey. It's popular around here for people to shoot ground squirrels. The ground squirrels aren't hurting anyone -- they're just targets. Sometimes hunters shoot an elk or a moose and leave the meat to rot. They can't be bothered. They just want the trophy. It's very illegal, but it happens. And then there's the despicable practice (IMO) of game-farm hunting, ala Dick Cheney. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
William Claspy wrote:
On 8/1/06 9:15 AM, in article , "JR" In one case, you're catching a fish for a serious purpose. A purpose that can justify the suffering inflicted on the fish. In the other, you're doing it for amusement, for a passing lark. The crux comes when one attempts to apply a human feeling- suffering- on a non human- the fish- who may, or quite possibly may not, have such feeling. It seems to me that if you reject "being mean", "hatred" and "love" (human notions), you should also reject "suffering". No? Or does it become more of a discussion about US and our feelings rather than about the fish? I'm not imposing a human feeling. I think all the discussions of "whether fish suffer" and "whether fish feel pain" do unfortunately always seem to rehash questions of whether they feel pain *the way we do* and whether they suffer *the way we would*. These questions can never be resolved and are pointless anyway. I think it is self-evident that, as sentient beings (see your last sentence below), fish suffer in response to certain stimuli. Fish suffer the way fish do, and we suffer the way we do. (I know, I know.... doh! g). That we might not suffer the same way (have the same "feelings") is beside the point. Some folks find it easy to believe the enjoyment they derive from catching a fish is justified because a fish's suffering is not *really* suffering (i.e., is not the same as human suffering). It's a convenient rationalization. I think it is an excellent topic for discussion. Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to playthings. Some folks have no problem with that; others do. The above statement, or in particular the "playthings" portion of it- might trivialize the many reasons in favor of C&R, which effect the fishes' life just as much as C&K would. I don't think so. That they're reduced to playthings, to be harassed for fun only, is a fact. The "many reasons" only can only help to justify--or fail to justify--the fact; they cannot be trivialized by a simple statement of the fact. I have no problem with C&R, only with pure, mandatory 100% C&R. If there are any conservation reasons for mandatory C&R that couldn't be satisfied by a highly restrictive slot limit, then the population is, I believe, too fragile to allow fishing in the first place. Part of the problem is that it is difficult- for me anyhow- to think in a binary fashion. For example, I have seen C&K fisherman that, if you are thinking in human terms, were quite brutal to their prey. And I have seen C&R fisherman with whom the fish probably were not really aware (if they are aware at all....) that they had been hooked and released. You've seen fish go completely limp or behave in completely the same fashion after hooking as before? Sentience is not an easy concept. Often it's not an easy state. At least not before a few cups of coffee, anyway. :) -- John Russell aka JR |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
On 8/1/06 11:20 AM, in article , "JR"
wrote: William Claspy wrote: On 8/1/06 9:15 AM, in article , "JR" In one case, you're catching a fish for a serious purpose. A purpose that can justify the suffering inflicted on the fish. In the other, you're doing it for amusement, for a passing lark. The crux comes when one attempts to apply a human feeling- suffering- on a non human- the fish- who may, or quite possibly may not, have such feeling. It seems to me that if you reject "being mean", "hatred" and "love" (human notions), you should also reject "suffering". No? Or does it become more of a discussion about US and our feelings rather than about the fish? I'm not imposing a human feeling. I think all the discussions of "whether fish suffer" and "whether fish feel pain" do unfortunately always seem to rehash questions of whether they feel pain *the way we do* and whether they suffer *the way we would*. These questions can never be resolved and are pointless anyway. Yet you seem to resolve it pretty neatly for yourself (see your next sentence). I think it is self-evident that, as sentient beings (see your last sentence below), fish suffer in response to certain stimuli. Hm. I'd agree if you changed "suffer" to "react". Fish suffer the way fish do, and we suffer the way we do. (I know, I know.... doh! g). That we might not suffer the same way (have the same "feelings") is beside the point. I was about to say "I agree", but then it strikes me, isn't that rather the whole point? I mean, if you are going to make the "I'm at the top of the food (and sentient :-) chain, that's why I choose to fish for sport" argument. Some folks find it easy to believe the enjoyment they derive from catching a fish is justified because a fish's suffering is not *really* suffering (i.e., is not the same as human suffering). It's a convenient rationalization. Possibly. Hard to quantify "some folks" as well! I can speak for me, you can speak for you. I won't pretend to summarize "some folks." I think it is an excellent topic for discussion. Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to playthings. Some folks have no problem with that; others do. The above statement, or in particular the "playthings" portion of it- might trivialize the many reasons in favor of C&R, which effect the fishes' life just as much as C&K would. I don't think so. That they're reduced to playthings, to be harassed for fun only, is a fact. The "many reasons" only can only help to justify--or fail to justify--the fact; they cannot be trivialized by a simple statement of the fact. Fact? Really? Like scientific fact? Can "harassed" be quantified? Can "fish suffering" be quantified? Do they use focus groups for that? Are the findings repeatable? Do you really think that your statement "mandatory C&R reduces them to playthings" is a _simple_ _fact_? Doesn't seem so simple to me. But then, I can be pretty simple sometimes myself. :-) I have no problem with C&R, only with pure, mandatory 100% C&R. Your inclusion of "mandatory" has me scratching my head a little, and I'm wondering if you would explain. Would the "playthings" statement change if the C&R were *not* mandatory. So if I'm fishing on a no-regs stream, and release a fish, was the fish not a plaything at my whim? Are the fish that you caught and release that were not part of your slot limit (were there a highly restrictive slot limit) not playthings, whereas they would have been had the C&R been mandated by some outside (outside of your own conscience!) agency? (To be honest, I don't follow the discussion closely enough to know the definition of "slot limit"- is that where you can only keep the first (say) two fish you catch? Or is it when you can only keep fish of a certain size?) If there are any conservation reasons for mandatory C&R that couldn't be satisfied by a highly restrictive slot limit, then the population is, I believe, too fragile to allow fishing in the first place. I've not paid that much attention to it, but it would seem to me that 100% C&R waters are frequently not set aside such for conservation reasons, but rather for what you might call "entertainment" reasons- the hopes that 100% C&R will allow for more and bigger fish! Not saying I agree with that (or disagree, I guess!), just how it seems to me. Part of the problem is that it is difficult- for me anyhow- to think in a binary fashion. For example, I have seen C&K fisherman that, if you are thinking in human terms, were quite brutal to their prey. And I have seen C&R fisherman with whom the fish probably were not really aware (if they are aware at all....) that they had been hooked and released. You've seen fish go completely limp or behave in completely the same fashion after hooking as before? I'm not a fish biologist, nor a behaviorist, but I have seen the latter, after a fish is released*, quite frequently. Within moments the fish returns to its lie, resumes feeding, fighting with other fish, etc.** And when I'm the angler, I generally breathe a sigh of relief when he does so- just as I feel a bit of anguish when the poor thing is bleeding or foul hooked, or injured from a previous angler or heron. The fact that I register anguish or relief is probably the sign of a guilty conscience, and how I rationalize that I'm not 100% sure. That all three notions register in my own pea-sized brain is a sign that my synapses are working. And the fact that this paragraph has gone in the direction that it has is why I said above that the philosophical discussion becomes (for me anyhow) more about US than about the fish. As you said, it becomes pointless in a hurry to discuss "does the fish feel pain" or "does he suffer." The pointlessness stems, in my opinion, from the, er, fact, that we can't know how- or even if!- the poor blighter suffers at all! I guess for some that means they can stop thinking about it, or considering it. shrug Sentience is not an easy concept. Often it's not an easy state. At least not before a few cups of coffee, anyway. :) You're telling me, brother! It was a couple of hours before I got my first cuppa this morning. Talk about suffering! :-) Like I said, I'm glad this conversation goes on. I'm not too firmly on either side of the fence. I know what motivates me to C&R and I know what motivates me to C&K, but thinking about either too hard makes me just sit on the bank and pull out the flask. But I enjoy hearing what others have to say! And hope to do so on a river bank with you sometime, JR, maybe over a hot cast iron skillet with some freshly caught trout! :-) I'd be interested in hearing your own- that is, your personal!- reasons for participating in sport fishing, JR. How do you justify the C&R that you do? Assuming you at least occasionally C&R, that is! Will waffle on demand, Bill *on reflection, there was a (or perhaps I should be more accurate and use "the" :-) BIG steelhead I hooked this past spring. I thought for sure I hooked him, but he didn't seem to react the way I thought he would. He just sort of sat (er, swam) there as if nothing happened. That only lasted a few moments though. Once he recognized that he was hooked (sentient!) he almost took me for a ride all the way to Lake Erie. Ended up breaking off. Wowza! I don't think he suffered though. :-) **[as an aside, I think using these "well, from what I've seen..." anecdotal type of arguments is pretty fruitless, at least if you are trying to draw general conclusions or convince someone of something. There will almost always be a counter example! On the other hand, personal experience is an excellent motivator for ones own current behavior: "well, last time I used a weighted wooly bugger I ended up foul-hooking the fish, so I'm not going to use THAT again!" or "when I swung that caddis downstream the fish really nailed it, so I'm going to try it again on the next hole."] |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
"William Claspy" wrote in message ... I'm not a fish biologist, nor a behaviorist, but I have seen the latter, after a fish is released*, quite frequently. Within moments the fish returns to its lie, resumes feeding, fighting with other fish, etc.** And when I'm the angler, I generally breathe a sigh of relief when he does so- just as I feel a bit of anguish when the poor thing is bleeding or foul hooked, or injured from a previous angler or heron. The fact that I register anguish or relief is probably the sign of a guilty conscience, and how I rationalize that I'm not 100% sure. Excellent writing William, I'm sure everyone here has experienced this before. -tom |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message ... Actually, a good portion of Tim's argument does seem to be based on such concepts, with maybe a bit of "self-loathing" thrown in for fun. Nope, Tim's "argument" is nothing more than an effort to exorcise the demon he sees (however through a glass darkly) resting on his shoulder The demon....... ...To take your statements to their logical extreme -- wouldn't anyone who is not fishing *solely* to feed themselves just be fishing for a "passing lark"? And wouldn't it also be true that anyone who wastes any portion of the fish caught has now crossed back over into that "lark" rather than the "serious purpose"? (I.e., how do you justify the suffering/killing if you waste any of what you kill?) The demon has at long last been exposed.....if not quite properly named. It was, of course, just a matter of time, but I am surprised that it took this long. :) In fact, all the participants in this discussion.....all of the participants in this newsgroup.....fish for the same reason. Catch and kill is a thin, transparent, and thus utterly repugnant rationalization. Angling, for anyone but a subsistence fisherman/woman (who could only in rather unusual circumstances justify using hook and line rather than more efficient and effective methods.....and virtually never fly fishing) is principally a recreational activity. Keeping a few fish doesn't change that. Putative ethical arguments based on an alleged belief in one management regime versus another are purest horse****. Lots of people outside the angling community understand the nature of the core issue here quite well, and it's not just the lunatic fringe of PETA and similar idiots. Lots of people within the community understand it as well. The time is rapidly approaching when the self-serving and hypocritical platitudes mouthed by the latter will no longer suffice to quell critics both within and without. Unfortunately.....for most.....this is going to require either a serious effort to come to grips with the knotty problem of ethics (which, in turn, will mean finding out just what it is that the word refers to) or simply giving up fishing altogether. Obviously, the latter is more likely. As to the matter of suffering, if fish don't, I still await a rationale for telling children that they shouldn't pull the wings off of flies. Wolfgang |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Conan The Librarian wrote:
JR wrote: Conan The Librarian wrote: I'm glad someone finally distilled that "argument" to its essence. That's exactly what he seems to be saying. You either show your "love" by killing the fish outright, or you show your "hatred" by releasing it to fight again. Has nothing to do with "being mean," "hatred" or "love." Actually, a good portion of Tim's argument does seem to be based on such concepts, with maybe a bit of "self-loathing" thrown in for fun. That's how you read it. Not I. In one case, you're catching a fish for a serious purpose. A purpose that can justify the suffering inflicted on the fish. In the other, you're doing it for amusement, for a passing lark. What if you cull fish as you go about your "serious purpose"? Are those fish caught for amusement, for a passing lark, but once they are finally filleted they become "serious" fish? How about if you fish a body of water that has size limits even though you know that the majority of the fish you will catch fall into the size where they must be released? Who said anything about serious fish? It's the purpose that is serious, which makes the enterprise serious. In your examples, fish would have died (or been caught and released) as an unavoidable and/or accidental by-product of a larger, otherwise serious enterprise--that of providing food-- rather than a frivolous, trivial enterprise--that of providing entertainment. It's the seriousness of the intent that counts, I think. To take your statements to their logical extreme -- wouldn't anyone who is not fishing *solely* to feed themselves just be fishing for a "passing lark"? There's a continuum of intents/actions/consequences/results when it comes to what I am calling "seriousness", to be sure. But, yes, the more the intent (or result) deviates from--or doesn't contribute to, even indirectly--the end of providing food, the more trivial that part of the enterprise is. I'll admit, though, that not every American--even my poor weak self--is yet prepared to be as extremely logical and morally exact as the average German. ;) And wouldn't it also be true that anyone who wastes any portion of the fish caught has now crossed back over into that "lark" rather than the "serious purpose"? (I.e., how do you justify the suffering/killing if you waste any of what you kill?) Waste is irresponsible in any event. It wouldn't necessarily be a "lark" but it would be wrong, yes, and wrong to the extent that it was knowingly (or thoughtlessly) wasteful. BTW, I can't remember the last time any part of any fish I killed was "wasted." I kill what I am sure I and/or the folks with me will eat fresh that same day. When I had a garden and a cat, the heads/guts/bones got eaten or composted. Now that I have neither, those parts go in the garbage. Would I prefer that they didn't? Sure, but I'm no more remorseful about it than about those parts of the rest of my food that go the same route, faute de mieux. Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to playthings. Some folks have no problem with that; others do. What about optional C&R? Are those fish any more or less "playthings"? Again, it depends on the intent of the angler when setting off to catch fish. If he/she never had any intention of ever taking a fish for food, then yes, the fish are reduced to nothing more than "sporting" toys. The *entire* enterprise would then be self-indulgent frivolity, rather than only some ancillary part of it. BTW, I have no illusions that I will change anyone's mind here. Many people are very happy and quite morally untroubled to harass wildlife solely for fun, and because it's associated in the public's mind with a traditionally honorable profession/sport, it has society's blessing..... for the moment, anyway. -- John Russell aka JR |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
wrote in message ... In article , says... Again, it depends on the intent of the angler when setting off to catch fish. IMHO, as soon as the word "intent" enters a C&R/C&K thread the thread is over. Judging another angler's intent or their morality based on their intent is overrated. Each of us has to decide for ourselves. I can't (or shouldn't) tell you that your intent and morality are worse than mine and I'd expect you to return the favor (I'm not saying you have made any such comment). Your personal morality is based on your intent, others' morality is based on other factors or a mix of other factors. Neither is superior. It is a strange world that can produce people capable of stating with conviction that intent doesn't matter. Wolfgang who supposes that he will now be informed that no one said any such thing. :) |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... It is a strange world that can produce people capable of stating with conviction that intent doesn't matter. Wolfgang who supposes that he will now be informed that no one said any such thing. :) I find it stranger still when people place a higher importance on intent than they do on outcome - though I'm not saying that that is what you did in this case. Bob weinberger |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
wrote:
In article , says... Again, it depends on the intent of the angler when setting off to catch fish. IMHO, as soon as the word "intent" enters a C&R/C&K thread the thread is over. Judging another angler's intent or their morality based on their intent is overrated. Each of us has to decide for ourselves. Of course. Where did I say anything about judging others intent? In the case of mandatory C&R waters, though, it should be obvious that anyone fishing them has no intention of fishing for food. -- John Russell aka JR |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Bob Weinberger wrote:
I find it stranger still when people place a higher importance on intent than they do on outcome - though I'm not saying that that is what you did in this case. Bob, now, I *did* write: "There's a continuum of intents/actions/consequences/results when it comes to what I am calling "seriousness", to be sure." Take the two cases: - Killing someone on purpose or accidentally. - Stepping on someone's toe on purpose or accidentally. The "seriousness" of the ethical issues involved, I think, involve both the outcome and the intent. Which is *more* important? It depends, I think. In the C&R/C&K matter, perhaps the outcome is more important in the conservation/protection realm and the intent more important in the ethical one? BTW, you been to the mouth for steelhead yet? My continued "semi-retirement" and $3/gal gas is keeping me pretty close to home.... -- John Russell aka JR |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
In article , says...
wrote: In article , says... Again, it depends on the intent of the angler when setting off to catch fish. IMHO, as soon as the word "intent" enters a C&R/C&K thread the thread is over. Judging another angler's intent or their morality based on their intent is overrated. Each of us has to decide for ourselves. Of course. Where did I say anything about judging others intent? Well if you hadn't snipped the rest of that paragraph it would have been obvious that I didn't think you had. Read the last sentence, the part in (). " IMHO, as soon as the word "intent" enters a C&R/C&K thread the thread is over. Judging another angler's intent or their morality based on their intent is overrated. Each of us has to decide for ourselves. I can't (or shouldn't) tell you that your intent and morality are worse than mine and I'd expect you to return the favor (I'm not saying you have made any such comment). " - Ken |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
"JR" wrote in message ... snip BTW, you been to the mouth for steelhead yet? My continued "semi-retirement" and $3/gal gas is keeping me pretty close to home.... -- John Russell aka JR Sorry to say, some health issues, $3.00/gal gas, and 3 digit temps. have also kept me close to home, so I haven't done any steelheading yet. { 8 ( While the courts may make a distinction whether you killed someone on purpose or by accident, I doubt that it matters much to the victim. { 8 0 In general I have a hard time stomaching the concept of anyone imposing their ethics on others, unless actual harm - and to my mind that doesn't include offending their sensibilities - to other people is involved. And yes I know it is done all the time, but that doesn't make me any more accepting of it. So I guess that, in most instances I can think of, I am far more concerned with outcomes than intent. That may be a result of my self-centeredness, as my first thoughts about another's actions are not what his/her intentions are , but rather how those actions or their results might affect things I care about. Bob Weinberger |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Bob Weinberger wrote: "Wolfgang" wrote in message ... It is a strange world that can produce people capable of stating with conviction that intent doesn't matter. Wolfgang who supposes that he will now be informed that no one said any such thing. :) I find it stranger still when people place a higher importance on intent than they do on outcome - Well, I won't deny that you find it strange, but it's easy to find what I believe are perfectly reasonable instances of where intent is judged more important than outcome. What comes first to mind is the law. The dimwit who writes a holdup note on one of his own deposit slips, only to have the bank teller spit in his eye and tell him to hit the road, may be the object of much amusement for those of us who read about it after the fact (and justifiably so) but the courts take a different view of this sort of thing (with equal justification, I think). As well, intent to commit vehicular homicide or any other sort of illegal mayhem, demonstrated by a legitimate attempt, is reason enough to prosecute (and convict if the evidence convinces a jury) regardless of outcome. I trust you'll agree that both of these (which, while presented hypothetically, are modelled on many real life situations) constitute situations in which intent IS in fact more important, at least in some respects, than outcome and that good examples from other areas of the human experience wouldn't be all that hard to come up with. though I'm not saying that that is what you did in this case. Nor would I......ever......without qualification. :) Wolfgang |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
JR wrote:
Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to playthings. hmmm...ever seen the harp (?) seal hunts where the hunters bludgeon those kewpie-doll eyed, angel-innocent, unsuspecting white-skin seals into a blood red death? or the longliners and netters that catch everything, but are prohibited from keeping lots of their catch and dump the by-catch dead bodies back into the water? or the bear and deer hunters that sit in their trucks til the dogs run the quarry to a convenient killing location? if i was looking for sterling examples of trivializing the prey, i'd say those would qualify. i'm all for philosophizing, guilty consciences (i especially appreciate those nasty things), and moral or ethical quandries... but, at the root of this little dilemma, like most, is a human emotion (call it whatever suits you - love, hate, sympathy, empathy, respect, coldheartedness) ... btw, y'all are clearly a much more advanced and thinking being than i will ever be. i do regard fish as playthings...and they usually win the game. jeff (who has observed jr play with the fish) |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
jeff wrote:
JR wrote: Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to playthings. ...... btw, y'all are clearly a much more advanced and thinking being than i will ever be. i do regard fish as playthings...and they usually win the game. jeff (who has observed jr play with the fish) You know, it's really hard to *be* a highly ethical being if one's companions continually insist on pointing out one's hypocrisies. :( The Metolius is mandatory C&R. I don't think it should be, in part because I think a slot limit like that on the Deschutes would serve the same purpose, but mostly for some of the ethical/moral reasons I've mentioned. Still, I fish it. Too beautiful not to. Hypocritical? I guess so. I argue against mandatory C&R waters (with little more success that I've had here g), but I reckon I'll actually stop fishing the more beautiful ones that currently exist around the time I stop coveting my neighbor's wife..... -- John Russell aka JR |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
JR wrote: Conan The Librarian wrote: What if you cull fish as you go about your "serious purpose"? Are those fish caught for amusement, for a passing lark, but once they are finally filleted they become "serious" fish? How about if you fish a body of water that has size limits even though you know that the majority of the fish you will catch fall into the size where they must be released? Who said anything about serious fish? That was an attempt on my part to get at the difference between intent and result. Let's continue with the idea of intent/purpose overriding result: It's the purpose that is serious, which makes the enterprise serious. In your examples, fish would have died (or been caught and released) as an unavoidable and/or accidental by-product of a larger, otherwise serious enterprise--that of providing food-- rather than a frivolous, trivial enterprise--that of providing entertainment. It's the seriousness of the intent that counts, I think. First of all, I'd refer you to Wolfgang's post on the efficacy of flyfishing as "meat fishing". Secondly, I don't see how you can dismiss fish that might die as "unavoidable" or "accidental by-product" in the scenarios I've given. If that's so, what do you say about the fisherman who goes to the water with the idea that he may or may not keep some fish on that particular trip? If he keeps and kills some, is his intent for those particular fish now considered serious? If he lets one go, does his intent now become a "lark"? To take your statements to their logical extreme -- wouldn't anyone who is not fishing *solely* to feed themselves just be fishing for a "passing lark"? There's a continuum of intents/actions/consequences/results when it comes to what I am calling "seriousness", to be sure. But, yes, the more the intent (or result) deviates from--or doesn't contribute to, even indirectly--the end of providing food, the more trivial that part of the enterprise is. I'll admit, though, that not every American--even my poor weak self--is yet prepared to be as extremely logical and morally exact as the average German. ;) But isn't the whole rationale of C&K in this scenario built on the idea of absolutes? And if it is not, doesn't it come back to some personal sense of ethics/morality/whatever? And wouldn't it also be true that anyone who wastes any portion of the fish caught has now crossed back over into that "lark" rather than the "serious purpose"? (I.e., how do you justify the suffering/killing if you waste any of what you kill?) Waste is irresponsible in any event. It wouldn't necessarily be a "lark" but it would be wrong, yes, and wrong to the extent that it was knowingly (or thoughtlessly) wasteful. BTW, I can't remember the last time any part of any fish I killed was "wasted." I kill what I am sure I and/or the folks with me will eat fresh that same day. When I had a garden and a cat, the heads/guts/bones got eaten or composted. Now that I have neither, those parts go in the garbage. Would I prefer that they didn't? Sure, but I'm no more remorseful about it than about those parts of the rest of my food that go the same route, faute de mieux. Do you not ever return fish to the water, or do you also fish for entertainment? BTW, I have no illusions that I will change anyone's mind here. You have actually done a lot better job of making the point than our friend Tim. Too bad he's "left the building". But I expect he got all he wanted by the mere fact that this discussion has been resurrected once again. :-} Many people are very happy and quite morally untroubled to harass wildlife solely for fun, and because it's associated in the public's mind with a traditionally honorable profession/sport, it has society's blessing..... for the moment, anyway. Well, since the whole dogma of C&R came about because of folks who constantly pushed the limits (pun intended), I don't see how you can hold the the C&K above the C&R crowd as far as being "responsible stewards". Chuck Vance (who also doesn't expect to change any minds, but enjoys a nice civil discussion, thanks) |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
JR wrote:
I argue against mandatory C&R waters (with little more success that I've had here g), but I reckon I'll actually stop fishing the more beautiful ones that currently exist around the time I stop coveting my neighbor's wife..... i never really understood the big deal about coveting ...it's that screwing part that really causes the problems. g |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
Conan The Librarian wrote:
JR wrote: But isn't the whole rationale of C&K in this scenario built on the idea of absolutes? And if it is not, doesn't it come back to some personal sense of ethics/morality/whatever? I don't think C&K *needs* a rationale. In any event, no, I don't think any of the rationales, either for C&K or for C&R, are built upon the idea of absolutes. Yes, it comes back to each person's personal sense of ethics. I think I've said that. What I'm try to do here is only explain my sense, not impose that sense on others. Rather than go through another extensive exercise in interspersed replies (I don't have much stamina in that regard), I'll just say it again: I am not against C&R. In this I differ from Tim. I am against state-mandated C&R-only waters, first because they are almost always unnecessary from a conservation point of view and also because they tend to trivialize and impose an unbecoming Disneyfication on the sport and on that part of nature we inhabit as fishermen. -- John Russell aka JR |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
William Claspy wrote:
(I've snipped liberally for brevity's sake) On 8/1/06 11:20 AM, in article , "JR" wrote: These questions can never be resolved and are pointless anyway. Yet you seem to resolve it pretty neatly for yourself (see your next sentence). Yeah. The part I can never understand is why all the rest of the world resist letting me resolve it for them as well.... ;) Your inclusion of "mandatory" has me scratching my head a little, and I'm wondering if you would explain. Would the "playthings" statement change if the C&R were *not* mandatory. So if I'm fishing on a no-regs stream, and release a fish, was the fish not a plaything at my whim? Are the fish that you caught and release that were not part of your slot limit (were there a highly restrictive slot limit) not playthings, whereas they would have been had the C&R been mandated by some outside (outside of your own conscience!) agency? I think that if a fish is caught and released in the process of fishing for food, that fact does not *necessarily* make the fish a plaything in the sense I'm using the word. I think it's when a regulatory body and oneself decide beforehand that any fishing you do this day on this water *must* be only for fun that the water you're fishing is necessarily reduced to a state where it can be nothing other than a playground and the fish nothing other than playthings. (To be honest, I don't follow the discussion closely enough to know the definition of "slot limit"- is that where you can only keep the first (say) two fish you catch? Or is it when you can only keep fish of a certain size?) A slot limit is where you can keep a given number of fish in a size "slot", i.e., *between* a minimum and a maximum length, for example between 8" and 12". Most successful ones serve to cull only pan-sized trout and tend to have less negative effects on a population than "trophy" limits (a given number of fish *over* a certain size). I'd be interested in hearing your own- that is, your personal!- reasons for participating in sport fishing, JR. How do you justify the C&R that you do? Assuming you at least occasionally C&R, that is! I meant to respond to this in detail but have exhausted myself in replying to others. I fish in part because I've done it since early childhood, in part to take an active part in the doings of the natural world, in part for food, in part (I admit it) because it *is* fun. I release many many more fish than I keep. (See my reply to jeff about being a hypocrite.) Ah, the humanity..... g - JR |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
JR wrote: ...I think it's when a regulatory body and oneself decide beforehand that any fishing you do this day on this water *must* be only for fun that the water you're fishing is necessarily reduced to a state where it can be nothing other than a playground and the fish nothing other than playthings.... Find me a regulatory body that can successfully legislate motive. Words are slippery little devils. Recreational activities are supposed to be fun......right? Well, that's what they try to sell you.....but nobody can MAKE you buy. Recreation and fun are not synonymous. Moreover, recreational angling, despite the appelation, can be done for other reasons.....even some arguably sound ones. Wolfgang a little birdy told me so......canary, if i'm not mistaken. |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
"jeff" wrote in message news:5fRzg.1525$W01.1199@dukeread08... JR wrote: I argue against mandatory C&R waters (with little more success that I've had here g), but I reckon I'll actually stop fishing the more beautiful ones that currently exist around the time I stop coveting my neighbor's wife..... i never really understood the big deal about coveting ...it's that screwing part that really causes the problems. g A smiling friend offers--yes but think how many lawyers would loose customers if folks only coveted ! |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
JR wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote: JR wrote: But isn't the whole rationale of C&K in this scenario built on the idea of absolutes? And if it is not, doesn't it come back to some personal sense of ethics/morality/whatever? I don't think C&K *needs* a rationale. But isn't that what this whole discussion is about? :-) In any event, no, I don't think any of the rationales, either for C&K or for C&R, are built upon the idea of absolutes. Yes, it comes back to each person's personal sense of ethics. I think I've said that. What I'm try to do here is only explain my sense, not impose that sense on others. Well if it is dependent on the indivudal's sense of ethics, then you are making a large leap by trying to paint anyone who releases fish as just fishing for a "passing lark", which is what you have done elsewhere in this thread. If I go fishing with the idea that I may or may not keep a fish today, what is my intent? If I do release all of the fish I catch, is it just a lark, while if I had kept one I would automatically become a "serious" fisherman? Rather than go through another extensive exercise in interspersed replies (I don't have much stamina in that regard), I'll just say it again: I am not against C&R. In this I differ from Tim. I am against state-mandated C&R-only waters, first because they are almost always unnecessary from a conservation point of view and also because they tend to trivialize and impose an unbecoming Disneyfication on the sport and on that part of nature we inhabit as fishermen. Fair enough. I have to admit that some of the stories I've heard about the C&R "petting zoos" make me wonder, but like in most things in life, I have the choice to go elsewhere. My own personal ethic is that I try to play fish on appropriate tackle, use barbless hooks and touch the fish as little as possible. I revive the fish when called for, and like Bill, I feel happy when I see the fish swim away under its own power. I haven't kept a fish in years, but it's not because I think I'm "more ethical" than someone who does. I simply don't think it's a good use of the resource unless I plan to cook the fish that same day. And in some of the waters that I fish, it makes sense to put potential brood stock back. Bottom line for me is: I'll take the chance that the fish I release survive, as the outcome of the alternative is certain. Yes, it's for entertainment, but I'd have to agree with Wolfgang that everyone in this group fishes for sport. Chuck Vance (heck, it's even part of the group's name) |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
|
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
"William Claspy" wrote in message ... ...wind me up, ask me the right (wrong?) question and look out! Wolfgang once asked me about how librarians decide which books to remove from their collections. How long did that conversation go on, Wolfgang? :-) Um.....is it over?* ...Part of my going on (and on) is because I'm trying to distill, refine, hone these very arguments, and others, because of similar discussions on the home front- daughter #1 has serious ethical reservations about this past-time of ours. So think of yourselves as a bunch of 12 year old girls. Just the image I've had for the past several years! :) Wolfgang *why wasn't i informed? :( |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
On 8/1/06 7:14 PM, in article 5fRzg.1525$W01.1199@dukeread08, "jeff"
wrote: JR wrote: I argue against mandatory C&R waters (with little more success that I've had here g), but I reckon I'll actually stop fishing the more beautiful ones that currently exist around the time I stop coveting my neighbor's wife..... i never really understood the big deal about coveting ...it's that screwing part that really causes the problems. g No, no, no! You see, there is the whole question of *intent* involved with the coveting! :-) Bill |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
William Claspy wrote:
So think of yourselves as a bunch of 12 year old girls. If that were the case, then the flames and petty ****ing contests would only occur once a month. :( |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
William Claspy typed:
On 8/1/06 7:50 PM, in article , "JR" wrote: William Claspy wrote: (I've snipped liberally for brevity's sake) Occasionally I can go on a bit. :-) When we meet eventually, you'll wonder if I'm the same guy. In person I tend to be, er, on the quiet side. Well, yeah, when you're not ****ing people off by shouting things like "fish on!" There have probably been clave attendees who didn't even know I as AT the clave! But wind me up, ask me the right (wrong?) question and look out! Wolfgang once asked me about how librarians decide which books to remove from their collections. How long did that conversation go on, Wolfgang? :-) I meant to respond to this in detail but have exhausted myself in replying to others. I fish in part because I've done it since early childhood, in part to take an active part in the doings of the natural world, in part for food, in part (I admit it) because it *is* fun. I release many many more fish than I keep. (See my reply to jeff about being a hypocrite.) Ah, the humanity..... g I appreciate your replies to all of the posts. I think we agree on a whole lot and I like the thought that you've obviously put into your ethos. And your recognition of hypocrisy. :-) Part of my going on (and on) is because I'm trying to distill, refine, hone these very arguments, and others, because of similar discussions on the home front- daughter #1 has serious ethical reservations about this past-time of ours. So think of yourselves as a bunch of 12 year old girls. BTW, I look *damn* good in a skirt. :) -- TL, Tim who looks damn good in all attire. ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
precisely! the "Norway paper" was penned by a small committee and ignored by
Sport Fishery Managers in that country. When Tim 1st brought that paper forward here on ROFF 6 or so years ago we had a member from Norway who laid that all out. -- Some of my angling snaps: http://gallery.fishbc.com/gallery/vi...bumName=RalphH "Charlie Choc" wrote in message ... 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?
-- Some of my angling snaps: http://gallery.fishbc.com/gallery/vi...bumName=RalphH "jeff" wrote in message news:HhQzg.1513$W01.146@dukeread08... JR wrote: Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to playthings. hmmm...ever seen the harp (?) seal hunts where the hunters bludgeon those kewpie-doll eyed, angel-innocent, unsuspecting white-skin seals into a blood red death? has been banned for many years. |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
William Claspy wrote to jr:
When we meet eventually, you'll wonder if I'm the same guy. In person I tend to be, er, on the quiet side. There have probably been clave attendees who didn't even know I as AT the clave! But wind me up, ask me the right (wrong?) question and look out! Wolfgang once asked me about how librarians decide which books to remove from their collections. How long did that conversation go on, Wolfgang? :-) I appreciate your replies to all of the posts. I think we agree on a whole lot and I like the thought that you've obviously put into your ethos. And your recognition of hypocrisy. :-) Part of my going on (and on) is because I'm trying to distill, refine, hone these very arguments, and others, because of similar discussions on the home front- daughter #1 has serious ethical reservations about this past-time of ours. So think of yourselves as a bunch of 12 year old girls. :-) Bill hell...was that you on big snowbird last year? damn... g while i have observed jr's toying with fish, i have also determined from observation and personal interaction that he is certainly among the higher order of the thoughtful, considerate, and rational humans i have been privileged to meet (even though he didn't recite poetry...though i feel certain he's a poet). anyone who transports fine beer from washington state (or oregon?...yeah, yeah, i know...but it was good beer from one of those left coast breweries) to cameron, montana solely at the request of the ne'er-do-wells hereabout is simply too ... well, he's easily the too-est...damn, the proper word eludes my inadequate vocabulary, but i'm sure the all the "less-than-too" of y'all know what i'm shooting for. jeff (looking forward to some more sharing of the ethos...and beer) |
On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?
William Claspy wrote:
On 8/1/06 7:14 PM, in article 5fRzg.1525$W01.1199@dukeread08, "jeff" wrote: JR wrote: I argue against mandatory C&R waters (with little more success that I've had here g), but I reckon I'll actually stop fishing the more beautiful ones that currently exist around the time I stop coveting my neighbor's wife..... i never really understood the big deal about coveting ...it's that screwing part that really causes the problems. g No, no, no! You see, there is the whole question of *intent* involved with the coveting! :-) Bill i was going to add a comment about "intent" and "outcome", but in context it seemed too prurient for this crowd. g jeff |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter