Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 6:11 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You are obviously not interested in an honest discussion.
Which is fine, your jihad is not an honest one so there
is really no point in your making an inevitably futile
attempt to discuss it.

Ken,

You said you only cared about posting full sentences, not the full
quote.

Specifically you said:: I'm going to have to insist that you quote
full sentences only

So I did,

This is a full sentence:

"A few dead fish do not matter one whit to me,
I look at the bigger fishery management picture."

You posted a sentence fragment, twice, which was
a dishonest distortion of my post and then you
expounded on your dishonest distortion to accuse
me of being a man with no conscience who had a
wanton disregard for killing wildlife. Not only
is that dishonest it's despicable.

--
Ken Fortenberry

--
Ken Fortenberry

Dadgummit Ken, you said (and I paraphrase) that a few dead fish did
not matter a whit to you so long as you're having fun and you'll feed
the damned racoons with the waste.

Is this NOT what you meant?

*Wild!

I think this subject troubles you too.

TBone
* Dictionary.com #13: amazing or incredible: Isn't that wild about
Bill getting booted out of the club?

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
This is a full sentence:

"A few dead fish do not matter one whit to me,
I look at the bigger fishery management picture."

You posted a sentence fragment, twice, which was
a dishonest distortion of my post and then you
expounded on your dishonest distortion to accuse
me of being a man with no conscience who had a
wanton disregard for killing wildlife. Not only
is that dishonest it's despicable.

Dadgummit Ken, you said (and I paraphrase) that a few dead fish did
not matter a whit to you so long as you're having fun and you'll feed
the damned racoons with the waste.

You're a funny guy, a dishonest, despicable liar, but funny
nonetheless.

Your silly jihad has been laughed off of roff and I think it's
high time the same thing happened here. You can't even argue
whatever points you think you have in an honest fashion. That
should tell you something about the emptiness of your argument,
not to mention the deficiency of your character.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 9, 9:51 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
This is a full sentence:

"A few dead fish do not matter one whit to me,
I look at the bigger fishery management picture."

You posted a sentence fragment, twice, which was
a dishonest distortion of my post and then you
expounded on your dishonest distortion to accuse
me of being a man with no conscience who had a
wanton disregard for killing wildlife. Not only
is that dishonest it's despicable.

Dadgummit Ken, you said (and I paraphrase) that a few dead fish did
not matter a whit to you so long as you're having fun and you'll feed
the damned racoons with the waste.

You're a funny guy, a dishonest, despicable liar, but funny
nonetheless.

Your silly jihad has been laughed off of roff and I think it's
high time the same thing happened here. You can't even argue
whatever points you think you have in an honest fashion. That
should tell you something about the emptiness of your argument,
not to mention the deficiency of your character.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Hi Ken,

So what you said, and I paraphrase, a few dead fish did not matter a
whit to you so long as you're having fun and you'll feed the damned
racoons with the waste, because you see the bigger picture?

Does this satisfy an acceptable interpretation of what you said?

The fact is, there's not a lot of possibility of being out of context
taking snippets of your phrase anyway. What you believe and why you
believe it are two separate things.

Your pal,

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

So what you said, and I paraphrase, ...

I'm done with you and your silly anti-C&R jihad. Now that
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you really have
no coherent argument, merely ad hominems and double talk, I
can dismiss you, as most folks have already, as a crackpot.

It's sad really, there was a time when you were able to have
a civil conversation. What happened to you ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

So what you said, and I paraphrase, ...

I'm done with you and your silly anti-C&R jihad. Now that
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you really have
no coherent argument, merely ad hominems and double talk,



Bull****.

One can disagree with Tim's position but you're wrong in stating that he
doesn't have a coherent argument, merely ad hominens and double talk.

His argument is VERY coherent and simple - it is wrong to stress,
injure, kill etc, a fish simply for one's pleasure.

Willi

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I'm done with you and your silly anti-C&R jihad. Now that
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you really have
no coherent argument, merely ad hominems and double talk,

Bull****.

One can disagree with Tim's position but you're wrong in stating that he
doesn't have a coherent argument, merely ad hominens and double talk.

There is nothing but hypocrisy and double talk in his
so-called "position". C&R is a fishery management tool,
not the only one, but a valid one for some fisheries.
C&R is not the end of the world as we know it or a slippery
slope towards fish as golf balls. It's just one tool among
several to achieve what all of us should want, namely healthy
fisheries.

His argument is VERY coherent and simple - it is wrong to stress,
injure, kill etc, a fish simply for one's pleasure.

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

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...

There was no attack just a qualified statement of truth. He agrees
with this now and has recanted.

I didn't recant anything. I said playing and catching a fish will stress it,
I did not agree with your C&R definition.
Don't put words in my mouth.


To wit: "Sure it stresses fish to catch and play a trout".

Ken - what sucked about JT's answer is that - I answered his question
straight up, like a gentleman - and he answered mine with pure crap,
you know it, and, well...that wasn't the deal.

Just because I disagree with your definition and belief about C&R it's crap.
OK....

Socratic? Yeah right!

JT

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

JT wrote:
...
Just because I disagree with your definition and belief about C&R it's crap.
OK....

Socratic? Yeah right!

LOL ! Yeah, Tim's empty and incoherent double talk is better
described as sophistic.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:58:08 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

I'll be goddamned if I'm going to let
some crackpot trot out the holier-than-thou ad hominems

Irony doesn't get any better than this.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

Irony doesn't get any better than this.

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

And

**** you, Choc.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 10, 8:09 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...



There was no attack just a qualified statement of truth. He agrees
with this now and has recanted.

I didn't recant anything. I said playing and catching a fish will stress it,
I did not agree with your C&R definition.
Don't put words in my mouth.



To wit: "Sure it stresses fish to catch and play a trout".

Ken - what sucked about JT's answer is that - I answered his question
straight up, like a gentleman - and he answered mine with pure crap,
you know it, and, well...that wasn't the deal.

Just because I disagree with your definition and belief about C&R it's crap.
OK....

Socratic? Yeah right!

JT

The fact JT is that you mocked the agreement we had and you flat
answered a different question. The question I asked was true or false
and you went on about some 'definition of C&R'. This was really unfair
as I laid it out there in my answer as part of the gentlemen's
agreement and acknowledged that I routinely practice C&R, something
I've said in the past. In fact JT I routinely fished the 1st public
waters in the United States that was managed as pure C&R under the
"Fishing is Fun" program and was pretty staunch for about 25 years
that I'm concluding we need a better strategy and have always felt the
animal rights people could crush us by applying this same logical set
of questions.

But, with your answer you basically asserted that fish do not
experience stress when hooked and then gave some trite definition. I
provided the biological data that shows this is an undeniable claim.
Nobody, I mean nobody, discussing this honestly believes a fish is not
at least stressed by the act. This is a good place to start as we have
the biology (chemical changes in the fish's blood) and understand a
lot about stress in fish.

The attempt was purely Socratic but fell apart because of your
response, which was crap. It was a great answer to the question "what
is C&R?" but a completely meaningless answer to the question on the
table. In any Socratic discussion we must accept some truth as a
starting place, which is exactly why it was asked the way it was.

T or F - Fish are stressed, are maimed or die as the result of C&R .

Further, I don't think you've ever bothered to find out what I would
propose to change things, or why I go through this.

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 8, 1:49 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:40:12 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
What do you believe would have happened if the regulations were
changed such that the minimum size limit was 22" and you could only
keep one?

Esentially that would be pure C&R for there were few 22 inch trout in
those days. However, those big trout are healthy and strong, able to
defend themselves from the bass (when they arrived), and essential to
the breeding cycle.

The large fish genetics is one place that deserves more discussion.
Something I agree with is closed season for spawning, or pure C&R for
spawning species if fishing in a population with a mixture of species
(such as on the Rapid and in the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness, for example).
However, it is true (in this case) that a plethora of 21 1/5" brook
trout will 'get the job done'. Still that statistical anomaly will
probably be just fine, he survived that long and there's no way all of
a sudden we'd catch and kill these fish.

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

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 10, 7:58 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I'm done with you and your silly anti-C&R jihad. Now that
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you really have
no coherent argument, merely ad hominems and double talk,

Bull****.

One can disagree with Tim's position but you're wrong in stating that he
doesn't have a coherent argument, merely ad hominens and double talk.

There is nothing but hypocrisy and double talk in his
so-called "position". C&R is a fishery management tool,
not the only one, but a valid one for some fisheries.
C&R is not the end of the world as we know it or a slippery
slope towards fish as golf balls. It's just one tool among
several to achieve what all of us should want, namely healthy
fisheries.

His argument is VERY coherent and simple - it is wrong to stress,
injure, kill etc, a fish simply for one's pleasure.

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

--
Ken Fortenberry


Ken,

Can you describe a situation where pure C&R is a valid management
strategy as opposed to slot limits inside or outside the statistical
norm for a healthy year class of fish? We've come up with one, in
this discussion, but in this context 'selective harvest by species' is
not what I'm referring to. I wait the information from the Maine
Inland Fish and Game on the answer of this on the Rapid. Do you
believe that a fishery that can not withstand some highly restrictive
selective harvest can withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 10, 7:58 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I'm done with you and your silly anti-C&R jihad. Now that
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you really have
no coherent argument, merely ad hominems and double talk,

Bull****.

One can disagree with Tim's position but you're wrong in stating that he
doesn't have a coherent argument, merely ad hominens and double talk.

There is nothing but hypocrisy and double talk in his
so-called "position". C&R is a fishery management tool,
not the only one, but a valid one for some fisheries.
C&R is not the end of the world as we know it or a slippery
slope towards fish as golf balls. It's just one tool among
several to achieve what all of us should want, namely healthy
fisheries.

His argument is VERY coherent and simple - it is wrong to stress,
injure, kill etc, a fish simply for one's pleasure.

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

--
Ken Fortenberry

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

Feel free to use the "I am a damned hypocrite" anywhere you like, even
out of context. From my perspective, we all are.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I'm done with you and your silly anti-C&R jihad. Now that
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you really have
no coherent argument, merely ad hominems and double talk,
Bull****.
One can disagree with Tim's position but you're wrong in stating that he
doesn't have a coherent argument, merely ad hominens and double talk.
There is nothing but hypocrisy and double talk in his
so-called "position". C&R is a fishery management tool,
not the only one, but a valid one for some fisheries.
C&R is not the end of the world as we know it or a slippery
slope towards fish as golf balls. It's just one tool among
several to achieve what all of us should want, namely healthy
fisheries.

His argument is VERY coherent and simple - it is wrong to stress,
injure, kill etc, a fish simply for one's pleasure.
If that's his argument then he is a hypocrite for going
fishing at all and I'll be goddamned if I'm going to let
some crackpot trot out the holier-than-thou ad hominems
against fishermen on a fly fishing newsgroup.

Ken,

Can you describe a situation where pure C&R is a valid management
strategy as opposed to slot limits inside or outside the statistical
norm for a healthy year class of fish? ...

Can you describe a situation where catching and releasing
a fish outside the slot in a slot limit stream is less
stressful or less lethal than catching and releasing a
fish in a C&R only stream ? And if incidental death were
to occur to a fish caught outside the slot in a slot limit
stream would the angler be a wanton killer with no respect
for wildlife and no conscience ?

You might want to consult Socrates before you answer. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 10, 9:26 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I'm done with you and your silly anti-C&R jihad. Now that
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you really have
no coherent argument, merely ad hominems and double talk,
Bull****.
One can disagree with Tim's position but you're wrong in stating that he
doesn't have a coherent argument, merely ad hominens and double talk.
There is nothing but hypocrisy and double talk in his
so-called "position". C&R is a fishery management tool,
not the only one, but a valid one for some fisheries.
C&R is not the end of the world as we know it or a slippery
slope towards fish as golf balls. It's just one tool among
several to achieve what all of us should want, namely healthy
fisheries.

His argument is VERY coherent and simple - it is wrong to stress,
injure, kill etc, a fish simply for one's pleasure.
If that's his argument then he is a hypocrite for going
fishing at all and I'll be goddamned if I'm going to let
some crackpot trot out the holier-than-thou ad hominems
against fishermen on a fly fishing newsgroup.

Ken,

Can you describe a situation where pure C&R is a valid management
strategy as opposed to slot limits inside or outside the statistical
norm for a healthy year class of fish? ...

Can you describe a situation where catching and releasing
a fish outside the slot in a slot limit stream is less
stressful or less lethal than catching and releasing a
fish in a C&R only stream ? And if incidental death were
to occur to a fish caught outside the slot in a slot limit
stream would the angler be a wanton killer with no respect
for wildlife and no conscience ?

You might want to consult Socrates before you answer. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

1) No. In fact it would probably be worse because the fish would still
act like a wild fish and wouldn't come in like a boot with that look
on it's face "Will you go ahead and release me already?"

2) Yes and No. It depends 100% on intent. If I kill a deer with my car
making that 0500 fishing date that's entirely different than chasing
it to death on my snowmobile. If I am subsistence fishing and will
quit when I have a bag, than this is no more of being a wanton killer
than running over a prairie dog tilling for corn.

Your pal,

Tim

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Can you describe a situation where catching and releasing
a fish outside the slot in a slot limit stream is less
stressful or less lethal than catching and releasing a
fish in a C&R only stream ? And if incidental death were
to occur to a fish caught outside the slot in a slot limit
stream would the angler be a wanton killer with no respect
for wildlife and no conscience ?

1) No. In fact it would probably be worse because the fish would still
act like a wild fish and wouldn't come in like a boot with that look
on it's face "Will you go ahead and release me already?"

Yet you recommend slots as opposed to C&R even though you
believe it would probably be more stressful and more lethal.
OK.

2) Yes and No. It depends 100% on intent. ...

Good to hear. If you were a mensch you'd owe me an apology.

And for an example of pure C&R working to perfection where
no other fishery management method would be viable take a
look at the smallmouth fishery in the Sylvania Wilderness
of Michigan's UP.

--

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
Just because I disagree with your definition and belief about C&R it's
crap.
OK....

Socratic? Yeah right!

JT

The fact JT is that you mocked the agreement we had and you flat
answered a different question. The question I asked was true or false
and you went on about some 'definition of C&R'. This was really unfair
as I laid it out there in my answer as part of the gentlemen's
agreement and acknowledged that I routinely practice C&R, something
I've said in the past. In fact JT I routinely fished the 1st public
waters in the United States that was managed as pure C&R under the
"Fishing is Fun" program and was pretty staunch for about 25 years
that I'm concluding we need a better strategy and have always felt the
animal rights people could crush us by applying this same logical set
of questions.

Wrong again... I didn't answer your question true for the simple fact that I
didn't agree with everything in your question.


But, with your answer you basically asserted that fish do not
experience stress when hooked and then gave some trite definition. I
provided the biological data that shows this is an undeniable claim.
Nobody, I mean nobody, discussing this honestly believes a fish is not
at least stressed by the act. This is a good place to start as we have
the biology (chemical changes in the fish's blood) and understand a
lot about stress in fish.

The attempt was purely Socratic but fell apart because of your
response, which was crap. It was a great answer to the question "what
is C&R?" but a completely meaningless answer to the question on the
table. In any Socratic discussion we must accept some truth as a
starting place, which is exactly why it was asked the way it was.

T or F - Fish are stressed, are maimed or die as the result of C&R .

It's possible, but more likely the fish will go on the survive another day
for future generations to enjoy.


Further, I don't think you've ever bothered to find out what I would
propose to change things, or why I go through this.

Inner demons?

Carry on,
JT

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

"JT" wrote in message
...

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
Just because I disagree with your definition and belief about C&R it's
crap.
OK....

Socratic? Yeah right!

JT

The fact JT is that you mocked the agreement we had and you flat
answered a different question. The question I asked was true or false
and you went on about some 'definition of C&R'. This was really unfair
as I laid it out there in my answer as part of the gentlemen's
agreement and acknowledged that I routinely practice C&R, something
I've said in the past. In fact JT I routinely fished the 1st public
waters in the United States that was managed as pure C&R under the
"Fishing is Fun" program and was pretty staunch for about 25 years
that I'm concluding we need a better strategy and have always felt the
animal rights people could crush us by applying this same logical set
of questions.

Wrong again... I didn't answer your question true for the simple fact that
I didn't agree with everything in your question.

That should read "FALSE" no true....

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

OK...

I changed it slightly and made it very specific.

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

True or False

If you don't agree with part of it...please tell me which part and
I'll fix it.

Thanks,

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

I'd rather crap a 6 inch Rapala.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

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

Irony doesn't get any better than this.

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

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

**** you, Choc.

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

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

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

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

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

Dave
(who has reached his limit on the subject)

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

OK...

I changed it slightly and made it very specific.

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

True or False

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

Thanks,

Your welcome,
JT

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

I'd rather crap a 6 inch Rapala.

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

Your pal,

I am not your pal.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

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

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

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

"It spanks of no conscience."

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

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

Ah, I see. Well then,

**** you, Choc.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

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

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

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

Dave
(who has reached his limit on the subject)

Hi Dave,

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

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

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

...

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

OK...

I changed it slightly and made it very specific.

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

True or False

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

Thanks,

Your welcome,
JT

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

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

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

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

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


Your pal,

TBone

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

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

"It spanks of no conscience."

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

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

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Here's what some crackpot had to say about your "addiction".

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

"It spanks of no conscience."

Yes, I agree with him! Thank you for posting! Have you extended an
invite to alt.flyfishing to this person? ...

No, I don't imagine PETA kooks would be welcome in
a newsgroup devoted to fly fishing. Well, except
perhaps for comic relief.

Now if you'll excuse me I have some cats I have to
maim this afternoon.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 10, 12:45 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Here's what some crackpot had to say about your "addiction".

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

"It spanks of no conscience."

Yes, I agree with him! Thank you for posting! Have you extended an
invite to alt.flyfishing to this person? ...

No, I don't imagine PETA kooks would be welcome in
a newsgroup devoted to fly fishing. Well, except
perhaps for comic relief.

Now if you'll excuse me I have some cats I have to
maim this afternoon.

--
Ken Fortenberry

May I suggest the 3WT RPL for the Tabby? She'll make a dash for the
bowl but if you put the butt to her you can turn her around before she
makes the laundry room.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On 8-Mar-2008, Dave LaCourse wrote:

Dave aka Pirate aka Bottom Dweller aka Asshole aka Fat Fool aka Jerk
nka Sisyphus

Please keep flme wars to other venues and other groups
Even if it is true and if it is about yourself

Fred

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...

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

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

Wrong again!


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


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

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

You claim to use logic and make statements such as this?
And I truly hate cats...

The wind is blowing hard today eh?

JT
Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream
viability for the future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing.

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

You claim to use logic and make statements such as this?
And I truly hate cats...

If you kill an animal, any animal, the only ethical thing
to do is eat it.

Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must
then eat both the fish and the earthworm.

If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the
same thing as torturing dogs and cats.

Given "logic" like this it's no wonder Socrates drank hemlock. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

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


That is a question that if taken to the extreme, wouldn't allow us to do
much or anything "for pleasure alone."


We play a game of baseball, we kill living things.

We go for a walk in the park, we kill living things.


Where do YOU draw the line? Insects, one celled animals,

Or why stop at animals, how about plants?

Or even bacteria and viruses?

We ALL draw a line somewhere.

Willi

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

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

You claim to use logic and make statements such as this?
And I truly hate cats...

If you kill an animal, any animal, the only ethical thing
to do is eat it.

Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must
then eat both the fish and the earthworm.

If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the
same thing as torturing dogs and cats.

Given "logic" like this it's no wonder Socrates drank hemlock. LOL !!

He he he!

I here cat tastes like chicken? ;)

JT

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

"JT" wrote in message
...

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

You claim to use logic and make statements such as this?
And I truly hate cats...

If you kill an animal, any animal, the only ethical thing
to do is eat it.

Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must
then eat both the fish and the earthworm.

If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the
same thing as torturing dogs and cats.

Given "logic" like this it's no wonder Socrates drank hemlock. LOL !!

He he he!

I here cat tastes like chicken? ;)

Make that "hear".... Too much going on today!

JT

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

On Mar 10, 2:04 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
JT wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote:
Fish are killed when caught and released.
Yes, of course, this happens. Yet, Plato, it does not matter because
human's recreation justifies it.
By that reasoning Socrates, humans can stress, maim and kill animals
for pleasure alone, this includes dogs and cats.
No, No Plato you must understand, Fish are different.
Why are they different Socrates and where will we draw the line?

You claim to use logic and make statements such as this?
And I truly hate cats...

If you kill an animal, any animal, the only ethical thing
to do is eat it.

Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must
then eat both the fish and the earthworm.

If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the
same thing as torturing dogs and cats.

Given "logic" like this it's no wonder Socrates drank hemlock. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

EXCELLENT Socratic Dialog!

"Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must then eat
both the fish and the earthworm."

No, not nececessarily, Kenicles. For there is no longer a need to eat
the earthworm as you have a fish. If you are starving and the fish is
poor than I would agree. However, It would always be 'mean of spirit'
to impale the minnow or the earthworm just for fun, but we need to
eat.

"If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the same thing
as torturing dogs and cats."

Is it Kenicles? When it comes to what is acceptable to kill without
justification we seem to draw the line somewhere between simple
organisms and more complex organisms. Where is the line? Birds? Can we
hook a bird in the beak with a hook for pleasure? It would be fun to
play them in "three dimensions" over the Eridanos, would it not
Kenicles?, as long as they did not die, what would be the harm?"

Your pal,

Halfordicles

Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
If you kill an animal, any animal, the only ethical thing
to do is eat it.

Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must
then eat both the fish and the earthworm.

If you do not eat the fish and the earthworm that is the
same thing as torturing dogs and cats.

Given "logic" like this it's no wonder Socrates drank hemlock. LOL !!

EXCELLENT Socratic Dialog!

Was it ? It was supposed to be over-the-top sarcasm.

"Therefore if you use an earthworm to catch a fish you must then eat
both the fish and the earthworm."

No, not nececessarily, Kenicles. For there is no longer a need to eat
the earthworm as you have a fish. If you are starving and the fish is
poor than I would agree.

So if you're starving and the fish can loan you a five spot
you can grab a burger at Mickey D's and you don't have to eat
either the fish or the worm, but if the fish is poor you have
to eat both ?

I think I'm starting to get the hang of this Socratic dialogue.

What about rats and roaches ? If I kill a rat or a roach can
their families slip me a little cash and claim the bodies or
am I ethically bound to eat them ?

--
Ken Fortenberry