|
|
I need help.
|
I need help.
wrote in message ... On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:24:31 -0500, Ken Fortenberry wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: C&R regulations are in themselves no more, or less, respectful of the fish than any of our other game laws. Really? Than why are all pure C&R regulations socially derived and none of them have actual biological imperatives? You continue to spout the same old lying nonsense even after you've been directed to fisheries which have biologically necessary C&R regulations. Um, why is it "biologically necessary?" Can you direct me to a fishery run by fish which have mandated such necessity? I mean, if someone can produce a committee of fish which have OK'd the catching but requested that their fellow fish are released so as to ensure the population, it would seem such might carry a lot of weight in the on-going CnR, um, debate. So, you think that fish can, do, will, should, would, or could mandate biological necessity? Words are just a swarming mass of fuzzy things that swirl and twirl around your head and every so often swoop in to tear out a small hunk of flesh......right? The good news is that this is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better. OTOH, if humans have decided that it "biologically necessary" so humans can continue to fish for sport (and practice CnR), er, well, no so much so... Right, kennie is just as stupid as you. Smallmouth bass fishery, Sylvania Wilderness, Michigan. See above. Now begone troll boy. Which one? Doesn't matter. It ain't gonna happen, is it? O.k., just this once, let's pretend that you two are human adults......just because. Nobody and nothing "mandates" biological necessity. Biological necessity is a complex and as yet only dimly understood set of requirements that individual organisms and various groupings of individual organisms must meet in order to stay alive and propagate. Note that this "necessity" is contingent on the organism's or group's need (however one may wish to define "need") to stay alive and propagate.....the universe at large doesn't much give a damn. The whole mess is a result of historical accidents that resulted from initial sets of circumstances we can only guess at and which are, importantly, value free outside the human reference framework (they existed long before the evolution of human beings, the fact of their existence continues through the current devolution, and that fact will remain long after you astonishingly pinheaded fools are dead......which, god willing, we won't have to wait long to celebrate). Thus, in the broad view, neither the continued existence of trout, nor of the considerably less intelligent and attractive species (if we take yourselves as representative) that pursues them is a biological necessity. None of this has anything at all to do with the ethical concerns surrounding catch and release fishing......or any other style, method, or philosophy. Catch and release fishing is, to put it as simply as possible and as complexly as anyone will ever need to, nothing more or less than a highly successful resource management tool. As such, it is neither decidedly ethical nor demonstrably unethical. Ethics enter into the matter only insofar as individual participation is affected by perceptions about whether doing so is good or bad, right or wrong. In REAL adults such questions are matters of concern for reasons I will not go into here because they do not apply to you and you have no hope whatsoever of understanding them. Well then, so much for make believe. Speak up if you want more, but be advised that subsequent installments will delivered in a form appropriate for the audience. Wolfgang |
I need help.
|
I need help.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:43:27 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Halfordian Golfer wrote: C&R regulations are in themselves no more, or less, respectful of the fish than any of our other game laws. Really? Than why are all pure C&R regulations socially derived and none of them have actual biological imperatives? You continue to spout the same old lying nonsense even after you've been directed to fisheries which have biologically necessary C&R regulations. snip the stupid **** OTOH, if humans have decided that it "biologically necessary" so humans can continue to fish for sport (and practice CnR), er, well, no so much so... That is precisely why the C&R regulations are biologically necessary in Sylvania, so that fisherman can fish those lakes without decimating the smallmouth population. So it isn't "biologically necessary," it's economically necessary. As such, Tim hasn't been directed to any such fisheries because there are no such fisheries...I mean, the whole name - "fishery" - seems to suggest they do nothing because it's "biologically necessary" and that, if fact, they themselves aren't "biologically necessary"...well, maybe if Ray Bergman had written "Tilapia," things wouldn't seem, so, well, complex... But then you knew that already Well, yeah, there is that... and are just posting silly **** to amuse yourself. Um, yeah, so OK, that, too... Smallmouth bass fishery, Sylvania Wilderness, Michigan. See above. Ditto. LIMBAUGH FAN! LIMBAUGH FAN!! Now begone troll boy. Which one? Either one or both of you, preferably both. Um, still too broad...is another of those damned "we" and "all of us" think "they" and "all of them" things...? Those are always so confusing...one is always pretty sure that one isn't too excited about being in such elite company as the aforementioned groups...one might find oneself voting Democrat or something... Help? Oh, we think it does, R |
I need help.
"rw" wrote in message ... wrote: On Apr 23, 9:01 am, notbob wrote: On 2008-04-23, Halfordian Golfer wrote: It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish. I don't get your drift. What? It becomes domesticated upon leaving your hand/net? Yes, that's the basic gist. While Tim's one-liner may seem _practically_ ridiculuous in the caught-one-time limit, the lesson behind it rings true if you've ever fished heavily C+R'd waters. The fish _do_ become somewhat domesticated, used to the presence of man, even to the point of following a wading person around to eat whatever they kick up. Although such waters can provide interesting and fun fishing opportunities, they should not be mistaken for fishing for truly wild fish., such as a mountain stream where the mere sight of just your rod in the air will send the 8" trout scurrying for cover... Jon. I think Tim has a consistent, defensible position from a point of personal ethics. Oh, good grief! timmie doesn't have a position at all. All timmie has is guilt and a monstrous indifference to human decency almost the equal of yours. He's also pointed out a practical problem with C&R -- the unintended mortality of released fish when anglers C&R many more fish than they would under C&K regs. He has consistently ignored the incidental mortality among all the fish that he and other catch an kill enthusiasts release because they are too small to keep legally, as well as those that are big enough but not as big as the one caught an hour or four later. It's when he proselytizes his personal ethics with absurd arguments that bugs me. Your mistake is in supposing that he's got anything resembling personal ethics. He's like you; he does what he wants and then justifies it (to the extent that he's truthful about what he does) later. The "subsistence" argument is the most absurd. No, what's most absurd is the impossible to kill fiction that he has any argument at all. That someone would go to the expense of a typical flyfishing outing (gas, gear, license, etc.) to put meat on the table is more than far fetched. That a subsistence angler would limit himself to fly fishing is merely far fetched. Well, that's true enough, but it's hardly germane. timmie doesn't have any idea of what subsistence fishing means. I think Tim feels that eating a fish you've caught (at a cost of maybe $100/lb and up) somehow endows the whole effort with moral righteousness, No, that's what he desperately WANTS to believe. It doesn't work. while releasing a fish, that you probably don't want to eat anyway, amounts to playing with your food. No, like you and so many others, he's simply looking for someone to hate more than himself. It doesn't work. I don't see much if any difference. No, of course not. When was the last time you went flyfishing because you were hungry? When's the last time you did anything but eat because you were hungry? Wolfgang |
I need help.
"Wolfgang" wrote: Unless timmie steered you to Mr. Kerasote's work, I fail to see the connection. He didn't, I stumbled into Kerasote when the C+R vs. C+K debate was raging nine or ten years ago. I think I posted something back then, to the effect that, if Tim spoke as eloquently as Kerasote (defending the same point of view), he wouldn't seem like such a nutcase. All the same, I still practice C+R because flyfishing for trout is just too much fun to quit after catching dinner, and on a normal day on my home river I'd have to quit in 10-15 minutes. Driving home after having a HUGE day, I sometimes wonder how many carefully released fish still perished for the sake of my amusement. I make the justification that's it's probably OK, since their molecules will be recycled by the biomass that will feed future trout. |
I need help.
Charlie Wilson wrote:
... Driving home after having a HUGE day, I sometimes wonder how many carefully released fish still perished for the sake of my amusement. I make the justification that's it's probably OK, since their molecules will be recycled by the biomass that will feed future trout. That sorta mirrors an epiphany of my own. My wife and I were camped on Slough Creek in Yellowstone when I gut hooked a cutt with a hopper. The fish was practically dead by the time I brought it to hand. Normally I'd cook up a trout which I knew to be dead anyway but this was Yellowstone, strictly C&R. So I reluctantly slid it back into the stream while worrying that the griz would find it, then us, in the middle of the night. The more I thought about it though the more I thought it was sheer hubris to assume that since I didn't eat the fish it was somehow "wasted". The otters would take some, the turtles would have a good meal and so on down the food chain. That fish wasn't wasted by being put back into the stream it was just an early feast for other critters. -- Ken Fortenberry |
I need help.
"Charlie Wilson" wrote in message ... "Wolfgang" wrote: Unless timmie steered you to Mr. Kerasote's work, I fail to see the connection. He didn't, I stumbled into Kerasote when the C+R vs. C+K debate was raging nine or ten years ago. I think I posted something back then, to the effect that, if Tim spoke as eloquently as Kerasote (defending the same point of view), he wouldn't seem like such a nutcase. Eloquence isn't timmie's core problem; it isn't even close. All the same, I still practice C+R because flyfishing for trout is just too much fun to quit after catching dinner, and on a normal day on my home river I'd have to quit in 10-15 minutes. Driving home after having a HUGE day, I sometimes wonder how many carefully released fish still perished for the sake of my amusement. I make the justification that's it's probably OK, since their molecules will be recycled by the biomass that will feed future trout. Personally, I'm a bit uncomfortable with that justification, which is not to say that I reject it. Taken singly, any of the justifications for recreational angling whether one releases all of the fish he catches or only the ones that can't be kept legally, are rather weak. But then, reliance on a single simple justification for anything controversial and/or ethically problematic dooms an honest person to failure. An ethical justification for recreational angling is a lot like the pursuit itself in that it is a lifelong quest. Those who find the answers early (or at all, for that matter) are a lot like those who think the object of all the time, effort and expense of fishing is about ending up with a mess of fish. Wolfgang |
I need help.
On Apr 23, 12:26*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Charlie Wilson wrote: ... *Driving home after having a HUGE day, I sometimes wonder how many carefully released fish still perished for the sake of my amusement.. *I make the justification that's it's probably OK, since their molecules will be recycled by the biomass that will feed future trout. That sorta mirrors an epiphany of my own. My wife and I were camped on Slough Creek in Yellowstone when I gut hooked a cut with a hopper. The fish was practically dead by the time I brought it to hand. Normally I'd cook up a trout which I knew to be dead anyway but this was Yellowstone, strictly C&R. So I reluctantly slid it back into the stream while worrying that the Griz would find it, then us, in the middle of the night. The more I thought about it though the more I thought it was sheer hubris to assume that since I didn't eat the fish it was somehow "wasted". The otters would take some, the turtles would have a good meal and so on down the food chain. That fish wasn't wasted by being put back into the stream it was just an early feast for other critters. -- Ken Fortenberry This rings true particularly here in the Northwest. A key element in salmon recovery is to take spawned out hatchery carcasses way upstream to get the invertebrate populations up, and therefore boost fry survival. Constant harvest, next to our rain regime, inevitably depletes the fertility of our wet-side streams to the point of sterility. Stand in a stream full of spawners, soak in the full oppressive liquid odor of death amidst the struggle for life and you will get a profound new understanding of the biological wealth that carrion represents if a river is to be productive and healthy. Dave Maybe old dead fishermen carcasses could be deposited in the headwaters as a part of a new TU/AARP legacy program? |
I need help.
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message .. . Charlie Wilson wrote: ... Driving home after having a HUGE day, I sometimes wonder how many carefully released fish still perished for the sake of my amusement. I make the justification that's it's probably OK, since their molecules will be recycled by the biomass that will feed future trout. That sorta mirrors an epiphany of my own. My wife and I were camped on Slough Creek in Yellowstone when I gut hooked a cutt with a hopper. The fish was practically dead by the time I brought it to hand. Normally I'd cook up a trout which I knew to be dead anyway but this was Yellowstone, strictly C&R. So I reluctantly slid it back into the stream while worrying that the griz would find it, then us, in the middle of the night. The more I thought about it though the more I thought it was sheer hubris to assume that since I didn't eat the fish it was somehow "wasted". The otters would take some, the turtles would have a good meal and so on down the food chain. That fish wasn't wasted by being put back into the stream it was just an early feast for other critters. Sounds like an excellent reason to slit your wrists and slide into the stream. Wolfgang who, personally, does not endorse throwing garbage into america's waterways. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter