I need help.
 

On Apr 23, 11:01 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?

nb

Exactly. The terms are at odds.

Halfordian Golfer

I need help.
 

On Apr 23, 10:24 am, 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.

Smallmouth bass fishery, Sylvania Wilderness, Michigan.

Now begone troll boy.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Sorry Ken but you've blown it again.

http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/u...a/mi_sylva.htm

This is selective harvest, culling by species to favor one species
over the other.

Duh?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

I need help.
 

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:05 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

On Apr 23, 11:01 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?

nb

Exactly. The terms are at odds.

Um...I got a bayou or two full of gators and water moccasins...care to
come do some layin' on of the hands, er, "domestication"...? This is
among the places you go off the rails, IMO - a single instance of
catching doesn't "domesticate" a fish (or anything else), and IAC, if
you believe catching domesticates the fish, you can't eat a wild one.
You've "ruined" the fish by your act of catching it, and eating it
serves no purpose as far as utilizing "wild" game. And what about
animals catching a fish? Do you think that domesticates it? Suppose
the fish escapes the clutches of whatever animal it was that caught it?
You're gonna leave footprints, too, Tim, even if you CnK...

TC,
R

Halfordian Golfer

I need help.
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You continue to spout the same old lying nonsense even after
you've been directed to fisheries which have biologically
necessary C&R regulations.

Smallmouth bass fishery, Sylvania Wilderness, Michigan.

Now begone troll boy.

Sorry Ken but you've blown it again.

LOL !! Must be a wonderful thing to have your very own
personal reality without having to resort to chemical
enhancements. I mean you are straight when you post your
nonsense, right ?

Your pal,

I am *not* your pal.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I need help.
 

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.

Extinction. It's not just for dinosaurs anymore.

If a population of fish can not withstand the mortality incidental to
pure C&R it should be closed.
If it can than it can also withstand the mortality incidental to
selective harvest.

All pure C&R regulations that are in place are in place due to social
dictums. We must not fool ourselves. We release rainbow trout in the
roaring fork river, at the peril of the indiginous colorado river
cutthroat trout, literally risking extinction of that species through
loss of genetic diversity, simply because the guides would pitch a
fit.

---to wit a recent discussion with CDOW--
Question or Message: Why are the rainbow trout protected on the
roaring fork and Colorado river when the Colorado river cutthroat are
at risk of genetic extinction through hybridization? I guess I'm
confused by this apparent conflict. As a Colorado angler for 45 years
I'd like to see the bag limits on rainbow trout removed on the Roaring
Fork and Colorado rivers with a 1 fish over 22" on the Cutthroat.
Thanks very much for listening.
------------
The Roaring Fork and Colorado R. are managed for a rainbow fishery.
The habitat and completion does not make these stretchers conducive to
Cutthroat management and if we were to reduce the bag or eliminate it
we would be getting a lot more e-mails. Also the brown trout
populations would be a negative influence on any cutthroat population.
In the upper reaches of these streams we do manage for cutthroats.
------------

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

I need help.
 

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:06:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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?

Man, what's the big issue to debate? Humans are animals designed to eat
meat - one need not look any further than their teeth. Cows are animals
not designed to eat meat. Ever invited cows to a fish fry? Well, let
me tell ya, all they do is eat up all the friggin' cole slaw and hush
puppies. Humans (and cows) are designed to seek out and eat the foods
they are designed to eat (ala the cows at the fish fry), so humans
seeking out and eating fish isn't particularly surprising or unnatural.
OTOH, have ya ever seen a bear (or a cow) flyfishing...?

HTH,
R

I need help.
 

On Apr 23, 5:34 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:05 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
On Apr 23, 11:01 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?

nb

Exactly. The terms are at odds.

Um...I got a bayou or two full of gators and water moccasins...care to
come do some layin' on of the hands, er, "domestication"...? This is
among the places you go off the rails, IMO - a single instance of
catching doesn't "domesticate" a fish (or anything else), and IAC, if
you believe catching domesticates the fish, you can't eat a wild one.
You've "ruined" the fish by your act of catching it, and eating it
serves no purpose as far as utilizing "wild" game. And what about
animals catching a fish? Do you think that domesticates it? Suppose
the fish escapes the clutches of whatever animal it was that caught it?
You're gonna leave footprints, too, Tim, even if you CnK...

TC,
R



Halfordian Golfer

R,

Wild is a 'relative' term describing the presence or lack thereof from
humans. Humans can not stand shoulder to shoulder in a fishery and say
that it is "wild". It's *less* wild, by definition. Now, the term
"wild" has come to mean "stream born" but this is very confusing
because multi year holdovers and fish stocked as fry are also
considered "wild" by these standards. I just emailed the Idaho F&G to
ask them if they clip the adipose fins of trout stocked as fry or sub-
catchables. Will let you know the answer.

Regarding your swamp analogy all I can say is "Gator McGoo Wednesdays
at 9" http://www.grizzlyadams.net/

Your pal,

TBone

I need help.
 

On Apr 23, 5:45 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You continue to spout the same old lying nonsense even after
you've been directed to fisheries which have biologically
necessary C&R regulations.

Smallmouth bass fishery, Sylvania Wilderness, Michigan.

Now begone troll boy.

Sorry Ken but you've blown it again.

LOL !! Must be a wonderful thing to have your very own
personal reality without having to resort to chemical
enhancements. I mean you are straight when you post your
nonsense, right ?

Your pal,

I am *not* your pal.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I'll take that as absolute concession of the point. That fishery is
managed as selective harvest, culling by species. You simply can not
argue that. Will someone more eloquent than me please explain this to
Ken?

Your pal,

TBone

I need help.
 

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:57:35 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

On Apr 23, 5:34 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:05 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
On Apr 23, 11:01 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?

nb

Exactly. The terms are at odds.

Um...I got a bayou or two full of gators and water moccasins...care to
come do some layin' on of the hands, er, "domestication"...? This is
among the places you go off the rails, IMO - a single instance of
catching doesn't "domesticate" a fish (or anything else), and IAC, if
you believe catching domesticates the fish, you can't eat a wild one.
You've "ruined" the fish by your act of catching it, and eating it
serves no purpose as far as utilizing "wild" game. And what about
animals catching a fish? Do you think that domesticates it? Suppose
the fish escapes the clutches of whatever animal it was that caught it?
You're gonna leave footprints, too, Tim, even if you CnK...

TC,
R



Halfordian Golfer

R,

Wild is a 'relative' term describing the presence or lack thereof from
humans. Humans can not stand shoulder to shoulder in a fishery and say
that it is "wild". It's *less* wild, by definition. Now, the term
"wild" has come to mean "stream born" but this is very confusing
because multi year holdovers and fish stocked as fry are also
considered "wild" by these standards. I just emailed the Idaho F&G to
ask them if they clip the adipose fins of trout stocked as fry or sub-
catchables. Will let you know the answer.

Regarding your swamp analogy all I can say is "Gator McGoo Wednesdays
at 9" http://www.grizzlyadams.net/

Your pal,

TBone

OK. And what does your response have to do with the inability to catch
and release a wild trout? You must not use the definition of "stream
born" as "wild" because it would obviously be possible to catch and
release a "stream born" trout, so that eliminates all but trout NOT born
in the stream. Why can't you release those?

HTH,
R

I need help.
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You continue to spout the same old lying nonsense even after
you've been directed to fisheries which have biologically
necessary C&R regulations.
Smallmouth bass fishery, Sylvania Wilderness, Michigan.
Now begone troll boy.
Sorry Ken but you've blown it again.
LOL !! Must be a wonderful thing to have your very own
personal reality without having to resort to chemical
enhancements. I mean you are straight when you post your
nonsense, right ?

Your pal,
I am *not* your pal.

I'll take that as absolute concession of the point.

Yeah, you would. See my earlier comment about your very
own personal reality.

Your pal,

I am *not* your pal.

--
Ken Fortenberry