I need help.
 

On Apr 23, 6:11 pm, wrote:
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

Dude...it's philosophical, not literal.

It stems from TU's license plate frame "Catch and Release Wild Trout"
and back to notbob's precise definition of the situation. People see
"wild trout" as come kind of "conservation goal" even and up to the
point that these "wild trout" that we "catch and release" particularly
are the genetic offspring of the california redband that *is* causing
species extinction and competition for "indiginous" species. The
state trout of Colorado was the Rainbow trout...a fish that is not
native to Colorado. We had the extremely good sense to change the
state trout to the highly endangered greenback cutthroat. Every last
rainbow trout in Colorado is either stocked or the descendant of a
stocked fish. And, somehow, TU has sold people the idea that
protecting them is "conservation" and "knowledgable" anglers release
them like they were the precious remnants of a lost race and not the
invasive species that they are. OK. Yeah. That makes sense. Not. The
problem is that the the rainbow trout is genetically more similar to
some cutthroat trout than between some species of cutthroat trout.
They hybridize. The risk of genetic extinction through hybridization
is real. Our fisheries managers will not correct that because of "the
email that they'd receive". Probably from TU and the guides in Aspen.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

I need help.
 

On Apr 23, 6:16 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
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

LOL. And you call me a troll.

OBROFF: I'd still like to hear from the original author what he meant
by "hating to see bait fishermen with stringers of dead fish". I might
owe him an apology and you know I'd rather crap glass from a broken
shiner bock bottle.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

I need help.
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I am *not* your pal.

LOL. And you call me a troll.

Yep, one of the best. Few trolls have careers as long as yours.

Your pal,

I am *not* your pal.

--
Ken Fortenberry

I need help.
 

I need help.
 

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:24:21 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

On Apr 23, 6:11 pm, wrote:
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

Dude...it's philosophical, not literal.

It stems from TU's license plate frame "Catch and Release Wild Trout"
and back to notbob's precise definition of the situation. People see
"wild trout" as come kind of "conservation goal" even and up to the
point that these "wild trout" that we "catch and release" particularly
are the genetic offspring of the california redband that *is* causing
species extinction and competition for "indiginous" species. The
state trout of Colorado was the Rainbow trout...a fish that is not
native to Colorado. We had the extremely good sense to change the
state trout to the highly endangered greenback cutthroat. Every last
rainbow trout in Colorado is either stocked or the descendant of a
stocked fish. And, somehow, TU has sold people the idea that
protecting them is "conservation" and "knowledgable" anglers release
them like they were the precious remnants of a lost race and not the
invasive species that they are. OK. Yeah. That makes sense. Not. The
problem is that the the rainbow trout is genetically more similar to
some cutthroat trout than between some species of cutthroat trout.
They hybridize. The risk of genetic extinction through hybridization
is real. Our fisheries managers will not correct that because of "the
email that they'd receive". Probably from TU and the guides in Aspen.

OK, that still doesn't answer the question - why can't you catch and
release a wild trout? And why not avoid the whole thing and say that TU
is full of, and run by, dumbasses who don't have clue as to what they
are doing...because I mean, well, TU IS full of, and run by, dumbasses
who don't have a clue as to what they are doing...

IAC, as I see it, it's not the CnR of all fish that you're really
against, it's only the release part when people catch fish you don't
want where they are, and it's because you feel that since they are a
introduced species, they ought to be removed. How do you feel about the
cutthroat - CnR, CnK, or no fishing allowed? Suppose you catch a fish
you don't want to eat while fishing for fish you do want to eat?

TC,
R

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

I need help.
 

On Apr 23, 10:43 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:24:21 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer



wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:11 pm, wrote:
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

Dude...it's philosophical, not literal.

It stems from TU's license plate frame "Catch and Release Wild Trout"
and back to notbob's precise definition of the situation. People see
"wild trout" as come kind of "conservation goal" even and up to the
point that these "wild trout" that we "catch and release" particularly
are the genetic offspring of the california redband that *is* causing
species extinction and competition for "indiginous" species. The
state trout of Colorado was the Rainbow trout...a fish that is not
native to Colorado. We had the extremely good sense to change the
state trout to the highly endangered greenback cutthroat. Every last
rainbow trout in Colorado is either stocked or the descendant of a
stocked fish. And, somehow, TU has sold people the idea that
protecting them is "conservation" and "knowledgable" anglers release
them like they were the precious remnants of a lost race and not the
invasive species that they are. OK. Yeah. That makes sense. Not. The
problem is that the the rainbow trout is genetically more similar to
some cutthroat trout than between some species of cutthroat trout.
They hybridize. The risk of genetic extinction through hybridization
is real. Our fisheries managers will not correct that because of "the
email that they'd receive". Probably from TU and the guides in Aspen.

OK, that still doesn't answer the question - why can't you catch and
release a wild trout? And why not avoid the whole thing and say that TU
is full of, and run by, dumbasses who don't have clue as to what they
are doing...because I mean, well, TU IS full of, and run by, dumbasses
who don't have a clue as to what they are doing...

IAC, as I see it, it's not the CnR of all fish that you're really
against, it's only the release part when people catch fish you don't
want where they are, and it's because you feel that since they are a
introduced species, they ought to be removed. How do you feel about the
cutthroat - CnR, CnK, or no fishing allowed? Suppose you catch a fish
you don't want to eat while fishing for fish you do want to eat?

TC,
R



Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

What?

I need help.
 

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:


What?

OK.

I need help.
 

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

What?

So you been doing any subsistence fishing recently?


Chuck Vance

I need help.
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
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.

Eat more. Eat faster.

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

I'm not real sure of how one would go about closing a population, other than
allowing you to eat all of its constituent members. And hey, what about 99
44/100% pure C&R?

If it can than it can also withstand the mortality incidental to
selective harvest.

Sounds vaguely familiar. So, what about all those fish you kill in the
pursuit of those you intend to kill?

All pure C&R regulations that are in place are in place due to social
dictums.

No kidding? Legislation results from social considerations?
Well.....gosh.....what won't they think of next!

We must not fool ourselves.

Correct. Fooling is a hit or miss proposition. Much better to delude
oneself.

We release rainbow trout in the
roaring fork river,

What you mean "we" white man? I've never released anything in the roaring
fork river. As a matter of fact, I'm not aware of ever having been near
enough to the roaring fork river to release anything into it. You should
stop doing that.

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.

Eat the rainbows. Release the cutthroats. Shoot the guides. Eat a bullet.

---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.

Well......gosh.

Your pal,

You're a liar.

Halfordian Golfer

Imbecile.

Wolfgang

I need help.
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
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.

One has to wonder......do you EVER have lucid moments?

Wolfgang