TUNA!
 

Right. The word 'cull' is approproiately used 'generally' to mean "to
separate, select or pick out". When a Maine lobsterman measures that
crustacean and throws it back, he is definately culling. In this case he is
culling the population, not his catch.

TBone

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 16:55:08 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Good God, but you are stupid! The fish he rejects are the ones he THROWS
BACK! The culls.......were there any such.....would be the ones he would
KILL because they are, by definition, unfit for whatever reason or
purpose.
Given that he EATS THE ONES HE KILLS (presumably.....and this is THE
OBJECT
OF THE WHOLE ****ING EXERCISE!!) he culls NOTHING!

Guess I need a new dictionary. Cull doesn't mean kill in mine, it just
means to pick out or select. Just as you can use the word cull to
describe thinning a herd or forest, you can also use it to describe
keeping only selected fish. You shouldn't get so obsessed by what you
want something to mean that you can't see anything else.

Tim's "culling", of course, is only good for his menu, not the
fishery. But once the mystic "natures bounty" mumbo jumbo is stripped
away, that is the *real* object of the whole ****ing exercise.
--
Charlie...

TUNA!
 

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Kevin Vang wrote:

The ND fishing regs specifically
use the word "culling" in the regulation which proscribes it,
so apparently it is considered standard usage in some circles.


Well I'm sure Wolfgang would just label them as stupid!

Certainty in the absence of evidence is stupid.

Wolfgang

TUNA!
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...

Ya gotta pull the big radishes and the little radishes to get 'just right'
radishes. And of course, those little radishes are really, really good.

If the object is simply to exterminate radishes, there are faster and less
labor intensive methods than pulling them out one by one.

Wolfgang

TUNA!
 

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Vang" wrote in message
...

A rather specialized alternate definition of the word. In the
competetive bass tournament world, a fisherman will keep every
fish he catches until he has his legal bag limit. Then, if
should catch a larger fish, he will place it in his livewell
and remove one of the smaller fish and release it.
Snip

The act you describe above (illegal in most states) is not a "specialized
alternate definition" of culling; it is a classic example of the standard
definition of culling.
The fishermen described above are culling their CATCH to remove the
individuals that are undesireable to them. That is far different than
maintaining that slot limits amount to culling the undesireable specimens
from THE GENERAL FISH POPULATION in a body of water.
The fish removed with slot limits are no better or worse than those that
remain, both within and outside the slot. There is simply deemed to be
enough of a population in that slot for which retention is allowed that
the
fisheries bio's believe a certain amount of them may be removed without
overly adversely affecting the total fishery.
[snip]

Culling is simply controlled predation.

TBone

TUNA!
 

lid wrote:

The study, while good and interesting, didn't go far enough to prove
anything much to me other than intentional breeding over a few
generations. It's a good proof of that, but drawing to strict a
conclusion from it could have odd results.

The notion that human predation that targets specimens with specific
heritable traits, such as size, will not affect population genetics
seems very peculiar to me. The effect is pretty well established in
trophy hunting. (For example, see www.biology.ucsc.edu/people/doaklab/
biol148/whitfield2003.pdf.) It also agrees with common sense.

If we "cull" the best specimens (however "best" is defined) before they
have finished their reproductive life, we are introducing a selective
pressure that will have the effect of degrading those traits that define
"best." There really should be no argument that the effect is real,
assuming you accept evolution. The only serious question is how
significant it is.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

TUNA!
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Particle Salad" wrote in message
. com...
"Willi" wrote in message
...

Just curious, if you catch an especially big fish for the water
you're
fishing do you keep it?

Willi


Yea, then I stop fishing for the day if it's big enough for dinner and
go
on
a hike or something.

And if it's NOT big enough for dinner?

In that case I'd just quietly slip a few under the carpet in the backseat
of
your SUV while you were napping.

Good luck.

Wolfgang

TUNA!
 

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

Actually, there are vanishingly few C&R purists and exactly zero C&K
purists
who have made their presence known in this news group. This is one of
the
two major reasons that the entire argument is so tedious and
unrelievedly
stupid. The other, of course, is that there is no issue.

Well I see that didn't stop you from participating :-)

In what?

While I would like to agree with the sentiment, it must simply
be observed that _something_ in this newsgroup, the FF glossy rags,
the "cash flow" business, everything else that revolves around
flyfishing _did_ cause cyli to perceive a hostility to C+K. It is
my opinion that she perceived a real phenomenon, that she isn't
crazy but rather observant.

The debate over whether or not Mighty Mouse could beat up Superman (made
famous but certainly not invented by Stephen King) raged for years back in
the late fifties and early sixties. To this day, Trekkies hotly contest the
merits of their favorite captain of the starship Enterprise versus the
others. Historians (or at least a certain subclass among them) can
sometimes be easily led into either scholarly or slapstick (or, as is most
often the case, both) contention about the likely outcome of various
historical events should one or another factor have been different than it
actually was. I don't know that anyone has actually been killed as a result
of participation in such debates, but I'd bet a shiny new nickel that a
diligent search of the literature would turn up some positive results.

Wolfgang
who, personally, subscribes to the thoroughly reasonable theory that
superman would win because he's a real guy, while mighty mouse is a cartoon.

TUNA!
 

"Wolfgang" wrote Wolfgang
who, personally, subscribes to the thoroughly reasonable theory that
superman would win because he's a real guy, while mighty mouse is a
cartoon.

****ing rodentaphobe!

yfitons
wayno (i suppose all that dissection would inevitably lead to
desensitization)

TUNA!
 

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
Right. The word 'cull' is approproiately used 'generally' to mean "to
separate, select or pick out". When a Maine lobsterman measures that
crustacean and throws it back, he is definately culling. In this case he
is
culling the population, not his catch.

TBone

While some dictonaries have included the simple definition of "to separate,
select or pick out", without including the criteria for such selection , in
their list of definitions for culling, their action is merely an
acknowledgement of the lack of rigor by a portion of the populace in
properly using the term culling. This position by the dictionaries is
contradicted by the seemingly universal inclusion of such negative terms as
"defective", "of little or no value", and "undesireable" in their
definitions of the noun Cull.(that which has been culled out of the group).

The lobsterman cited above is most definately culling his catch in removing
the culls from his take. What he is doing to the population is better
described as high grading or creaming.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

TUNA!
 

Wolfgang wrote:
"Willi" wrote in message
...


Kevin Vang wrote:

The ND fishing regs specifically

use the word "culling" in the regulation which proscribes it,
so apparently it is considered standard usage in some circles.


Well I'm sure Wolfgang would just label them as stupid!


Certainty in the absence of evidence is stupid.

That's not what I was trying to convey. I'll make it easier for you to
understand.

I made that statement because each person that disagreed with your
definition of "culling" was labeled as stupid. Personally, I think that
people that have the tendency to label other people as stupid, tend to
have some sort of self esteem issues.

Willi