Conan The Librarian wrote:
JR wrote:

But isn't the whole rationale of C&K in this scenario built on the
idea of absolutes? And if it is not, doesn't it come back to some
personal sense of ethics/morality/whatever?

I don't think C&K *needs* a rationale. In any event, no, I don't think
any of the rationales, either for C&K or for C&R, are built upon the
idea of absolutes. Yes, it comes back to each person's personal sense
of ethics. I think I've said that. What I'm try to do here is only
explain my sense, not impose that sense on others.

Rather than go through another extensive exercise in interspersed
replies (I don't have much stamina in that regard), I'll just say it
again: I am not against C&R. In this I differ from Tim. I am against
state-mandated C&R-only waters, first because they are almost always
unnecessary from a conservation point of view and also because they tend
to trivialize and impose an unbecoming Disneyfication on the sport and
on that part of nature we inhabit as fishermen.

--
John Russell aka JR