"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Conan The Librarian wrote:

(I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence"
anglers in the US, and none at all in ROFF)

Apparently people who investigate such matters would
disagree.

Well, there's a first!

From the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan, technical report
#3, 1997, by Lauren Lambert:

"Thirty-four percent of the individuals surveyed exhibited
characteristics of subsistence fishing. For this study,
someone displaying characteristics of subsistence fishing was
an individual who said: a) the fish caught was a primary
source of their diet, or b) the fish caught was either somewhat
or very important to their or somebody else's diet, or c) that
six or more of their meals per month were prepared from the
fish caught at the study site."

See the part where it says, "For this study..."?

If extrapolatable, 34% of all the licensed anglers in the
US is _millions_ of subsistence anglers.

Uh huh.....and then there's millions of subsistence hunters, millions of
subsistence farmers, tens of millions of subsistence gardeners, millions of
subsistence orchardists, millions of subsistence vintners, millions of
subsistence brewers, millions of subsistence mushroom hunters.....and, last
but by no means least, hundreds of millions of subsistence shoppers. Wow.
That's a whole LOT of subsisting!

You can claim some ridiculuously high, starve if you don't
fish, definition of subsistence angling,

And you and and anybody else can claim whatever dumbass definition you
please, too. So?

or you can have a
meaningful definition that fisheries specialists can use
in their management of the resources.

Any definition can be meaningful. Hell, it doesn't even require so much as
consensus between two people for it to have meaning. The question that
arises is one of how useful a particular definition is. The authors of the
study quoted above have made a point of delimiting the scope of their
definition. See the part where it says, "For this study..."?

There's nothing wrong with Tim's use of the phrase.

Well, aside from the fact that he's a dumbass hag-ridden troll to whom
discussion is anathema, yes, there's plenty wrong with it. For one thing
(and it's enough), he has failed to define terms.....for the usual and
obvious reasons.

He's more in line with the
way the specialists use it than what I'm hearing from the
rest of y'all.

And it didn't occur to you that perhaps no one else was interested in using
the term the way some "specialists" (leaving for another time a discussion
of the obvious fact that all kinds of specialists can use all kinds of terms
in all kinds of different ways) do?

And, according to the definition above, I'm a subsistence
angler/hunter.

You'd be amazed at what you are according to some definitions.
Others......well, I think you can probably guess.

Still working on the last 50 pounds or so
of moose meat (did a crock pot of meat last week, froze
some of it), and added 40 pounds of halibut from AK to the
freezer this summer (had some last night, yum yum!).

Got any good recipes to share?

Wolfgang