Wolfgang wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote:
Hilarious. So you really know better than anyone else what is good
for a particular river.
No but it's a fact that there is no legitimate, requisite, imperative
for pure C&R. This has been amply demonstrated time and time again.
I don't know about "legitimate, requisite, imperative for pure C&R",
but I do know that C&R has been a Good Thing in some instances. And I
also know that changing the mindset towards more C&R versus C&K has had
a good effect in general.
[rest of personal hoo-ha omitted]
Ah, but that's what it's all about, Tim. You offer nothing except
your fanatical devotion to your agenda, which is little more than trying
to foist off your own guilt onto others.
Chuck Vance
I have offered many, many suggestions here and over the years. One of
my personal favorites remains the booklet an angler would receive every
year with a coupon to fish a given water on a given day with some
trading of coupons and 'open water' areas available for people who like
to fish in a group.
Your pal and trendsetter in fisheries management.
Never one to deny credit where it is due, I have to say that this one is no
more deranged than your (and jon's) latest offering of justification by
definition, the great thing about which is that we can thus justify
ANYTHING. The down side, of course, is that they can thus justify ANYTHING.
Dumbass.
Wolfgang
Hey Wolfman,
How long do people wait to get a Moose hunting permit in Colorado?
How about Antelope?
Deer?
Elk?
Why shouldn't there be a similar lottery when hunting for threatened
species of fish, the Greenback, for example?
Wouldn't that be a more justified management approach than wanton C&R
of a fish that was declared extinct for 5 generations?
Your pal,
Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.