On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:38:09 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

I was just reading about the elevated levels of mercury in the fish
caught in some of the most pristine waters in North America.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...tml?source=rss

I was thinking the average Catch and Release fisherman isn't doing
anything to stop this because they simply do not care about eating
fish, though the claims of conservation and love of things wild are
rampant. I anglers were forced to eat the fish they caught there'd be
a lot less apathy, IMO.

Sad thing when you can not eat the fish in the last wilderness in this
country.

Bone

How long have you been supporting this catch and kill logic? I've
known you for 12 years or so and it hasn't changed. If we started to
eat the trout and salmon on my home waters, there would be NO fish
except stocked trout to fish for. Catch and release works, Tim. I've
seen it with my own eyes - a river came back from almost being empty
of brook trout because of meat gatherers, to a place where 5 lb brook
trout are caught every week. If you catch them and eat them, there
will be nothing but stocked trout.

Catch and release does not cause poluted waters - umcaring man does.
The reservoir system for Boston has warnings about not eating a
certain amount of the fish. THAT water is catch and kill, so your
logic has some flaws.

Dave