On Mar 10, 7:58 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I'm done with you and your silly anti-C&R jihad. Now that
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you really have
no coherent argument, merely ad hominems and double talk,

Bull****.

One can disagree with Tim's position but you're wrong in stating that he
doesn't have a coherent argument, merely ad hominens and double talk.

There is nothing but hypocrisy and double talk in his
so-called "position". C&R is a fishery management tool,
not the only one, but a valid one for some fisheries.
C&R is not the end of the world as we know it or a slippery
slope towards fish as golf balls. It's just one tool among
several to achieve what all of us should want, namely healthy
fisheries.

His argument is VERY coherent and simple - it is wrong to stress,
injure, kill etc, a fish simply for one's pleasure.

If that's his argument then he is a hypocrite for going
fishing at all and I'll be goddamned if I'm going to let
some crackpot trot out the holier-than-thou ad hominems
against fishermen on a fly fishing newsgroup.

--
Ken Fortenberry


Ken,

Can you describe a situation where pure C&R is a valid management
strategy as opposed to slot limits inside or outside the statistical
norm for a healthy year class of fish? We've come up with one, in
this discussion, but in this context 'selective harvest by species' is
not what I'm referring to. I wait the information from the Maine
Inland Fish and Game on the answer of this on the Rapid. Do you
believe that a fishery that can not withstand some highly restrictive
selective harvest can withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer