JT wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Ah yes, *now* we're getting somewhere. See what happens when
you answer the questions honestly Socrates ?

As I understand it your position is this: Intent is everything.
That is, if it's your intent to keep a fish for the pan then
C&R is OK whether you actually catch a legal fish or not. The
incidental death caused by C&R is unfortunate but unavoidable.

On the other hand, if it's your intent to release all the fish
you catch then the incidental death caused by C&R is the wanton
killing of wildlife and you have no "spank" of conscience.

And you honestly don't think that's one of the silliest things
you've ever heard ?

Rhetorical question, don't bother to answer.

Thanks Ken,

I said EOT for me, so I didn't want to respond. Your comments are exactly
what I wanted to reply.

Yeah, I said EOT too but the only way to goad TBone into having
an honest discussion is to threaten him with silence. I mean if
an anti-C&R rant falls in the woods and there's nobody to hear
it was it really a rant ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry