"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 6:11 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:57:35 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer



wrote:
On Apr 23, 5:34 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:05 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
On Apr 23, 11:01 am, notbob wrote:
On 2008-04-23, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish.

I don't get your drift. What? It becomes domesticated upon
leaving your
hand/net?

nb

Exactly. The terms are at odds.

Um...I got a bayou or two full of gators and water moccasins...care to
come do some layin' on of the hands, er, "domestication"...? This is
among the places you go off the rails, IMO - a single instance of
catching doesn't "domesticate" a fish (or anything else), and IAC, if
you believe catching domesticates the fish, you can't eat a wild one.
You've "ruined" the fish by your act of catching it, and eating it
serves no purpose as far as utilizing "wild" game. And what about
animals catching a fish? Do you think that domesticates it? Suppose
the fish escapes the clutches of whatever animal it was that caught
it?
You're gonna leave footprints, too, Tim, even if you CnK...

TC,
R

Halfordian Golfer

R,

Wild is a 'relative' term describing the presence or lack thereof from
humans. Humans can not stand shoulder to shoulder in a fishery and say
that it is "wild". It's *less* wild, by definition. Now, the term
"wild" has come to mean "stream born" but this is very confusing
because multi year holdovers and fish stocked as fry are also
considered "wild" by these standards. I just emailed the Idaho F&G to
ask them if they clip the adipose fins of trout stocked as fry or sub-
catchables. Will let you know the answer.

Regarding your swamp analogy all I can say is "Gator McGoo Wednesdays
at 9"http://www.grizzlyadams.net/

Your pal,

TBone

OK. And what does your response have to do with the inability to catch
and release a wild trout? You must not use the definition of "stream
born" as "wild" because it would obviously be possible to catch and
release a "stream born" trout, so that eliminates all but trout NOT born
in the stream. Why can't you release those?

HTH,
R

Dude...it's philosophical, not literal.

It stems from TU's license plate frame "Catch and Release Wild Trout"
and back to notbob's precise definition of the situation. People see
"wild trout" as come kind of "conservation goal" even and up to the
point that these "wild trout" that we "catch and release" particularly
are the genetic offspring of the california redband that *is* causing
species extinction and competition for "indiginous" species. The
state trout of Colorado was the Rainbow trout...a fish that is not
native to Colorado. We had the extremely good sense to change the
state trout to the highly endangered greenback cutthroat.

Given that the experts can't identify a greenback cutthroat, that they
propagated, stock and protected the wrong "wild" fish for twenty years, it
is hardly surprising that it is endangered.

Every last
rainbow trout in Colorado is either stocked or the descendant of a
stocked fish. And, somehow, TU has sold people the idea that
protecting them is "conservation" and "knowledgable" anglers release
them like they were the precious remnants of a lost race and not the
invasive species that they are. OK. Yeah. That makes sense. Not. The
problem is that the the rainbow trout is genetically more similar to
some cutthroat trout than between some species of cutthroat trout.
They hybridize.

In other words, they are all simply local variants of the same species.
This is not news. Some of us have known this for decades.

The risk of genetic extinction through hybridization
is real.

I don't think so. There you are, and monkeys and humans are still doing
fine, thank you very much.

Our fisheries managers will not correct that because of "the
email that they'd receive". Probably from TU and the guides in Aspen.

Email is pretty scary stuff.

Your pal,

You're a liar.

Halfordian Golfer

Moron.

Wolfgang