On May 31, 6:15 pm, daytripper wrote:
On Sat, 31 May 2008 16:09:07 -0600, rw
wrote:

wrote:
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_127519.asp

If it ever happens here, my guess is it would start in ...
California :-)

Jon.

What is the point of banning BOTH C&R and barbed hooks?

A rule promulgated by idiots, the point is atop their heads...

/daytripper (obviously)

It's fairly obvious that humankind is moving, inextricably, towards a
more humane relationship with wild animals.

You have a choice.

1) call them idiots or
2) try to understand their point of view while protecting your right
to harvest from God's abundance

My only caution would be that you should consider the scope of this
problem and the trends, carefully. As fun as it may be you are not
arguing with me. You are arguing with the inhabitants of all those
lofts that are being constructed in the urban reformations. They eat
sushi and raise puppies and outnumber you 100 to 1. To quote Russell
Chatham, "their only encounter with un-reconstructed nature is
stepping in a pile of poodle excement on the sidewalk".

I've said my piece on this for 2 decades, yet, admittedly, even I was
stunned by the clarity of the wording, because it cut directly to the
core of the issue, far sooner and far more clear than I had
anticipated. It about sums it up. "it is not permitted to go fishing
with the 'intention' to release the fish.", the word "intention" being
fulcrum.

Anyway, the jig is up. This one has been decided.

This specific question should become a lot more real now: If I had to
kill the fish I catch, would I still fish?

--
Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel