Fishing question

How do you all feel about fish and release. I love to fish, but I don't
like to eat the fish so they are released, when I mention this some people
feels that it is not a nice thing to do. You should fish to eat or not fish
at all. I'm just curious as to what the opinion of this group is.

--

"I believe that friends are quiet Angels that lift us to our feet
when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly"

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:08:22 -0600, "Stinkweed"
wrote:

How do you all feel about fish and release. I love to fish, but I don't
like to eat the fish so they are released, when I mention this some people
feels that it is not a nice thing to do. You should fish to eat or not fish
at all. I'm just curious as to what the opinion of this group is.

I catch and release all the time. I only take a fish very
occasionally.

Those people who believe that you should only "fish to eat," as you
put it, are missing an important point... there are very few people in
the developed world who need to fish as a matter of survival. We do it
for pleasure. If anybody can't handle that simple fact of life, they
need to see a proctologist to assist them with the removal of their
heads from the orifice from which they are pontificating.

Unless they are vegans, (you can identify them by the pale complexion,
dry brittle hair and the plastic shoes,) they subscribe to a system
that provides them with meat and dairy produce through farming methods
that are"not nice." Don't concern yourself with the judgment of
ignorant hypocrites. Why should you waste your breath trying to
justify yourself to the likes of them?

Then there are those who believe that C&R has little to contribute to
conservation of wild stock, so you might as well take the fish you
catch home, but at least their argument is cogent. They will tell you
that C&R is a pointless exercise. Sadly, this is a valid POV.

All in all, it is down to personal choice and I choose to C&R.

As long as you treat the fish properly, it has little chance of
suffering any long term problems from being hooked. Have a look here.
http://www.letsflyfish.com/candr.htm It's on Ally Gowan's site, (the
man who gave us Ally's Shrimp.) I happen to agree with his take on the
C&R debate.

The trouble is, I've seen some fishermen abuse fish when they are
C&Ring. The last time I was out stockie bashing, I saw an idiot drag a
trout right up the bank, (which was sandy,) take the hook out of the
fish, before picking it up with dry hands and throwing it back in the
water. I don't give that trout much chance of survival.

John

http://groups.msn.com/scottishflyfisher

From: "Stinkweed"

| How do you all feel about fish and release. I love to fish, but I don't
| like to eat the fish so they are released, when I mention this some people
| feels that it is not a nice thing to do. You should fish to eat or not fish
| at all. I'm just curious as to what the opinion of this group is.
|

I practice Catch & Release and only eat a few fish I catch. There are times I will catch a
fish and give it to another to eat but the vast majority of fish I catch are released.

If one feels a barbed hook cause too much damage, use barbless hooks or use a Dremel or
other file and remove the barb.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:08:22 -0600, "Stinkweed"
wrote (with possible editing):

How do you all feel about fish and release. I love to fish, but I don't
like to eat the fish so they are released, when I mention this some people
feels that it is not a nice thing to do. You should fish to eat or not fish
at all. I'm just curious as to what the opinion of this group is.

Well, fwiw, our government feels that C&R is ok. Otherwise why would
they designate sections of streams and lakes as C&R? My favorite
stream is C&R, now. I used to eat a lot of fish, but now that most
fresh water fish in New England are so mercury laden, the government
recommends only one per month. I'd like to keep in shape, though, so
I support C&R.
--

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

"Scottish Fly Fisher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:08:22 -0600, "Stinkweed"
wrote:

How do you all feel about fish and release. I love to fish, but I don't
like to eat the fish so they are released, when I mention this some people
feels that it is not a nice thing to do. You should fish to eat or not
fish
at all. I'm just curious as to what the opinion of this group is.

I catch and release all the time. I only take a fish very
occasionally.

Those people who believe that you should only "fish to eat," as you
put it, are missing an important point... there are very few people in
the developed world who need to fish as a matter of survival. We do it
for pleasure. If anybody can't handle that simple fact of life, they
need to see a proctologist to assist them with the removal of their
heads from the orifice from which they are pontificating.

Unless they are vegans, (you can identify them by the pale complexion,
dry brittle hair and the plastic shoes,) they subscribe to a system
that provides them with meat and dairy produce through farming methods
that are"not nice." Don't concern yourself with the judgment of
ignorant hypocrites. Why should you waste your breath trying to
justify yourself to the likes of them?

Then there are those who believe that C&R has little to contribute to
conservation of wild stock, so you might as well take the fish you
catch home, but at least their argument is cogent. They will tell you
that C&R is a pointless exercise. Sadly, this is a valid POV.

All in all, it is down to personal choice and I choose to C&R.

As long as you treat the fish properly, it has little chance of
suffering any long term problems from being hooked. Have a look here.
http://www.letsflyfish.com/candr.htm It's on Ally Gowan's site, (the
man who gave us Ally's Shrimp.) I happen to agree with his take on the
C&R debate.

The trouble is, I've seen some fishermen abuse fish when they are
C&Ring. The last time I was out stockie bashing, I saw an idiot drag a
trout right up the bank, (which was sandy,) take the hook out of the
fish, before picking it up with dry hands and throwing it back in the
water. I don't give that trout much chance of survival.

John

http://groups.msn.com/scottishflyfisher

Ok, I will go one question more. Does it hurt the bass physically to hold
it by the lower lip to take a picture or to take the hook out? I have been
told this is cruel and it does hurt the fish. I have also been told it
hurts the fish when it is hooked. I'm not trying to start trouble here,
these are things that have been told to me and I just want to know if they
are true or if the people were just giving me a bad time.

I'm glad to hear that all of you, including David and Larry agree that C&R
is an OK sport. We have also ate some of them too, but mostly we fish for
the sport of it.

From: "Stinkweed"

|
| Ok, I will go one question more. Does it hurt the bass physically to hold
| it by the lower lip to take a picture or to take the hook out? I have been
| told this is cruel and it does hurt the fish. I have also been told it
| hurts the fish when it is hooked. I'm not trying to start trouble here,
| these are things that have been told to me and I just want to know if they
| are true or if the people were just giving me a bad time.
|
| I'm glad to hear that all of you, including David and Larry agree that C&R
| is an OK sport. We have also ate some of them too, but mostly we fish for
| the sport of it.
|

About holding the fish for a picture. There are two factors to take into account here.
The time out of water and the angle you hold the lower jaw. Simply put, take the picture as
quickly as possible and hold the fish such that gravity isn't causing too much pressure on
the lower jaw and joint.

Of course try not to remove too much mucous off the fish when handling it. It is there to
protect the fish from bacteria and parasites.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Stinkweed wrote:
"Scottish Fly Fisher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:08:22 -0600, "Stinkweed"
wrote:

How do you all feel about fish and release. I love to fish, but I don't
like to eat the fish so they are released, when I mention this some people
feels that it is not a nice thing to do. You should fish to eat or not
fish
at all. I'm just curious as to what the opinion of this group is.

Anyone who says all fish should be kept is a PETA nut. Believe it or
not, many parts of Europe FORCE all caught fish to be killed. If the
fish is only 3 inches long, it must be killed. If the fish is an
endangered species, it must be killed. If the species is inedible, it
must be killed. If a fish contains toxins (lead, chlordane, mercury,
etc) and therefore cannot be consumed, it must be killed.

For example, where I live, lake sturgeon are endangered, plus they're
on a toxin list. If PETA had their way, a catfisherman would be forced
to keep a toxic endangered sturgeon caught incidentally while fishing
for Cat.

Some meathog nuts try to use the PETA nuts as an excuse to rationalize
meathogging. For example, In-Fisherman had a terrible editorial in the
early 1990s; IIRC it had "Tofu" in the title. The editorial writer of
this Bible-thumping publication (with the attitude of "God created fish
to be eaten by people"), claimed that pure C&R anglers MUST not
complain when people keep fish. To their credit, In-Fisherman did use
the term "Selective Harvest" which SHOULD include 100% C&R.

I catch and release all the time. I only take a fish very
occasionally.

I've caught over 1000 fish this year, eaten 2, used no more than 10
others as bait. The two I kept were an invasive species so I was
helping the ecosystem. The bait were Gizzard Shad and common minnow
species. A few dozen of the fish I released probably died, but most of
them were sunfish, low on the food chain, probably consumed by turtles
shortly after they died.

Those people who believe that you should only "fish to eat," as you
put it, are missing an important point... there are very few people in
the developed world who need to fish as a matter of survival. We do it
for pleasure. If anybody can't handle that simple fact of life, they
need to see a proctologist to assist them with the removal of their
heads from the orifice from which they are pontificating.

If expert fishermen were forced to keep every fish, they'd have to quit
early into a fishing session as they'd reach their limit quickly.

that are"not nice." Don't concern yourself with the judgment of
ignorant hypocrites. Why should you waste your breath trying to
justify yourself to the likes of them?

In parts of Europe, those ignorant hypocrites succeeded in creating
laws banning catch-and-release. Normally I don't condone
passive-aggressive behavior, but in those waters, I suggest anglers let
the fish "miraculously" get away at the bank or the side of the boat.
"Whoops, the fish slipped out of my hands!"

Some pay lakes have rules prohibiting catch-and-release. Whatever you
catch, you must pay by the pound.

Then there are those who believe that C&R has little to contribute to
conservation of wild stock, so you might as well take the fish you
catch home, but at least their argument is cogent. They will tell you
that C&R is a pointless exercise. Sadly, this is a valid POV.

C&R _IS_ good. This past summer I caught a Channel Catfish with half a
barbel missing. Caught what was probably the same Channel Catfish on a
different bait two months later, two inches longer. In parts of
Europe, some specimen Carp are well-known for their distinctive
features, having been caught and released multiple times. This shows
that the "no effect" is NOT a valid POV.

The only time it's valid is if the fish is likely to die, for example
Walleye tournaments might as well keep their Walleye because most of
them die. Many deep water fish have their swim bladders explode, so
it'd be a waste to release them.

All in all, it is down to personal choice and I choose to C&R.

As long as you treat the fish properly, it has little chance of
suffering any long term problems from being hooked. Have a look here.
http://www.letsflyfish.com/candr.htm It's on Ally Gowan's site, (the
man who gave us Ally's Shrimp.) I happen to agree with his take on the
C&R debate.

The trouble is, I've seen some fishermen abuse fish when they are
C&Ring. The last time I was out stockie bashing, I saw an idiot drag a
trout right up the bank, (which was sandy,) take the hook out of the
fish, before picking it up with dry hands and throwing it back in the
water. I don't give that trout much chance of survival.

Some people kill fish by using abrasive gloves which rub off the
protective slime. That's just one type of mishandling. Abusive
mishandling is extremely common.


John

http://groups.msn.com/scottishflyfisher

Some people suggest making it legal to keep mortally wounded trout.
This is bad because passive-aggressive meathogs would deliberately
abuse the fish to rationalize keeping them.

Ok, I will go one question more. Does it hurt the bass physically to hold
it by the lower lip to take a picture or to take the hook out? I have been
told this is cruel and it does hurt the fish. I have also been told it
hurts the fish when it is hooked. I'm not trying to start trouble here,
these are things that have been told to me and I just want to know if they
are true or if the people were just giving me a bad time.

Fish probably feel pain, but the pain is only a tiny percentage as
painful as human pain. Fish are a lot tougher than people. It's best
to minimize handling and get them back in the water ASAP. Holding a
large fish vertically out of the water is bad for their internal organs
(I believe many of the TV tournament bass die, as they're held out of
the water for huge amounts of time). I don't like Bass tournaments
anyway because Bass are homebodies, and they're taken miles from their
home territory.

One way C&R can be even worse than meathogging: imagine a meat angler
catching a limit of 4 trout and keeping the 4, then quitting fishing.
Then imagine a C&R angler catching and releasing 50 trout with a 90%
survival rate: he killed 5 trout and didn't utilize them.

Some lure anglers are snobs, saying bait users kill more fish. In
reality, when a fish swallows a baited hook, we quickly cut the line,
while a lure user will keep a fish out of the water for many minutes
trying to salvage a more expensive lure. Lure anglers often hold fish
out of the water for huge amounts of time.

Any fish not released unharmed immediately counts against an angler's
limit.

A high percentage of kept fish are illegal: out of season, protected
size, illegal method, etc. On one trip I was at a boat ramp where a
redneck family caught a Largemouth within a protected 12-15" slot limit
range. I told them the fish was illegal, but the redneck scum kept the
fish anyway. It's good to get the license plate numbers and boat
registration numbers of poachers.

One common meathog rationalization occurs on long travels. Meathogs
from out of state think they must keep fish to help pay for their trip.
For rare homebody species such as smallmouth bass, one meathog can
ruin an entire stretch of stream. Usually such meathogs are from out
of state, for example Southerners are known for often practicing catch
and release, but many northerners practice a bizarre Yankee ritual
called "shore lunch". I remember on one local outdoors radio show, a
Yankee called to say he had visited the (southern) state and kept a
limit of smallmouth on a stream, then thrown away all the fish uneaten
because he saw some small grubs in the fish. The host pointed out that
the grubs are harmless to people and die when cooked, and that most
locals have an understanding to release all smallmouth. The host could
barely control his anger at the meathog Yankee. Catch-and-release
southerners have a message for those meathogs: Yankee go home!

"David H. Lipman" wrote in message
news:YBu9f.953$0d.243@trnddc08...
From: "Stinkweed"

|
| Ok, I will go one question more. Does it hurt the bass physically to
hold
| it by the lower lip to take a picture or to take the hook out? I have
been
| told this is cruel and it does hurt the fish. I have also been told it
| hurts the fish when it is hooked. I'm not trying to start trouble here,
| these are things that have been told to me and I just want to know if
they
| are true or if the people were just giving me a bad time.
|
| I'm glad to hear that all of you, including David and Larry agree that
C&R
| is an OK sport. We have also ate some of them too, but mostly we fish
for
| the sport of it.
|

About holding the fish for a picture. There are two factors to take into
account here.
The time out of water and the angle you hold the lower jaw. Simply put,
take the picture as
quickly as possible and hold the fish such that gravity isn't causing too
much pressure on
the lower jaw and joint.

Of course try not to remove too much mucous off the fish when handling it.
It is there to
protect the fish from bacteria and parasites.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm



Thanks Dave, I knew about the water, they can't be out long and didn't
think it hurt to hold them by the lower jaw for a quick picture. That is
true if you tried to hold it and your hand wasn't wet that would for sure
hurt the fish. Although I didn't know the reason why your hands had to be
wet, I'm a little squeamish, so I have used a very wet rag. I'm not a big
fisherman, err fisher lady, but I live on a lake and I love to fish. I
have since I was a kid and don't have to catch a monster to make me happy,
but is would be nice.

"Terry Lomax" wrote in message
oups.com...
Stinkweed wrote:
"Scottish Fly Fisher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:08:22 -0600, "Stinkweed"
wrote:

How do you all feel about fish and release. I love to fish, but I
don't
like to eat the fish so they are released, when I mention this some
people
feels that it is not a nice thing to do. You should fish to eat or not
fish
at all. I'm just curious as to what the opinion of this group is.

Anyone who says all fish should be kept is a PETA nut. Believe it or
not, many parts of Europe FORCE all caught fish to be killed. If the
fish is only 3 inches long, it must be killed. If the fish is an
endangered species, it must be killed. If the species is inedible, it
must be killed. If a fish contains toxins (lead, chlordane, mercury,
etc) and therefore cannot be consumed, it must be killed.

For example, where I live, lake sturgeon are endangered, plus they're
on a toxin list. If PETA had their way, a catfisherman would be forced
to keep a toxic endangered sturgeon caught incidentally while fishing
for Cat.

Some meathog nuts try to use the PETA nuts as an excuse to rationalize
meathogging. For example, In-Fisherman had a terrible editorial in the
early 1990s; IIRC it had "Tofu" in the title. The editorial writer of
this Bible-thumping publication (with the attitude of "God created fish
to be eaten by people"), claimed that pure C&R anglers MUST not
complain when people keep fish. To their credit, In-Fisherman did use
the term "Selective Harvest" which SHOULD include 100% C&R.

I catch and release all the time. I only take a fish very
occasionally.

I've caught over 1000 fish this year, eaten 2, used no more than 10
others as bait. The two I kept were an invasive species so I was
helping the ecosystem. The bait were Gizzard Shad and common minnow
species. A few dozen of the fish I released probably died, but most of
them were sunfish, low on the food chain, probably consumed by turtles
shortly after they died.

Those people who believe that you should only "fish to eat," as you
put it, are missing an important point... there are very few people in
the developed world who need to fish as a matter of survival. We do it
for pleasure. If anybody can't handle that simple fact of life, they
need to see a proctologist to assist them with the removal of their
heads from the orifice from which they are pontificating.

If expert fishermen were forced to keep every fish, they'd have to quit
early into a fishing session as they'd reach their limit quickly.

that are"not nice." Don't concern yourself with the judgment of
ignorant hypocrites. Why should you waste your breath trying to
justify yourself to the likes of them?

In parts of Europe, those ignorant hypocrites succeeded in creating
laws banning catch-and-release. Normally I don't condone
passive-aggressive behavior, but in those waters, I suggest anglers let
the fish "miraculously" get away at the bank or the side of the boat.
"Whoops, the fish slipped out of my hands!"

Some pay lakes have rules prohibiting catch-and-release. Whatever you
catch, you must pay by the pound.

Then there are those who believe that C&R has little to contribute to
conservation of wild stock, so you might as well take the fish you
catch home, but at least their argument is cogent. They will tell you
that C&R is a pointless exercise. Sadly, this is a valid POV.

C&R _IS_ good. This past summer I caught a Channel Catfish with half a
barbel missing. Caught what was probably the same Channel Catfish on a
different bait two months later, two inches longer. In parts of
Europe, some specimen Carp are well-known for their distinctive
features, having been caught and released multiple times. This shows
that the "no effect" is NOT a valid POV.

The only time it's valid is if the fish is likely to die, for example
Walleye tournaments might as well keep their Walleye because most of
them die. Many deep water fish have their swim bladders explode, so
it'd be a waste to release them.

All in all, it is down to personal choice and I choose to C&R.

As long as you treat the fish properly, it has little chance of
suffering any long term problems from being hooked. Have a look here.
http://www.letsflyfish.com/candr.htm It's on Ally Gowan's site, (the
man who gave us Ally's Shrimp.) I happen to agree with his take on the
C&R debate.

The trouble is, I've seen some fishermen abuse fish when they are
C&Ring. The last time I was out stockie bashing, I saw an idiot drag a
trout right up the bank, (which was sandy,) take the hook out of the
fish, before picking it up with dry hands and throwing it back in the
water. I don't give that trout much chance of survival.

Some people kill fish by using abrasive gloves which rub off the
protective slime. That's just one type of mishandling. Abusive
mishandling is extremely common.


John

http://groups.msn.com/scottishflyfisher

Some people suggest making it legal to keep mortally wounded trout.
This is bad because passive-aggressive meathogs would deliberately
abuse the fish to rationalize keeping them.

Ok, I will go one question more. Does it hurt the bass physically to
hold
it by the lower lip to take a picture or to take the hook out? I have
been
told this is cruel and it does hurt the fish. I have also been told it
hurts the fish when it is hooked. I'm not trying to start trouble here,
these are things that have been told to me and I just want to know if
they
are true or if the people were just giving me a bad time.

Fish probably feel pain, but the pain is only a tiny percentage as
painful as human pain. Fish are a lot tougher than people. It's best
to minimize handling and get them back in the water ASAP. Holding a
large fish vertically out of the water is bad for their internal organs
(I believe many of the TV tournament bass die, as they're held out of
the water for huge amounts of time). I don't like Bass tournaments
anyway because Bass are homebodies, and they're taken miles from their
home territory.

One way C&R can be even worse than meathogging: imagine a meat angler
catching a limit of 4 trout and keeping the 4, then quitting fishing.
Then imagine a C&R angler catching and releasing 50 trout with a 90%
survival rate: he killed 5 trout and didn't utilize them.

Some lure anglers are snobs, saying bait users kill more fish. In
reality, when a fish swallows a baited hook, we quickly cut the line,
while a lure user will keep a fish out of the water for many minutes
trying to salvage a more expensive lure. Lure anglers often hold fish
out of the water for huge amounts of time.

Any fish not released unharmed immediately counts against an angler's
limit.

A high percentage of kept fish are illegal: out of season, protected
size, illegal method, etc. On one trip I was at a boat ramp where a
redneck family caught a Largemouth within a protected 12-15" slot limit
range. I told them the fish was illegal, but the redneck scum kept the
fish anyway. It's good to get the license plate numbers and boat
registration numbers of poachers.

One common meathog rationalization occurs on long travels. Meathogs
from out of state think they must keep fish to help pay for their trip.
For rare homebody species such as smallmouth bass, one meathog can
ruin an entire stretch of stream. Usually such meathogs are from out
of state, for example Southerners are known for often practicing catch
and release, but many northerners practice a bizarre Yankee ritual
called "shore lunch". I remember on one local outdoors radio show, a
Yankee called to say he had visited the (southern) state and kept a
limit of smallmouth on a stream, then thrown away all the fish uneaten
because he saw some small grubs in the fish. The host pointed out that
the grubs are harmless to people and die when cooked, and that most
locals have an understanding to release all smallmouth. The host could
barely control his anger at the meathog Yankee. Catch-and-release
southerners have a message for those meathogs: Yankee go home!


Why would the people in Europe force the people to keep even 3 inch fish,
that doesn't make sense? Or for that matter fish on the endangered list.
That makes even less sense. There should be a law not to kill them.

I think the Sturgeon are running here right now, not positive. I live in
one of those "Yankee" states. BG But we don't go down South to fish,
darn the fishing is so good here why would we want to go South? :-Pffft.

I'm not into Bass tournaments, we just have them in our lake and if we catch
an especially large one we will take a picture of it. Then release it to
let it grow and maybe catch it again at a later date. I know people who are
though and I can't condemn them. This is what they enjoy doing the same as
we enjoy doing what we do.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:13:17 -0600, "Stinkweed"
wrote:


"Scottish Fly Fisher" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:08:22 -0600, "Stinkweed"
wrote:

How do you all feel about fish and release. I love to fish, but I don't
like to eat the fish so they are released, when I mention this some people
feels that it is not a nice thing to do. You should fish to eat or not
fish
at all. I'm just curious as to what the opinion of this group is.

I catch and release all the time. I only take a fish very
occasionally.

Those people who believe that you should only "fish to eat," as you
put it, are missing an important point... there are very few people in
the developed world who need to fish as a matter of survival. We do it
for pleasure. If anybody can't handle that simple fact of life, they
need to see a proctologist to assist them with the removal of their
heads from the orifice from which they are pontificating.

Unless they are vegans, (you can identify them by the pale complexion,
dry brittle hair and the plastic shoes,) they subscribe to a system
that provides them with meat and dairy produce through farming methods
that are"not nice." Don't concern yourself with the judgment of
ignorant hypocrites. Why should you waste your breath trying to
justify yourself to the likes of them?

Then there are those who believe that C&R has little to contribute to
conservation of wild stock, so you might as well take the fish you
catch home, but at least their argument is cogent. They will tell you
that C&R is a pointless exercise. Sadly, this is a valid POV.

All in all, it is down to personal choice and I choose to C&R.

As long as you treat the fish properly, it has little chance of
suffering any long term problems from being hooked. Have a look here.
http://www.letsflyfish.com/candr.htm It's on Ally Gowan's site, (the
man who gave us Ally's Shrimp.) I happen to agree with his take on the
C&R debate.

The trouble is, I've seen some fishermen abuse fish when they are
C&Ring. The last time I was out stockie bashing, I saw an idiot drag a
trout right up the bank, (which was sandy,) take the hook out of the
fish, before picking it up with dry hands and throwing it back in the
water. I don't give that trout much chance of survival.

John

http://groups.msn.com/scottishflyfisher

Ok, I will go one question more. Does it hurt the bass physically to hold
it by the lower lip to take a picture or to take the hook out? I have been
told this is cruel and it does hurt the fish. I have also been told it
hurts the fish when it is hooked. I'm not trying to start trouble here,
these are things that have been told to me and I just want to know if they
are true or if the people were just giving me a bad time.

Personally, I would wet my hands, getting them as cold as possible,
while the fish was still submerged in the net. Get the photographer
ready, while I was doing this, then hold the fish, horizontally, in
both hands, cradling it just behind the head while holding the caudal
peduncle.

I'm glad to hear that all of you, including David and Larry agree that C&R
is an OK sport. We have also ate some of them too, but mostly we fish for
the sport of it.

Well, if you find yourself being judged, you can sleep soundly at
night, because you have cared enough to explore what you practice.

John

http://groups.msn.com/scottishflyfisher