California sturgeon fishing will never be the same.

FishWisher wrote:
Yes. I consider people who want to take down dams to be environmental
whackos. I consider you to be a whacko.

Meathog? oooooh. I'm hurt.

You're a meathog and a wannabe poacher. The reason Sturgeon are nearly
extinct: most Americans are anti-environment, condoning pollution,
dams, and overfishing (overfishing is something you do as you admit to
keeping rare fish). Plus you probably bred a huge litter of future
destroyers of the environment. The dams and pollution kill off most of
the Sturgeon, and the few remaining ones are taken by MEATHOGS such as
yourself.

If you want to keep fish in California, keep Stripers. They're a
non-native, invasive, potentially harmful pest, probably a big threat
to actual native species.

One good thing about two common traits of the anti-environment people:
they might kill themselves by allowing pollution, then eating the fish
with the pollutants.

It'll be karma if you get cancer from all the pollutants. Because
Sturgeon take FOREVER to grow, the ones you're keeping are decades old,
having decades of built-up toxins. May your cancer death be especially
painful.

The fact you condone the creation of dams is proof you condone the
extinction of Sturgeon.

"Terry Lomax" wrote in message
oups.com...

FishWisher wrote:
Yes. I consider people who want to take down dams to be environmental
whackos. I consider you to be a whacko.

Meathog? oooooh. I'm hurt.

You're a meathog and a wannabe poacher. The reason Sturgeon are nearly
extinct: most Americans are anti-environment, condoning pollution,
dams, and overfishing (overfishing is something you do as you admit to
keeping rare fish). Plus you probably bred a huge litter of future
destroyers of the environment. The dams and pollution kill off most of
the Sturgeon, and the few remaining ones are taken by MEATHOGS such as
yourself.

If you want to keep fish in California, keep Stripers. They're a
non-native, invasive, potentially harmful pest, probably a big threat
to actual native species.

One good thing about two common traits of the anti-environment people:
they might kill themselves by allowing pollution, then eating the fish
with the pollutants.

It'll be karma if you get cancer from all the pollutants. Because
Sturgeon take FOREVER to grow, the ones you're keeping are decades old,
having decades of built-up toxins. May your cancer death be especially
painful.

The fact you condone the creation of dams is proof you condone the
extinction of Sturgeon.


What the hell planet you from. The problems with sturgeon are too much
water diversion, too many mitten crabs, to many poachers that get a slap on
the wrist. The last big poaching bust. 3 years of investigation, Russian
immigrant mom and her son. Caviar selling for $100 / pound and was selling
to Russian stores in the area. They get a $10,000 fine, and probation and
the son got 60 days in jail. They should have lost their house, vehicles,
bank accounts, and if not citizens, deportation! How many 100's of sturgeon
were these people responsible for killing?

Calif Bill wrote:

What the hell planet you from. The problems with sturgeon are too much
water diversion, too many mitten crabs, to many poachers that get a slap on
the wrist. The last big poaching bust. 3 years of investigation, Russian
immigrant mom and her son. Caviar selling for $100 / pound and was selling
to Russian stores in the area. They get a $10,000 fine, and probation and
the son got 60 days in jail. They should have lost their house, vehicles,
bank accounts, and if not citizens, deportation! How many 100's of sturgeon
were these people responsible for killing?

Looks like you missed my earlier post in the thread where I wrote:

I agree not nearly enough is done to pursue and convict poachers.
Isn't there a number where you can give tips on the poachers: their
vehicles, boat IDs, etc?

It's disgusting when poachers are given tiny slaps on the wrist on the
rare occasions they're caught. Poachers should have ALL their assets
confiscated: boats, vehicles, houses (won't need a house if they're put

in jail where they belong!), retirement accounts, etc.

My points about dams referred to Sturgeon in a watershed to the north
(the Columbia) that could apply to other systems with dams.

FishWisher wrote:

I release more fish in a season than you've likely caught in a
lifetime. I have never poached a thing in my life other than your
raving rants - and you're just too damn easy to call it sport.

You're obviously insecure about your fishing abilities, as shown by
your typical California "create your own reality" delusions in which
you imagine negative things about others. How typical of a Californian
to create his/her own reality. Seeing a shrink? You sound like a
pothead hippie from Santa Cruz.

I would be fishing now, but it's still the dead of winter here and
we've had a big drought, not good conditions. Given I fish for common
species, I tend to catch and release unharmed a lot more fish than
people who target rarer species. From what I've heard, Sturgeon
fishing involves a lot of patience and waiting hours for subtle
short-lasting bites, and if you do hook one, the fight usually takes a
long time even if you do the proper action of using heavy tackle to
avoid stressing the fish. You probably get skunked more days than not.
A ****ing contest about who catches more fish is useless as it's
comparing apples and oranges.

Given your attitude and temper, you probably mishandle fish and a high
percentage of the fish you "release" die.

One good thing about two common traits of the anti-environment people:
they might kill themselves by allowing pollution, then eating the fish
with the pollutants.

It'll be karma if you get cancer from all the pollutants. Because
Sturgeon take FOREVER to grow, the ones you're keeping are decades old,
having decades of built-up toxins. May your cancer death be especially
painful.

Unfortunately for you, I don't eat fish and that may stunt your death
and suffering wishes for me. Sorry to disappoint you. But hey! Keep
your chin up! Something is gonna kill me some day.

You admit a desire to keep Sturgeon, saying you don't like the
reduction of the upper end of the slot limit from 72 inches to 56
inches or whatever the new rule is. Now you say you don't eat fish.
That suggests you either waste the fish completely (killing them
without making any use of them, the way scumbags did with Lake Sturgeon
in the Great Lakes in the 1800s), or you give them to other people
(tell me, does your killing of fish and attempt to be a "provider"
compensate for your inadequacy at having diminutive genitalia?), or
you're trying to sell their caviar, an act that should be completely
illegal.

You got destroyed in this thread. When someone politely asked for
evidence to support your initial false claim, you attacked that poster,
lashing out at him and accusing him of siding with poachers and being a
PETA member, then you've continued your meltdown with each successive
post in the thread.

You have demonstrated for all to see what an absolute whacko you are.
Thank you. And now I'm going sturgeon fishing!

More likely you're sitting at a computer screen, obsessively waiting
for responses. Go do something more productive like getting the
license numbers of poachers.

FishWisher wrote:

Terry Lomax wrote:
(oops. Sorry Terry, I sent the original direct to you. Maybe. Didn't
mean to.)


You're obviously insecure about your fishing abilities, as shown by
your typical California "create your own reality" delusions in which
you imagine negative things about others....blah blah


What!? I've never run across someone with so many evil assumptions
about me as you have displayed. And you write that?!

I would be fishing now, but it's still the dead of winter here and
blah blah...

Yeah, right. Check your little tally, er.. sheet. You don't have time
for anything but pounding the keyboard - and other nearby things.


You got destroyed in this thread.


hahahahahahaha.


When someone politely asked for
evidence to support your initial false claim, you attacked that poster,yada yada...


re-read my first reply. I clearly stated "this may not apply...".


More likely you're sitting at a computer screen, obsessively waiting
for responses. Go do something more yada yada.


I have a life, Terry. You're the hateful, pathetic loner sitting all
day at your computer fishing for nothing more than ****ing contests.

Well, Terry, I hope you can celebrate your imagined victory here with
great joy. You likely need such a boost. I'm done. Post your next batch
of hate and evil imaginings and have the last word. I'm not up to your
measure of hate and discontent. Thank God.

Dale

Stop it before I send you to bed without supper.
MOM

"Terry Lomax" wrote in message

Regarding the water shortage issue, hasn't California gotten a good
amount of rain in recent months? Is any of it helping water flows in
the rivers (which would obviously help the fish), or is all the water
being stolen by irrigation and refilling reservoirs that are still way
below their proper levels? I know paleface farmers and ranchers steal
nearly 100% of the water from the Klamath and other streams.


Water shortages in the west are a very complex issue. "Stolen by farmers"
is really not a valid comment. The farmers in the southwest produce a huge
percentage of the food consumed by the entire country in the winter months.
Is there another way? Well I have been in north central Ohio too where they
have hundred and hundreds of acres under glass for winter crops. Simpley
put, its much more economical to raise crops in the desert.

As to actual water usage. I don't know how much of that really goes to
farmers (by percentage) , but in my area the farmers have been using less
and less water to grow the same amount and in many cases more crops. There
has been such a dramatic improvement in irrigation techniques that
controlled flows on the river have been very noticeably reduced in the last
several years. This is release on demand flows based on irrigation demands
downriver.

All that being said, I wonder how the people would survive in a drought like
we have had for the last several years if there was no water storage and no
flow control. Historically desert peoples have been wiped out by drought in
the past.

Hmmm.... I wonder how the fish would have survived with the Colorado River
just barely trickling around the pebbles in the bottom of the channel?

You might argue that without our controlled surpus systems we wouldn't have
so many people living here in the first place. That is a valid arguement,
but the people are here now. They aren't going to leave. From Los Angelos
to Phoenix and all points in between the farms and the populations are
dependent on stored water. Blow up the dams and you would have to relocate
50 (apx) million people. That is just in the west. If you are going to get
rid of the dams in the west then you have to get rid of the dams in the rest
of the world too. And as long as you are at it all the leviys too. Now
think about all the displaced people you would have to accomodate. It would
make the refugees from Katrina look like normal vacation season travel. .

The preceeding post is just to make you think about the larger implications.
An arguement, that "I don't care about all those people, just what affects
what I want," won't work either. It doesn't work because the displacement
of that many people would have worldwide negative impact on everything and
everybody.

--
Bob La Londe
http://www.YumaBassMan.com