fishing fly in eye

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Does this mean you think it's important to return a dying fish to the
water?

The Montana bag limit is (usually) 5 fish per day.
I kill about 5 per year. They're mostly fish that didn't look
like they were going to make it. Returning those fish to the
water is, in my book, a crime, even if the current water happens
to be catch and release.

If that makes me a poacher, so be it.
It certainly does make you a poacher and it's sheer
nonsense to consider returning a dead fish to the water
a "crime". You're not the only link in the food chain
you know, that dead fish will be a fine meal even if
you don't take it home for yourself.

Honest question: Isn't this a vector for whirling disease?

Only if you put the dead fish in a different stream. If you
return it where you caught it, then no it isn't.

--
Ken Fortenberry

It certainly does make you a poacher and it's sheer
nonsense to consider returning a dead fish to the water
a "crime".

This part of this thread was a mistake on my part.
I do that every now and then, due to chronic foot in mouth
disease. You've probably noticed that.

I was expressing a sentiment more than a way of actually doing
things. The last time I actually killed a fish I wasn' supposed to
was a large fish, that was at the edge of a slot limit anyway,
that was so badly gill hooked he was essentially dead before I
got him out of the net. There was blood all over hte place.
That was 4-5 years ago.

I was camping on the river that night. So I didn't throw a dead fish
back into the water. I put him tin foil
and baked him with garlic and oyster mushrooms.
And I felt thankful for nature's bounty, what little is left of it.

wrote:

... The last time I actually killed a fish I wasn' supposed to
was a large fish, that was at the edge of a slot limit anyway,
that was so badly gill hooked he was essentially dead before I
got him out of the net. There was blood all over hte place.
That was 4-5 years ago.

I was camping on the river that night. So I didn't throw a dead fish
back into the water. I put him tin foil
and baked him with garlic and oyster mushrooms.
And I felt thankful for nature's bounty, what little is left of it.

I killed a large cutt on Slough Creek when my wife and I were
camping up there near where Elk Tongue Creek comes in. A sow
grizzly and her cub had been spotted in the area and I thought
about the bears before I put that trout back in the water. I
wouldn't hold it against someone who ate the trout under those
circumstances but I kinda doubt the Yellowstone Rangers would
feel the same way about it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote in news:cPqxg.72668
:

I
wouldn't hold it against someone who ate the trout under those
circumstances but I kinda doubt the Yellowstone Rangers would
feel the same way about it.



I think the Rangers understand the situation just fine, but making
exceptions to C&R for dying fish makes C&R regs unenforcible. The regs
need to be black and white.

For example, on our Ontario tribs, if the CO picks up your terminal tackle,
and your lead hangs lower than your lowest hook, you're going to be cited,
regardless of how honorable or dishonorable your intentions were.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote:


Honest question: Isn't this a vector for whirling disease?

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.


No, the hatcheries were the chief vector.

Willi

wrote:

I was camping on the river that night. So I didn't throw a dead fish
back into the water. I put him tin foil
and baked him with garlic and oyster mushrooms.
And I felt thankful for nature's bounty, what little is left of it.


I agree with you concerning more crowded conditions but that "bounty"
isn't threatened. Trout populations as a whole are higher and healthier
today than they were 20 - 30 - 40........ years ago.

Willi

"Willi" wrote

Trout populations as a whole are higher and healthier
today than they were 20 - 30 - 40........ years ago.

wow, you could have busted my ass on a bet about that, at least as
applied to the north carolina mountain waters... got any numbers on the
smokies, f'rinstance?
thanks.

yfitons
wayno

Wayne Harrison wrote:
"Willi" wrote

Trout populations as a whole are higher and healthier
today than they were 20 - 30 - 40........ years ago.

wow, you could have busted my ass on a bet about that, at least as
applied to the north carolina mountain waters... got any numbers on the
smokies, f'rinstance?
thanks.

yfitons
wayno

Yeah, I'd like to see that statistic myself. Still the quality of the
experience is not based on the number of fish alone. By this line of
reasoning the best fishing would be had in a hatchery raceway. All that
said, the fishing was damned good in Colorado and Wyoming in the 1960's
and, thanks to intelligent stocking by the CDOW and, mostly, the
Boulder Fish and Game Club, the overwhelmingly sterile high mountain
lakes now have fish. Of course, if 'conservation' were *really* a goal,
we'd kill every non-indiginous trout on site, would we not?

Your pal,

TBone

Willi wrote:
wrote:


Honest question: Isn't this a vector for whirling disease?

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.


No, the hatcheries were the chief vector.

Willi

Hi Willi,

Understood, but that was not my question. Fact is, WD, affecting
Rainbow trout, which are descendent from stockings of rainbow
trout...kind of a zero sum and, somehow, perfect in the 'naturalness'
of it, when you think about it. The Rainbow trout is the biggest threat
to the indiginous species of Colorado (lack of genetic diversity
through hybridization). It's amazing that nature was able to suss out
this invader so quickly.

Thanks man,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.

wrote in message
oups.com...

1. We've been over this before.

Well, I have. You have ignored it or (as appears much more likely) utterly
failed to understand it before.

Slot limits, not catch and release.

That bears a remarkable resemblance to a sentence in English. This is a
welcome (if rather astonishing) improvement. Is it too much to hope that
you might someday find a useful context for it? Probably so......but hope
springs eternal.

This is selective harvest,

To be sure, killing every fish you catch IS a form of selection. However, I
suspect it is not quite what most people have in mind when they use the
term.

which has a sound biological reason and
helps eliminates random class mortality.

Hm......yeah, if the goal is to exterminate trout from the face of the
Earth, then it naturally follows that killing each and every one that you
encounter is a biologically sound strategy.

And yes, killing them all is undoubtedly the very best way to eliminate any
randomness in class mortality.

Moreover, I'm not a saint

This revelation comes as a substantial shock. You've had all of us fooled
for a very long time.

and
more often then not lately I can not kill a beautiful fish

There are no beautiful fish. They are all scarred and ugly.

and I release it,

Eh? What's this?

this is my constent torment

As you would be ours. How galling it must be then to be to confront the
reality that you are forever doomed to be no more than a bobble-head toy.

amd why I often sign my posts
'guilt replaced the creel'. This bothers me.

What SHOULD bother you is the incapacity to parse that idiotic phrase and
that no one has yet seen fit to do it for you.

2. No, not really. Wild is a term to describe the relative wildness of
an animal which is, specifically, a term relative to the 'absence of
the hand of man'.

Where DO you find this crap? Is it your position that some sort of useful
meaning naturally accrues to any random agglomeration of words? Or do you
merely hope to convince us that this is so?

It does not mean 'indiginous' and it does not mean
'born and reared in the river'.

No, and it doesn't mean "pink bunny pajamas" either. So?

Catching and releasing a fish, is in
specific contradiction of the term

Horse****, pure and simple.

and a caught and released fish, by
definition, is less wild than it had been before being caught.

Well, if you define terms in whatever pudding-headed way seems (however
unjustifiably) to support whatever muddy concept you're trying to deal with,
then yeah, you can make whatever you desire be whatever it is you want it to
be. Consider though........how useful have you found this exercise in
abstention from the linguistic tradition (and culture) that surrounds you to
be thus far?

This is
manifested as empirical evidence in the behavior changes the fish
exhibits.

Evidence is not empirical. Observation can be.....or at least so it is
supposed by many. In fact, this is a difficult position to defend. In any
case, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only person here fascinated by a glimpse of
what you perceive as evidence......particularly in light of your performance
here over the past few years.

3. Well gosh is right. Someone ripped the lips off this fish.

Well, if you caught this fish, you must have done so in an area in which you
fish.....nicht war? And I know for a fact that I don't fish in the areas
that you do. So, it naturally follows that it wasn't me. On the other
hand, it is a dead certainty that it was someone who DOES fish in that area.
Moreover, it MUST have been someone who caught that particular fish and
subsequently released it. O.k., let's see now......how many people engaged
in this exchange have explicitly confessed to catching and releasing fish in
the area in which we know.....by your own explicit confession.....that YOU
catch and release fish? And how many people do we know who have
indisputably caught that fish?

Pretty barbaric.

Ainna?

Wait until *that* picture is on a 36 foot billboard

Well, I plan to be around for a bit longer, but you really shouldn't
construe that as waiting for this picture on a billboard.

(no I will keep the rights to the one I have).

It would be an uncharacteristic bit of wisdom for you to hoard everything
that you have.......it is little enough as is.

4. No ,not by a longshot my good internet buddy.

It is an extremely difficult thing to make most people believe that there
are many who learn to like their afflictions.....that they actually derive
some sort of twisted comfort from their travails. You are an inspiration to
us all.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang