On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?

"JR" wrote in message ...
snip
BTW, you been to the mouth for steelhead yet? My continued
"semi-retirement" and $3/gal gas is keeping me pretty close to home....

--
John Russell aka JR

Sorry to say, some health issues, $3.00/gal gas, and 3 digit temps. have
also kept me close to home, so I haven't done any steelheading yet. { 8 (

While the courts may make a distinction whether you killed someone on
purpose or by accident, I doubt that it matters much to the victim. { 8 0

In general I have a hard time stomaching the concept of anyone imposing
their ethics on others, unless actual harm - and to my mind that doesn't
include offending their sensibilities - to other people is involved. And
yes I know it is done all the time, but that doesn't make me any more
accepting of it.

So I guess that, in most instances I can think of, I am far more concerned
with outcomes than intent. That may be a result of my self-centeredness, as
my first thoughts about another's actions are not what his/her intentions
are , but rather how those actions or their results might affect things I
care about.


Bob Weinberger

Bob Weinberger wrote:
"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

It is a strange world that can produce people capable of stating with
conviction that intent doesn't matter.

Wolfgang
who supposes that he will now be informed that no one said any such thing.


I find it stranger still when people place a higher importance on intent
than they do on outcome -

Well, I won't deny that you find it strange, but it's easy to find what
I believe are perfectly reasonable instances of where intent is judged
more important than outcome. What comes first to mind is the law. The
dimwit who writes a holdup note on one of his own deposit slips, only
to have the bank teller spit in his eye and tell him to hit the road,
may be the object of much amusement for those of us who read about it
after the fact (and justifiably so) but the courts take a different
view of this sort of thing (with equal justification, I think). As
well, intent to commit vehicular homicide or any other sort of illegal
mayhem, demonstrated by a legitimate attempt, is reason enough to
prosecute (and convict if the evidence convinces a jury) regardless of
outcome.

I trust you'll agree that both of these (which, while presented
hypothetically, are modelled on many real life situations) constitute
situations in which intent IS in fact more important, at least in some
respects, than outcome and that good examples from other areas of the
human experience wouldn't be all that hard to come up with.

though I'm not saying that that is what you did in
this case.

Nor would I......ever......without qualification.

Wolfgang

JR wrote:

Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to
playthings.


hmmm...ever seen the harp (?) seal hunts where the hunters bludgeon
those kewpie-doll eyed, angel-innocent, unsuspecting white-skin seals
into a blood red death? or the longliners and netters that catch
everything, but are prohibited from keeping lots of their catch and dump
the by-catch dead bodies back into the water? or the bear and deer
hunters that sit in their trucks til the dogs run the quarry to a
convenient killing location? if i was looking for sterling examples of
trivializing the prey, i'd say those would qualify.

i'm all for philosophizing, guilty consciences (i especially appreciate
those nasty things), and moral or ethical quandries... but, at the root
of this little dilemma, like most, is a human emotion (call it whatever
suits you - love, hate, sympathy, empathy, respect, coldheartedness) ...

btw, y'all are clearly a much more advanced and thinking being than i
will ever be. i do regard fish as playthings...and they usually win the
game.

jeff (who has observed jr play with the fish)

jeff wrote:
JR wrote:

Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to
playthings.

......
btw, y'all are clearly a much more advanced and thinking being than i
will ever be. i do regard fish as playthings...and they usually win the
game.

jeff (who has observed jr play with the fish)

You know, it's really hard to *be* a highly ethical being if one's
companions continually insist on pointing out one's hypocrisies.

The Metolius is mandatory C&R. I don't think it should be, in part
because I think a slot limit like that on the Deschutes would serve the
same purpose, but mostly for some of the ethical/moral reasons I've
mentioned. Still, I fish it. Too beautiful not to. Hypocritical? I
guess so.

I argue against mandatory C&R waters (with little more success that I've
had here g), but I reckon I'll actually stop fishing the more
beautiful ones that currently exist around the time I stop coveting my
neighbor's wife.....


--
John Russell aka JR

JR wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

What if you cull fish as you go about your "serious purpose"? Are
those fish caught for amusement, for a passing lark, but once they are
finally filleted they become "serious" fish? How about if you fish a
body of water that has size limits even though you know that the
majority of the fish you will catch fall into the size where they must
be released?

Who said anything about serious fish?

That was an attempt on my part to get at the difference between
intent and result. Let's continue with the idea of intent/purpose
overriding result:

It's the purpose that is serious,
which makes the enterprise serious. In your examples, fish would have
died (or been caught and released) as an unavoidable and/or accidental
by-product of a larger, otherwise serious enterprise--that of providing
food-- rather than a frivolous, trivial enterprise--that of providing
entertainment. It's the seriousness of the intent that counts, I think.

First of all, I'd refer you to Wolfgang's post on the efficacy of
flyfishing as "meat fishing". Secondly, I don't see how you can
dismiss fish that might die as "unavoidable" or "accidental by-product"
in the scenarios I've given. If that's so, what do you say about the
fisherman who goes to the water with the idea that he may or may not
keep some fish on that particular trip?

If he keeps and kills some, is his intent for those particular fish
now considered serious? If he lets one go, does his intent now become
a "lark"?

To take your statements to their logical extreme -- wouldn't anyone
who is not fishing *solely* to feed themselves just be fishing for a
"passing lark"?

There's a continuum of intents/actions/consequences/results when it
comes to what I am calling "seriousness", to be sure. But, yes, the
more the intent (or result) deviates from--or doesn't contribute to,
even indirectly--the end of providing food, the more trivial that part
of the enterprise is. I'll admit, though, that not every American--even
my poor weak self--is yet prepared to be as extremely logical and
morally exact as the average German.

But isn't the whole rationale of C&K in this scenario built on the
idea of absolutes? And if it is not, doesn't it come back to some
personal sense of ethics/morality/whatever?

And wouldn't it also be true that anyone who wastes any
portion of the fish caught has now crossed back over into that "lark"
rather than the "serious purpose"? (I.e., how do you justify the
suffering/killing if you waste any of what you kill?)

Waste is irresponsible in any event. It wouldn't necessarily be a
"lark" but it would be wrong, yes, and wrong to the extent that it was
knowingly (or thoughtlessly) wasteful. BTW, I can't remember the last
time any part of any fish I killed was "wasted." I kill what I am sure
I and/or the folks with me will eat fresh that same day. When I had a
garden and a cat, the heads/guts/bones got eaten or composted. Now that
I have neither, those parts go in the garbage. Would I prefer that they
didn't? Sure, but I'm no more remorseful about it than about those
parts of the rest of my food that go the same route, faute de mieux.

Do you not ever return fish to the water, or do you also fish for
entertainment?

BTW, I have no illusions that I will change anyone's mind here.

You have actually done a lot better job of making the point than our
friend Tim. Too bad he's "left the building". But I expect he got all
he wanted by the mere fact that this discussion has been resurrected
once again. :-}

Many
people are very happy and quite morally untroubled to harass wildlife
solely for fun, and because it's associated in the public's mind with a
traditionally honorable profession/sport, it has society's blessing.....
for the moment, anyway.

Well, since the whole dogma of C&R came about because of folks who
constantly pushed the limits (pun intended), I don't see how you can
hold the the C&K above the C&R crowd as far as being "responsible
stewards".


Chuck Vance (who also doesn't expect to change any minds, but
enjoys a nice civil discussion, thanks)

JR wrote:


I argue against mandatory C&R waters (with little more success that I've
had here g), but I reckon I'll actually stop fishing the more
beautiful ones that currently exist around the time I stop coveting my
neighbor's wife.....



i never really understood the big deal about coveting ...it's that
screwing part that really causes the problems. g

Conan The Librarian wrote:
JR wrote:

But isn't the whole rationale of C&K in this scenario built on the
idea of absolutes? And if it is not, doesn't it come back to some
personal sense of ethics/morality/whatever?

I don't think C&K *needs* a rationale. In any event, no, I don't think
any of the rationales, either for C&K or for C&R, are built upon the
idea of absolutes. Yes, it comes back to each person's personal sense
of ethics. I think I've said that. What I'm try to do here is only
explain my sense, not impose that sense on others.

Rather than go through another extensive exercise in interspersed
replies (I don't have much stamina in that regard), I'll just say it
again: I am not against C&R. In this I differ from Tim. I am against
state-mandated C&R-only waters, first because they are almost always
unnecessary from a conservation point of view and also because they tend
to trivialize and impose an unbecoming Disneyfication on the sport and
on that part of nature we inhabit as fishermen.

--
John Russell aka JR

William Claspy wrote:

(I've snipped liberally for brevity's sake)

On 8/1/06 11:20 AM, in article , "JR"
wrote:

These questions can
never be resolved and are pointless anyway.

Yet you seem to resolve it pretty neatly for yourself (see your next
sentence).

Yeah. The part I can never understand is why all the rest of the world
resist letting me resolve it for them as well....

Your inclusion of "mandatory" has me scratching my head a little, and I'm
wondering if you would explain. Would the "playthings" statement change if
the C&R were *not* mandatory. So if I'm fishing on a no-regs stream, and
release a fish, was the fish not a plaything at my whim? Are the fish that
you caught and release that were not part of your slot limit (were there a
highly restrictive slot limit) not playthings, whereas they would have been
had the C&R been mandated by some outside (outside of your own conscience!)
agency?

I think that if a fish is caught and released in the process of fishing
for food, that fact does not *necessarily* make the fish a plaything in
the sense I'm using the word. I think it's when a regulatory body and
oneself decide beforehand that any fishing you do this day on this water
*must* be only for fun that the water you're fishing is necessarily
reduced to a state where it can be nothing other than a playground and
the fish nothing other than playthings.

(To be honest, I don't follow the discussion closely enough to know the
definition of "slot limit"- is that where you can only keep the first (say)
two fish you catch? Or is it when you can only keep fish of a certain
size?)

A slot limit is where you can keep a given number of fish in a size
"slot", i.e., *between* a minimum and a maximum length, for example
between 8" and 12". Most successful ones serve to cull only pan-sized
trout and tend to have less negative effects on a population than
"trophy" limits (a given number of fish *over* a certain size).

I'd be interested in hearing your own- that is, your personal!- reasons for
participating in sport fishing, JR. How do you justify the C&R that you do?
Assuming you at least occasionally C&R, that is!

I meant to respond to this in detail but have exhausted myself in
replying to others. I fish in part because I've done it since early
childhood, in part to take an active part in the doings of the natural
world, in part for food, in part (I admit it) because it *is* fun. I
release many many more fish than I keep. (See my reply to jeff about
being a hypocrite.) Ah, the humanity..... g

- JR

JR wrote:
...I think it's when a regulatory body and
oneself decide beforehand that any fishing you do this day on this water
*must* be only for fun that the water you're fishing is necessarily
reduced to a state where it can be nothing other than a playground and
the fish nothing other than playthings....

Find me a regulatory body that can successfully legislate motive.

Words are slippery little devils.

Recreational activities are supposed to be fun......right? Well,
that's what they try to sell you.....but nobody can MAKE you buy.
Recreation and fun are not synonymous. Moreover, recreational angling,
despite the appelation, can be done for other reasons.....even some
arguably sound ones.

Wolfgang
a little birdy told me so......canary, if i'm not mistaken.

"jeff" wrote in message
news:5fRzg.1525$W01.1199@dukeread08...
JR wrote:


I argue against mandatory C&R waters (with little more success that I've
had here g), but I reckon I'll actually stop fishing the more
beautiful ones that currently exist around the time I stop coveting my
neighbor's wife.....



i never really understood the big deal about coveting ...it's that
screwing part that really causes the problems. g

A smiling friend offers--yes but think how many lawyers would loose
customers if folks only coveted !