life imitates art

"Opie" wrote in message
...

Do you want me to ask them or will you?

By all means, you ask'em. Hey, be sure to share their rely too!

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
"Opie" wrote in message
...

Do you want me to ask them or will you?

By all means, you ask'em. Hey, be sure to share their rely too!

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.




Will do:

The letter is below.

TBone

-----------------------


Hi John,

My name is Tim Walker and I am an avid angler from Colorado that has
been blessed with over 40 years of active flyfishing in this beautiful
state. A recent discussion came up regarding the biological imperative
of pure catch and release fishing regulations versus establishing the
practical equivalence through critical slots and reduced bags, or catch
kill and quit. For example, on a day with exceptional conditions, an
angler that has released 20-30 wild trout has probably inflicted
mortaility on 1-3 of these fish as well as occupying a place on the
stream and crushing forage biota through wading. Further, a slot limit
set very high, such as 2 fish over 16 inches on these streams, would be
the 'practical' equivalent but which allows for some harvest, an
extremely important concept when considering the ethics of sport
fishing in general.

If you consider the report from the Norwegian Fisheries Council you can
see the result of a comprehensive study of the ethics of 'pure,
unlimited catch and release'.

http://org.umb.no/etikkutvalget/English/catch.htm

Which includes this summary:

A form of angling where fish, once caught, are then released, known as
"catch and release", is prevalent in a number of countries. The
authorities are now considering whether the concept should be
introduced as a way of limiting catches in some Norwegian rivers. The
"catch and release" concept is a new principle in natural resource
management compared with the catch regulation measures adopted
previously. "Catch and release" completely separates fishing from its
original purpose, which was to procure food. In the view of the
Council, it is important to support and develop attitudes that
safeguard natural resources and manage them in a sustainable manner.
This also entails a respect for life. There is little doubt that fish
experience pain and stress in connection with fishing, regardless of
whether they are killed or released. The difference is that a fish that
is caught and released is subjected to this stress merely to satisfy
people's need for recreation. The suffering and damage inflicted on the
fish in this connection is disregarded. The Council does not find it
ethically acceptable to use live animals in this way. If the fishing
stock is so low that it will not tolerate harvesting the alternative in
the view of the Council is not to fish. Against this background, the
Council advises against the introduction of "catch and release" as a
resource management measure in Norway.

My question then is, given that there is no 'biological' or 'fisheries
management' 'imperatives' to pure catch and release fishing coupled
with the fact that any fishery which can not stand the random mortality
incident to these activities should be closed to fishing, and given
that the distinction of 'pure catch and release fishing' is akin to
'wildlife harassment for pleasure alone', which is a clear target of
folkes with anti-fishing agendas, why would North Carolina opt to
impose these regulations?

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.

Sincerely,

Tim Walker
-----------------------

wrote in message
oups.com...

Will do:

The letter is below.

TBone

-----------------------


Hi John,

My name is Tim Walker and I am an avid angler from Colorado that has
been blessed with over 40 years of active flyfishing in this beautiful
state. A recent discussion came up regarding the biological imperative
of pure catch and release fishing regulations versus establishing the
practical equivalence through critical slots and reduced bags, or catch
kill and quit. For example, on a day with exceptional conditions, an
angler that has released 20-30 wild trout has probably inflicted
mortaility on 1-3 of these fish as well as occupying a place on the
stream and crushing forage biota through wading. Further, a slot limit
set very high, such as 2 fish over 16 inches on these streams, would be
the 'practical' equivalent but which allows for some harvest, an
extremely important concept when considering the ethics of sport
fishing in general.

If you consider the report from the Norwegian Fisheries Council you can
see the result of a comprehensive study of the ethics of 'pure,
unlimited catch and release'.

http://org.umb.no/etikkutvalget/English/catch.htm

Which includes this summary:

A form of angling where fish, once caught, are then released, known as
"catch and release", is prevalent in a number of countries. The
authorities are now considering whether the concept should be
introduced as a way of limiting catches in some Norwegian rivers. The
"catch and release" concept is a new principle in natural resource
management compared with the catch regulation measures adopted
previously. "Catch and release" completely separates fishing from its
original purpose, which was to procure food. In the view of the
Council, it is important to support and develop attitudes that
safeguard natural resources and manage them in a sustainable manner.
This also entails a respect for life. There is little doubt that fish
experience pain and stress in connection with fishing, regardless of
whether they are killed or released. The difference is that a fish that
is caught and released is subjected to this stress merely to satisfy
people's need for recreation. The suffering and damage inflicted on the
fish in this connection is disregarded. The Council does not find it
ethically acceptable to use live animals in this way. If the fishing
stock is so low that it will not tolerate harvesting the alternative in
the view of the Council is not to fish. Against this background, the
Council advises against the introduction of "catch and release" as a
resource management measure in Norway.

My question then is, given that there is no 'biological' or 'fisheries
management' 'imperatives' to pure catch and release fishing coupled
with the fact that any fishery which can not stand the random mortality
incident to these activities should be closed to fishing, and given
that the distinction of 'pure catch and release fishing' is akin to
'wildlife harassment for pleasure alone', which is a clear target of
folkes with anti-fishing agendas, why would North Carolina opt to
impose these regulations?

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.

Sincerely,

Tim Walker

The guy in NC that gets your email is gonna say, "Another ****in' PETA
letter boss!"

Op

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:45:56 -0400, "Opie" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

Will do:

The letter is below.

TBone

-----------------------


Hi John,

My name is Tim Walker and I am an avid angler from Colorado that has
been blessed with over 40 years of active flyfishing in this beautiful
state. A recent discussion came up regarding the biological imperative
of pure catch and release fishing regulations versus establishing the
practical equivalence through critical slots and reduced bags, or catch
kill and quit. For example, on a day with exceptional conditions, an
angler that has released 20-30 wild trout has probably inflicted
mortaility on 1-3 of these fish as well as occupying a place on the
stream and crushing forage biota through wading. Further, a slot limit
set very high, such as 2 fish over 16 inches on these streams, would be
the 'practical' equivalent but which allows for some harvest, an
extremely important concept when considering the ethics of sport
fishing in general.

If you consider the report from the Norwegian Fisheries Council you can
see the result of a comprehensive study of the ethics of 'pure,
unlimited catch and release'.

http://org.umb.no/etikkutvalget/English/catch.htm

Which includes this summary:

A form of angling where fish, once caught, are then released, known as
"catch and release", is prevalent in a number of countries. The
authorities are now considering whether the concept should be
introduced as a way of limiting catches in some Norwegian rivers. The
"catch and release" concept is a new principle in natural resource
management compared with the catch regulation measures adopted
previously. "Catch and release" completely separates fishing from its
original purpose, which was to procure food. In the view of the
Council, it is important to support and develop attitudes that
safeguard natural resources and manage them in a sustainable manner.
This also entails a respect for life. There is little doubt that fish
experience pain and stress in connection with fishing, regardless of
whether they are killed or released. The difference is that a fish that
is caught and released is subjected to this stress merely to satisfy
people's need for recreation. The suffering and damage inflicted on the
fish in this connection is disregarded. The Council does not find it
ethically acceptable to use live animals in this way. If the fishing
stock is so low that it will not tolerate harvesting the alternative in
the view of the Council is not to fish. Against this background, the
Council advises against the introduction of "catch and release" as a
resource management measure in Norway.

My question then is, given that there is no 'biological' or 'fisheries
management' 'imperatives' to pure catch and release fishing coupled
with the fact that any fishery which can not stand the random mortality
incident to these activities should be closed to fishing, and given
that the distinction of 'pure catch and release fishing' is akin to
'wildlife harassment for pleasure alone', which is a clear target of
folkes with anti-fishing agendas, why would North Carolina opt to
impose these regulations?

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.

Sincerely,

Tim Walker

The guy in NC that gets your email is gonna say, "Another ****in' PETA
letter boss!"

Op

The guy in NC might already know that Norwegian report was pretty much ignored
by everyone in the universe except Tim and PETA, and that C&R isn't banned in
Norway. In fact, according to
http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RObserve.html it is actually practiced
there and has been for some time.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
...
The guy in NC might already know that Norwegian report was pretty much
ignored
by everyone in the universe except Tim and PETA, and that C&R isn't banned
in
Norway. In fact, according to
http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RObserve.html it is actually
practiced
there and has been for some time.
--
Charlie...

Well, is that too!

Op

On 3 Aug 2006 14:54:38 -0700, wrote:

Regarding the scholarly study of this from a pure ethics standpoint one
would be very hard pressed to beat RalphH's post and discussion from:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...e6774d e0f435

You keep saying the Norwegians "get it" when it fact they do allow C&R - you're
trying to equate an entire country with a few AR folks. I'm in no way capable of
getting the monkey off your back, but you could at least climb off the poor
Norwegians. g
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

There is clearly something traveling on. I'm not abiding why, to be honest, authentic catch and absolution fishing is any altered than acrylic brawl hunting deer. If someone has a anticipation why this is the case, I'd like to apprehend it.