To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be denegrated and
mocked by this group and by TU.
What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ?

People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat.

I don't think so. I was taught to eat everything I killed
and that to do otherwise was wrong. If we caught 150 catfish
from a farm pond, we cleaned and eventually ate 150 catfish.
But that had nothing at all to with subsistence and neither
does sport fishing in the US today. You'd have to be a moron
to spend money on a fishing license, gear and bait and expect
to break even when you can go to the grocery store and pick
up a Mrs. Pauls for far less.

It really chaps my butt when so called brothers of the angle denegrate
people who understand this, who like to eat wild fish, harvest the
bounty of nature, while claiming moral high ground when their only
using the animal to promote the latest vest fashion. ...

I've seen bait fishermen and their filthy offspring catching
and killing fish. They usually have tobacco spittle dried into
their scraggly chin hairs, obscene tatoos and rags for clothes.
And the men look even worse.

--
Ken Fortenberry

By definition, then, C&R anglers are unethical spportsmen. It can be no
other way because the hunter is wasting the meat of all fish that
succomb from the stress of being caught and release, around 5% on
average. The C&K angler that *quits* when he has a limit definately
maintains the ethical high ground.

TBone