fishing fly in eye

wrote in message
ps.com...

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 just keeps on getting funnier and funnier. So far, you are the only
person here who has demonstrated that he didn't understand your question.


It's amazing that nature was able to suss out
this invader so quickly.

Nature is fickle and unreliable. The careful observer never ceases to be
amazed at what ill-equipped sports manage to survive in direct contravention
of reasonable expectations.

Thanks man,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

wrote in message
oups.com...
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'. It does not mean 'indiginous' and it does not mean
'born and reared in the river'. Catching and releasing a fish, is in
specific contradiction of the term and a caught and released fish, by
definition, is less wild than it had been before being caught. This is
manifested as empirical evidence in the behavior changes the fish
exhibits.

So, let's say I catch a "wild" trout, I then release it back to the waters
from which it came. If I call the trout, will it come to me? Is it going
to act, in some way *less* fearfully, the next time it sees what it thinks
is a meal? Is it going to become accustomed to humans, and therefore more
likely to swim up to the next fisherman that comes along, beging for a
morsal of food?

Your pal,

Not until we fish together!

Op

wrote in message
ups.com...

Opie wrote:

Most poachers do.
Op --yep, them fishin' regs only apply to those ignorant enough to
follow
them--

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

No, I don't think that it is an imperative, but it is the law, in certain
circumstances.

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.

Yes, and I believe that child-molesters should be hunted down and skinned
alive, but the law says otherwise, sadly, and I follow it to the letter.

The crime is that you believe that you are above that law.

If that makes me a poacher, so be it.

Do you express yourself so well, when the wildlife officer questions you
about your fishin' practices?

Op

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Opie wrote:

Most poachers do.
Op --yep, them fishin' regs only apply to those ignorant enough to
follow
them--

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

No, I don't think that it is an imperative, but it is the law, in certain
circumstances.

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.

Yes, and I believe that child-molesters should be hunted down and skinned
alive, but the law says otherwise, sadly, and I follow it to the letter.

The crime is that you believe that you are above that law.

If that makes me a poacher, so be it.

Do you express yourself so well, when the wildlife officer questions you
about your fishin' practices?

Howdy Op,

There are, without questions, descrepencies in the law. It is certainly
illegal to harass wildlife as well as to waste game meat. Pure catch
and release fishing is in contrast to both of these other laws.

Your pal,

TBone

wrote:
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.



The problem with your assessment is that the Cutts are also susceptible
to WD.

Willi

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:44:27 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:



Dumbass.

Wolfgang

Good lord, man, you do that sort of thing well, if a bit overboard.

I don't think it was fair of you to leave the implication that Tim
rips the lips off fish casually hanging out there. (Hmmm. I think a
comma should go after casually, but it works as well before, merely
changing the meaning (or protagonist) a bit.) However cute it was.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

"Cyli" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:44:27 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:



Dumbass.

Wolfgang

Good lord, man, you do that sort of thing well,

It's a gift.

if a bit overboard.

Hm.......try thinking of it as a 36 foot billboard.

I don't think it was fair of you to leave the implication that Tim
rips the lips off fish casually hanging out there. (Hmmm. I think a
comma should go after casually, but it works as well before, merely
changing the meaning (or protagonist) a bit.) However cute it was.

While giving public and explicit expression to it is not very popular these
days, the notion that every thing and person in the universe has fixed place
and purpose has an ancient (and, if universality is any guide, honorable)
lineage. If timmy insists on being a toy, who am I to flout convention and
his own ardent (if rather peculiar) desires.....especially considering that
it costs me nothing to gratify him and leaves everyone with a legitimate
interest in the matter with a warm and fuzzy feeling?

Wolfgang