On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?

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)

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

JR wrote:

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.

But isn't that what this whole discussion is about? :-)

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.

Well if it is dependent on the indivudal's sense of ethics, then you
are making a large leap by trying to paint anyone who releases fish as
just fishing for a "passing lark", which is what you have done elsewhere
in this thread.

If I go fishing with the idea that I may or may not keep a fish
today, what is my intent? If I do release all of the fish I catch, is
it just a lark, while if I had kept one I would automatically become a
"serious" fisherman?

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.

Fair enough. I have to admit that some of the stories I've heard
about the C&R "petting zoos" make me wonder, but like in most things in
life, I have the choice to go elsewhere.

My own personal ethic is that I try to play fish on appropriate
tackle, use barbless hooks and touch the fish as little as possible. I
revive the fish when called for, and like Bill, I feel happy when I see
the fish swim away under its own power.

I haven't kept a fish in years, but it's not because I think I'm
"more ethical" than someone who does. I simply don't think it's a good
use of the resource unless I plan to cook the fish that same day. And
in some of the waters that I fish, it makes sense to put potential brood
stock back.

Bottom line for me is: I'll take the chance that the fish I release
survive, as the outcome of the alternative is certain. Yes, it's for
entertainment, but I'd have to agree with Wolfgang that everyone in this
group fishes for sport.


Chuck Vance (heck, it's even part of the group's name)