On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?

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)