Fishing is Cold-Hearted!

We are helping entire species exist and flourish, so I see the price of
some of their species being caught and released as biologically very cheap.

Furthermore, it is no more painful than being eaten alive by an Otter, or
swallowed whole by a bigger fish or bird and being dissolved alive in their
digestive tract!




--
Fishing with Cliff
The New Fishing Show in Town
Articles, Photos, & Webcasts
http://www.fishingwithcliff.com/

In article 36, Cliff
writes
We are helping entire species exist and flourish, so I see the price of
some of their species being caught and released as biologically very cheap.

Furthermore, it is no more painful than being eaten alive by an Otter, or
swallowed whole by a bigger fish or bird and being dissolved alive in their
digestive tract!




What pathetic unrelated evidential statements to present. What gives
you the right to decide what is biologically cheap anyway?

In the first case - catch and release fishing is for the fun and
"enjoyment" of the angler who could well find his fun elsewhere

The second case i the survival of the other creatures who hunt fish for
food and some of those creatures may well by hunted themselves to feed a
higher order species.
--
Bill Grey

"W. D. Grey" wrote in message
...
In article 36, Cliff
writes
We are helping entire species exist and flourish, so I see the price of
some of their species being caught and released as biologically very
cheap.

Furthermore, it is no more painful than being eaten alive by an Otter, or
swallowed whole by a bigger fish or bird and being dissolved alive in
their
digestive tract!




What pathetic unrelated evidential statements to present. What gives you
the right to decide what is biologically cheap anyway?


Anglers are conservationists, the money we pay for season tickets, rod
licences, day tickets etc pays for the maintainence of thousands of waters
up and down the country, as a direct result of this complete eco systems are
formed maintaining all forms of wildlife, without fee paying anglers most of
what you now see in the countryside would not or could not exist, so I think
it is biologically cheap seeing as we paid for it.


In the first case - catch and release fishing is for the fun and
"enjoyment" of the angler who could well find his fun elsewhere

Which does no harm whatsoever.



The second case i the survival of the other creatures who hunt fish for
food and some of those creatures may well by hunted themselves to feed a
higher order species.


Thats where we come in, you cant beat a fried brownie with all the
trimmings, yum yum

In article , Niteawk
writes
The second case i the survival of the other creatures who hunt fish for
food and some of those creatures may well by hunted themselves to feed a
higher order species.


Thats where we come in, you cant beat a fried brownie with all the
trimmings, yum yum

Oh yes you can - two fried brownies even yummier !

Catch and release does more harm than good. The fish may swim away but
may well die later.
--
Bill Grey

"W. D. Grey" wrote in message
...
In article , Niteawk
writes
The second case i the survival of the other creatures who hunt fish for
food and some of those creatures may well by hunted themselves to feed a
higher order species.


Thats where we come in, you cant beat a fried brownie with all the
trimmings, yum yum

Oh yes you can - two fried brownies even yummier !

Catch and release does more harm than good. The fish may swim away but
may well die later.


I disagree, no anglers = no fish.

In article , Niteawk
writes

"W. D. Grey" wrote in message
...
In article , Niteawk
writes
The second case i the survival of the other creatures who hunt fish for
food and some of those creatures may well by hunted themselves to feed a
higher order species.


Thats where we come in, you cant beat a fried brownie with all the
trimmings, yum yum

Oh yes you can - two fried brownies even yummier !

Catch and release does more harm than good. The fish may swim away but
may well die later.


I disagree, no anglers = no fish.



At this juncture we must part company for we shall never agree on this.

You are wrong of course :-)
--
Bill Grey

"W. D. Grey" wrote in message
...
In article , Niteawk
writes

"W. D. Grey" wrote in message
...
In article , Niteawk
writes
The second case i the survival of the other creatures who hunt fish for
food and some of those creatures may well by hunted themselves to feed
a
higher order species.


Thats where we come in, you cant beat a fried brownie with all the
trimmings, yum yum

Oh yes you can - two fried brownies even yummier !

Catch and release does more harm than good. The fish may swim away but
may well die later.


I disagree, no anglers = no fish.



At this juncture we must part company for we shall never agree on this.

You are wrong of course :-)

Dont give up that easy, I can always be bribed

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 23:10:20 +0100, "W. D. Grey"
wrote:

In article , Niteawk
writes
The second case i the survival of the other creatures who hunt fish for
food and some of those creatures may well by hunted themselves to feed a
higher order species.


Thats where we come in, you cant beat a fried brownie with all the
trimmings, yum yum

Oh yes you can - two fried brownies even yummier !

Catch and release does more harm than good. The fish may swim away but
may well die later.

It WILL die later. It's the nature of life. Just as few humans who are
shot in a non-lethal spot on their body die from being shot. Few
released fish that were hooked in a non-lethal part of their body die
from being hooked. If they do die they provide food for those a step
lower in the food chain. Nature waste little.