Fishing for stocked fish.

On 16 Sep, 20:50, Charlie Choc wrote:

Charlie...http://www.chocphoto.com

Nice to hear from you Charlie. Hope you are well and prospering. Some
really brilliant photos there.

TL
MC

Fred, why don't you find a more appropriate forum for your rantings - like
the outhouse or latrine I'm sure you have on your pristine property.


Hello ,

On 16-Sep-2007, Mike wrote:

Why do you think he should be allowed to continue abusing and
insulting people, or posting a load of propaganda against me, and
others, but that I should not be allowed to retaliate?

I really would like to know.

Mike

You are never going to stop him
Everytime you engage in diatribes against ea other you both look like
fools
and it accomplishes nothing
In fact it detracts from your someimes informational and useful posts
Ignore him!
What else can you do?
Acquiring specific information on some
of these things is also becoming increasingly difficult, as a number
of the extremely large industrial concerns, which operate globally,
actively conceal all sorts of things, because they don´t want people
to know the extent of their control, and the massive damage they are
causing for profit.
I am disgusted and ****ing outraged with what people and corporaions
do to
this planet
Esp in that the US is the largest single violator of world polution
standards
I am ****ing outraged by the wars that we perpetuate in the name of
liberty
, frredom and the AAmerican way
while all they are is methiods for the wealth to exploit the poor -
Jus
another facet of American - world imperialism
Bush, Cheney and their posse are only figurehgeads but thry are
guilty of
the most heinous war crimes and environmental damage.
All for the ****ing dollar.
What can I do ?
- not much
It is enough io drive one nuts!
But I do not to let that happen
All I can do is open my BIG moth in outrage on these boards and a few
other
places- react with my vote - but as the optioons are asinine so all
that I
can really do
Is to mke sure that my own personal environment - family included- is
a s
clean and as nurturing as possible.
We luckily have a lot of land
Throwing a cigarette butt or a beer can on the ground or other kinds
of
detritus is specifiaclly banned from my property - One could get
capped
I make sure that my duaghter - her family and grandchildren respect
the
enviromnement as much as possible
There are a LOT of toxic assholes on this planet - way too ****ing
many
I have unfortunately had occasion to throw people off of my land I
suspect
that there will be quite a few more in the years to come.
I do not mean to say here that Fortenberry is one of the toxix ones
I like him in some ways
But if he drives you nuts-
Forgert and ignore Fortenberry!
That kind of venom and hate detracts from you
Use it in more positive ways.
My 2 cents
Fred

On 16-Sep-2007, Jim Edmondson wrote:

Fred, why don't you find a more appropriate forum for your rantings - like

the outhouse or latrine I'm sure you have on your pristine property.


Hello

**** off ****bird!

If youdont like my rants too ****ing bad Scumbag!

On 16-Sep-2007, Charlie Choc wrote:

I have always wondered - and have never been there - on an overpopulated
island - like Japan
What kind of frsheater fish do they fish for?
Re there any wild bnative species left?

Probably the primary freshwater game fish there is the LM bass, but there
are
native trout as well - and of course stockers. A method of fishing similar
to
high stick nymphing evolved there when the country was still closed to the
west,
but western style fly fishing is more common there days.

A lot of Japan is mountainous and sparsely settled, the population is
concentrated in the big cities. I have fished for trout there, but the
regulations and methods of gaining access can be a bit confusing. The
streams
are lovely, though, and worth the effort. I've also fished for bass in the
Imperial moat in Tokyo, which isn't quite as lovely in some places.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

Thanks

Mike wrote:
Considerations on angling for stock fish.

I have a numbre of objections to angling for stocked rainbow trout.
These are based entirely on the facts known to me, and are not a
result of "snobbery" or any other such silly considerations, as some
people seem to assume.

This is considerably more temperate and reasonable than what
you posted on fishing for stocked fish just three days ago:

"No responsible and conservation
minded angler in full possession of his senses, and the knowledge of
what he is fishing for, how it was obtained and treated, quite apart
form the side-effects of eating such heavily chemically treated filth,
would even contemplate "angling" for such."

1. The use of such fish is a massive drain on the environment. ...

And this is quite different than this from three days ago:

"Doubtless, but fishing for stocked rainbows causes heavy environmental
damage."

Most of your arguments against fish stocking are informed by an
unreasonable conflation of aquaculture and fisheries management
but at least you've learned to state them in a civil fashion
without calling those who fish for stocked fish, (which includes
the vast majority of roff btw), "criminally ignorant".

--
Ken Fortenberry

gee fred that doesn't sound very nurturing

with such eloquence, you really should consider sticking your head up your
....


On 16-Sep-2007, Jim Edmondson wrote:

Fred, why don't you find a more appropriate forum for your rantings -
like

the outhouse or latrine I'm sure you have on your pristine property.

Hello

**** off ****bird!

If youdont like my rants too ****ing bad Scumbag!

"Mike" wrote in message
ups.com...

4. In the majority of cases, these fish are badly contaminated with
accumulated poisons and toxins. This is also a result of being fed on
processed fishmeal, which concentrates various toxins, mainly in the
fatty cells of such fish, and also the chenical and other complex drug
residues used in their production.

5. I find the production of such animals purely for the purpose of
playing with them distasteful. They are produced at great cost,
damage, and danger to the environment, purely for the personal
gratification of anglers who wish to fish for them. This is not at all
the same thing as directly farming a food source.

But the fish are materially the same, viz. farmed fish are fed
artificially thus (if MC is right about the feed) have "accumulated
poisons and toxins." We can calculate the environmental loads of
creating a 3 lb. angling rainbow and a 3 lb. table rainbow, and
perhaps these are different, but if they eat the same food are both
not equally poisoned and poisonous?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On 16 Sep, 23:10, "Don Phillipson"
wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message

ups.com...

4. In the majority of cases, these fish are badly contaminated with
accumulated poisons and toxins. This is also a result of being fed on
processed fishmeal, which concentrates various toxins, mainly in the
fatty cells of such fish, and also the chenical and other complex drug
residues used in their production.

5. I find the production of such animals purely for the purpose of
playing with them distasteful. They are produced at great cost,
damage, and danger to the environment, purely for the personal
gratification of anglers who wish to fish for them. This is not at all
the same thing as directly farming a food source.

But the fish are materially the same, viz. farmed fish are fed
artificially thus (if MC is right about the feed) have "accumulated
poisons and toxins." We can calculate the environmental loads of
creating a 3 lb. angling rainbow and a 3 lb. table rainbow, and
perhaps these are different, but if they eat the same food are both
not equally poisoned and poisonous?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

The feed is indeed exactly the same. Despite ongoing research, there
is no substitute for fishmeal in the production of salmonid fish ( and
quite a few others also). The same feed which produces contaminated
farmed salmon also produces contaminated rainbows, and if brown trout
are reared and stocked, the problems are the same, but somewhat worse,
as it takes longer to feed browns on, as they have much slower growth
rates.

There are plenty of informational sites about the problems of rearing
fish on fishmeal. The conversion ratios of willd fish protein to
fishmeal, and the problems with the concentration of contaminants.
This is independent of the drugs and chemicals being used at intensive
rearing stations, which cause a whole other range of problems.

The ONLY reared salmonid fish which are not dependent on fishmeal are
those which are bred, and then released at the fry stage. Up till that
point, they subsist on their egg-sacs. After that they must be fed, or
they simply die.

Despite intensive campaigns by various people and groups fish farming
both in marine and freshwater environments continues to devastate the
environment. The effluent form a trout farm will kill everything in a
river if allowed to escape untreated. The problems with marine salmon
farms are very considerably greater, as they also result in the
complete destruction of anadrompus fish runs in the catchments where
they are located. Despite this being known and well documented,
permissions are still being granted for new farms in the UK.

May be of interest; http://www.salmonfarmmonitor.org/pr201203notes.shtml

http://www.salmonfarmmonitor.org/

TL
MC

By the way, you might also like to look at some of these sites. I have
purposely avoided citing or posting any particular one, pick whichever
you like;

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mal...GGL_en___DE230

This is only ONE of the substances in common use, there are dozens of
them, not including carcinogenic colouring matter, other chemicals
used for parasite control, etc and some complex antibiotics and other
drugs.

TL
MC

With regard to the actual rearing, here is some info which may be
interesting;

http://www.fisheriesmanagement.co.uk...rown_trout.htm

TL
MC