Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

On Mar 10, 8:09 am, "JT" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...



There was no attack just a qualified statement of truth. He agrees
with this now and has recanted.

I didn't recant anything. I said playing and catching a fish will stress it,
I did not agree with your C&R definition.
Don't put words in my mouth.



To wit: "Sure it stresses fish to catch and play a trout".

Ken - what sucked about JT's answer is that - I answered his question
straight up, like a gentleman - and he answered mine with pure crap,
you know it, and, well...that wasn't the deal.

Just because I disagree with your definition and belief about C&R it's crap.
OK....

Socratic? Yeah right!

JT

The fact JT is that you mocked the agreement we had and you flat
answered a different question. The question I asked was true or false
and you went on about some 'definition of C&R'. This was really unfair
as I laid it out there in my answer as part of the gentlemen's
agreement and acknowledged that I routinely practice C&R, something
I've said in the past. In fact JT I routinely fished the 1st public
waters in the United States that was managed as pure C&R under the
"Fishing is Fun" program and was pretty staunch for about 25 years
that I'm concluding we need a better strategy and have always felt the
animal rights people could crush us by applying this same logical set
of questions.

But, with your answer you basically asserted that fish do not
experience stress when hooked and then gave some trite definition. I
provided the biological data that shows this is an undeniable claim.
Nobody, I mean nobody, discussing this honestly believes a fish is not
at least stressed by the act. This is a good place to start as we have
the biology (chemical changes in the fish's blood) and understand a
lot about stress in fish.

The attempt was purely Socratic but fell apart because of your
response, which was crap. It was a great answer to the question "what
is C&R?" but a completely meaningless answer to the question on the
table. In any Socratic discussion we must accept some truth as a
starting place, which is exactly why it was asked the way it was.

T or F - Fish are stressed, are maimed or die as the result of C&R .

Further, I don't think you've ever bothered to find out what I would
propose to change things, or why I go through this.

Halfordian Golfer

On Mar 8, 1:49 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 09:40:12 -0800 (PST), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
What do you believe would have happened if the regulations were
changed such that the minimum size limit was 22" and you could only
keep one?

Esentially that would be pure C&R for there were few 22 inch trout in
those days. However, those big trout are healthy and strong, able to
defend themselves from the bass (when they arrived), and essential to
the breeding cycle.

The large fish genetics is one place that deserves more discussion.
Something I agree with is closed season for spawning, or pure C&R for
spawning species if fishing in a population with a mixture of species
(such as on the Rapid and in the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness, for example).
However, it is true (in this case) that a plethora of 21 1/5" brook
trout will 'get the job done'. Still that statistical anomaly will
probably be just fine, he survived that long and there's no way all of
a sudden we'd catch and kill these fish.

So, large fish genetics aside, we can agree that there's never any
management reason to establish a pure C&R policy for the simple fact
that we can set our limits targetted just outside (or inside) some
range that makes it so for all practical purposes. Further we can
agree that there are serious benefits to doing so, the least of which
is that it puts "managing the fishery for yield" back in to the
equation, which is eternally defensible.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

On Mar 10, 7:58 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I'm done with you and your silly anti-C&R jihad. Now that
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you really have
no coherent argument, merely ad hominems and double talk,

Bull****.

One can disagree with Tim's position but you're wrong in stating that he
doesn't have a coherent argument, merely ad hominens and double talk.

There is nothing but hypocrisy and double talk in his
so-called "position". C&R is a fishery management tool,
not the only one, but a valid one for some fisheries.
C&R is not the end of the world as we know it or a slippery
slope towards fish as golf balls. It's just one tool among
several to achieve what all of us should want, namely healthy
fisheries.

His argument is VERY coherent and simple - it is wrong to stress,
injure, kill etc, a fish simply for one's pleasure.

If that's his argument then he is a hypocrite for going
fishing at all and I'll be goddamned if I'm going to let
some crackpot trot out the holier-than-thou ad hominems
against fishermen on a fly fishing newsgroup.

--
Ken Fortenberry


Ken,

Can you describe a situation where pure C&R is a valid management
strategy as opposed to slot limits inside or outside the statistical
norm for a healthy year class of fish? We've come up with one, in
this discussion, but in this context 'selective harvest by species' is
not what I'm referring to. I wait the information from the Maine
Inland Fish and Game on the answer of this on the Rapid. Do you
believe that a fishery that can not withstand some highly restrictive
selective harvest can withstand the mortality incident to pure C&R?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

On Mar 10, 7:58 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I'm done with you and your silly anti-C&R jihad. Now that
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you really have
no coherent argument, merely ad hominems and double talk,

Bull****.

One can disagree with Tim's position but you're wrong in stating that he
doesn't have a coherent argument, merely ad hominens and double talk.

There is nothing but hypocrisy and double talk in his
so-called "position". C&R is a fishery management tool,
not the only one, but a valid one for some fisheries.
C&R is not the end of the world as we know it or a slippery
slope towards fish as golf balls. It's just one tool among
several to achieve what all of us should want, namely healthy
fisheries.

His argument is VERY coherent and simple - it is wrong to stress,
injure, kill etc, a fish simply for one's pleasure.

If that's his argument then he is a hypocrite for going
fishing at all and I'll be goddamned if I'm going to let
some crackpot trot out the holier-than-thou ad hominems
against fishermen on a fly fishing newsgroup.

--
Ken Fortenberry

To be clear Ken. I am a damned hypocrite on this issue. I know that
it's wrong to stress a wild animal for pleasure but, dude, I'm hooked.
I guess I view the laws and prevailing attitude as "enablers for my
addiction".

Feel free to use the "I am a damned hypocrite" anywhere you like, even
out of context. From my perspective, we all are.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I'm done with you and your silly anti-C&R jihad. Now that
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you really have
no coherent argument, merely ad hominems and double talk,
Bull****.
One can disagree with Tim's position but you're wrong in stating that he
doesn't have a coherent argument, merely ad hominens and double talk.
There is nothing but hypocrisy and double talk in his
so-called "position". C&R is a fishery management tool,
not the only one, but a valid one for some fisheries.
C&R is not the end of the world as we know it or a slippery
slope towards fish as golf balls. It's just one tool among
several to achieve what all of us should want, namely healthy
fisheries.

His argument is VERY coherent and simple - it is wrong to stress,
injure, kill etc, a fish simply for one's pleasure.
If that's his argument then he is a hypocrite for going
fishing at all and I'll be goddamned if I'm going to let
some crackpot trot out the holier-than-thou ad hominems
against fishermen on a fly fishing newsgroup.

Ken,

Can you describe a situation where pure C&R is a valid management
strategy as opposed to slot limits inside or outside the statistical
norm for a healthy year class of fish? ...

Can you describe a situation where catching and releasing
a fish outside the slot in a slot limit stream is less
stressful or less lethal than catching and releasing a
fish in a C&R only stream ? And if incidental death were
to occur to a fish caught outside the slot in a slot limit
stream would the angler be a wanton killer with no respect
for wildlife and no conscience ?

You might want to consult Socrates before you answer. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 10, 9:26 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I'm done with you and your silly anti-C&R jihad. Now that
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that you really have
no coherent argument, merely ad hominems and double talk,
Bull****.
One can disagree with Tim's position but you're wrong in stating that he
doesn't have a coherent argument, merely ad hominens and double talk.
There is nothing but hypocrisy and double talk in his
so-called "position". C&R is a fishery management tool,
not the only one, but a valid one for some fisheries.
C&R is not the end of the world as we know it or a slippery
slope towards fish as golf balls. It's just one tool among
several to achieve what all of us should want, namely healthy
fisheries.

His argument is VERY coherent and simple - it is wrong to stress,
injure, kill etc, a fish simply for one's pleasure.
If that's his argument then he is a hypocrite for going
fishing at all and I'll be goddamned if I'm going to let
some crackpot trot out the holier-than-thou ad hominems
against fishermen on a fly fishing newsgroup.

Ken,

Can you describe a situation where pure C&R is a valid management
strategy as opposed to slot limits inside or outside the statistical
norm for a healthy year class of fish? ...

Can you describe a situation where catching and releasing
a fish outside the slot in a slot limit stream is less
stressful or less lethal than catching and releasing a
fish in a C&R only stream ? And if incidental death were
to occur to a fish caught outside the slot in a slot limit
stream would the angler be a wanton killer with no respect
for wildlife and no conscience ?

You might want to consult Socrates before you answer. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

1) No. In fact it would probably be worse because the fish would still
act like a wild fish and wouldn't come in like a boot with that look
on it's face "Will you go ahead and release me already?"

2) Yes and No. It depends 100% on intent. If I kill a deer with my car
making that 0500 fishing date that's entirely different than chasing
it to death on my snowmobile. If I am subsistence fishing and will
quit when I have a bag, than this is no more of being a wanton killer
than running over a prairie dog tilling for corn.

Your pal,

Tim

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Can you describe a situation where catching and releasing
a fish outside the slot in a slot limit stream is less
stressful or less lethal than catching and releasing a
fish in a C&R only stream ? And if incidental death were
to occur to a fish caught outside the slot in a slot limit
stream would the angler be a wanton killer with no respect
for wildlife and no conscience ?

1) No. In fact it would probably be worse because the fish would still
act like a wild fish and wouldn't come in like a boot with that look
on it's face "Will you go ahead and release me already?"

Yet you recommend slots as opposed to C&R even though you
believe it would probably be more stressful and more lethal.
OK.

2) Yes and No. It depends 100% on intent. ...

Good to hear. If you were a mensch you'd owe me an apology.

And for an example of pure C&R working to perfection where
no other fishery management method would be viable take a
look at the smallmouth fishery in the Sylvania Wilderness
of Michigan's UP.

--

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
Just because I disagree with your definition and belief about C&R it's
crap.
OK....

Socratic? Yeah right!

JT

The fact JT is that you mocked the agreement we had and you flat
answered a different question. The question I asked was true or false
and you went on about some 'definition of C&R'. This was really unfair
as I laid it out there in my answer as part of the gentlemen's
agreement and acknowledged that I routinely practice C&R, something
I've said in the past. In fact JT I routinely fished the 1st public
waters in the United States that was managed as pure C&R under the
"Fishing is Fun" program and was pretty staunch for about 25 years
that I'm concluding we need a better strategy and have always felt the
animal rights people could crush us by applying this same logical set
of questions.

Wrong again... I didn't answer your question true for the simple fact that I
didn't agree with everything in your question.


But, with your answer you basically asserted that fish do not
experience stress when hooked and then gave some trite definition. I
provided the biological data that shows this is an undeniable claim.
Nobody, I mean nobody, discussing this honestly believes a fish is not
at least stressed by the act. This is a good place to start as we have
the biology (chemical changes in the fish's blood) and understand a
lot about stress in fish.

The attempt was purely Socratic but fell apart because of your
response, which was crap. It was a great answer to the question "what
is C&R?" but a completely meaningless answer to the question on the
table. In any Socratic discussion we must accept some truth as a
starting place, which is exactly why it was asked the way it was.

T or F - Fish are stressed, are maimed or die as the result of C&R .

It's possible, but more likely the fish will go on the survive another day
for future generations to enjoy.


Further, I don't think you've ever bothered to find out what I would
propose to change things, or why I go through this.

Inner demons?

Carry on,
JT

"JT" wrote in message
...

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
...
Just because I disagree with your definition and belief about C&R it's
crap.
OK....

Socratic? Yeah right!

JT

The fact JT is that you mocked the agreement we had and you flat
answered a different question. The question I asked was true or false
and you went on about some 'definition of C&R'. This was really unfair
as I laid it out there in my answer as part of the gentlemen's
agreement and acknowledged that I routinely practice C&R, something
I've said in the past. In fact JT I routinely fished the 1st public
waters in the United States that was managed as pure C&R under the
"Fishing is Fun" program and was pretty staunch for about 25 years
that I'm concluding we need a better strategy and have always felt the
animal rights people could crush us by applying this same logical set
of questions.

Wrong again... I didn't answer your question true for the simple fact that
I didn't agree with everything in your question.

That should read "FALSE" no true....

On Mar 10, 10:19 am, "JT" wrote:
Wrong again... I didn't answer your question true for the simple fact that I
didn't agree with everything in your question.

OK...

I changed it slightly and made it very specific.

"Fish are stressed or maimed or killed when caught by hook and line"

True or False

If you don't agree with part of it...please tell me which part and
I'll fix it.

Thanks,

TBone