Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

On Mar 19, 12:42 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
Part I. It's okay to catch and release several fish before you catch a
fish that meets a slot limit?

If this is question than: Yes. If it's a statement than I agree with
you.

Part II. What about the incident mortality in all the fish you release
before catching a keeper!?

Unfortunate but unavoidable. Happens all the time in nature.

Ah yes, *now* we're getting somewhere. See what happens when
you answer the questions honestly Socrates ?

As I understand it your position is this: Intent is everything.
That is, if it's your intent to keep a fish for the pan then
C&R is OK whether you actually catch a legal fish or not. The
incidental death caused by C&R is unfortunate but unavoidable.

On the other hand, if it's your intent to release all the fish
you catch then the incidental death caused by C&R is the wanton
killing of wildlife and you have no "spank" of conscience.

And you honestly don't think that's one of the silliest things
you've ever heard ?

Rhetorical question, don't bother to answer.

--
Ken Fortenberry

If you can't see the difference between killing an animal purely in
pursuit of fun versus killing an animal purely in pursuit of food,
well, that's pretty sad dude.

I guess that's just my opinion, well mine and the theologians,
scholars and farmers in Norway that studied this extensively and
concluded the same.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
As I understand it your position is this: Intent is everything.
That is, if it's your intent to keep a fish for the pan then
C&R is OK whether you actually catch a legal fish or not. The
incidental death caused by C&R is unfortunate but unavoidable.

On the other hand, if it's your intent to release all the fish
you catch then the incidental death caused by C&R is the wanton
killing of wildlife and you have no "spank" of conscience.

And you honestly don't think that's one of the silliest things
you've ever heard ?

Rhetorical question, don't bother to answer.

If you can't see the difference between killing an animal purely in
pursuit of fun versus killing an animal purely in pursuit of food,
well, that's pretty sad dude.

Anyone who fly fishes for trout purely in pursuit of food
is a pretty sad dude. And if they fish for those trout in
slot limit waters, well, that's not only sad it's pathetic
and hypocritical.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On 20-Mar-2008, Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Anyone who fly fishes for trout purely in pursuit of food
is a pretty sad dude. And if they fish for those trout in
slot limit waters, well, that's not only sad it's pathetic
and hypocritical.



Its sad that that is what has happened to our planet
which used to be an abundant and ecologically miantened system.

That we are left w private rivvers and limited fishing space is due to
Too many humans and stupid ones at that & very stupid & greedy politicians
w no forsesight past their stomach and piockets.

Fred.

How many

On Mar 20, 8:41 pm, wrote:
On 20-Mar-2008, Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Anyone who fly fishes for trout purely in pursuit of food
is a pretty sad dude. And if they fish for those trout in
slot limit waters, well, that's not only sad it's pathetic
and hypocritical.

Its sad that that is what has happened to our planet
which used to be an abundant and ecologically miantened system.

That we are left w private rivvers and limited fishing space is due to
Too many humans and stupid ones at that & very stupid & greedy politicians
w no forsesight past their stomach and piockets.

Fred.

How many

Howdy Fred,

It's interesting to note that the number of licensed hunters and
anglers in Colorado is decreasing and that this is a trend nationally.
And while the subdivisions are sprouting up all over (I drove all over
trying to get to the confluence of hermosa creek and the animas this
week, never finding any access points), I personally feel that
excellent angling opportunities still exist and may even be
increasing. My personal feeling is that the major fisheries that have
become destination FF areas are not worth fishing mainly due to crowds
but also due to the fact that the guides, magazines and fly shop
owners have decreed themselves lords of these waters. They're stealing
our access and selling it back to us in a form that suits them but not
the public. That's not so bad, though because well, they can have it.
I'll walk the extra mile and catch a 4" brook trout in solitude anyday
over any fish in the Frying Pan river. Kind of the same argument for
Lake Powell, all those people would be *someplace*. Might as well
sacrifice one place and leave the rest alone.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.

On Mar 20, 7:56 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
As I understand it your position is this: Intent is everything.
That is, if it's your intent to keep a fish for the pan then
C&R is OK whether you actually catch a legal fish or not. The
incidental death caused by C&R is unfortunate but unavoidable.

On the other hand, if it's your intent to release all the fish
you catch then the incidental death caused by C&R is the wanton
killing of wildlife and you have no "spank" of conscience.

And you honestly don't think that's one of the silliest things
you've ever heard ?

Rhetorical question, don't bother to answer.

If you can't see the difference between killing an animal purely in
pursuit of fun versus killing an animal purely in pursuit of food,
well, that's pretty sad dude.

Anyone who fly fishes for trout purely in pursuit of food
is a pretty sad dude. And if they fish for those trout in
slot limit waters, well, that's not only sad it's pathetic
and hypocritical.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Hi Ken,

Far from sad Ken. Anyone culling fish legally caught in slot limit
waters is an angler in the tradition of tens of thousands of years.

Sad would be someone who takes his stress out on a wild animal?

Your pal,

TBone
A cash flow runs through it.

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Far from sad Ken. Anyone culling fish legally caught in slot limit
waters is an angler in the tradition of tens of thousands of years.

But anyone releasing a fish legally caught in C&R only waters
is not an angler but a wanton killer of wildlife even though
the C&R fisherman kills fewer fish. Sorry man, that dog just
won't hunt, either they're both anglers or they're both wanton
killers of wildlife.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 21, 8:58 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Far from sad Ken. Anyone culling fish legally caught in slot limit
waters is an angler in the tradition of tens of thousands of years.

But anyone releasing a fish legally caught in C&R only waters
is not an angler but a wanton killer of wildlife even though
the C&R fisherman kills fewer fish. Sorry man, that dog just
won't hunt, either they're both anglers or they're both wanton
killers of wildlife.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Yes, killing an animal that you never had any intention of utilizing
is wanton destruction and killing for sport. An angler who wants a few
for dinner has a nobl and justified reason for the act.

My personal feeling is that C&R is a contradiction to the laws
concerning waste of game as well as chasing and harassing wildlife.

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberrywrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Far from sad Ken. Anyone culling fish legally caught in slot limit
waters is an angler in the tradition of tens of thousands of years.
But anyone releasing a fish legally caught in C&R only waters
is not an angler but a wanton killer of wildlife even though
the C&R fisherman kills fewer fish. Sorry man, that dog just
won't hunt, either they're both anglers or they're both wanton
killers of wildlife.

Yes, killing an animal that you never had any intention of utilizing
is wanton destruction and killing for sport. An angler who wants a few
for dinner has a nobl and justified reason for the act.

My personal feeling is that C&R is a contradiction to the laws
concerning waste of game as well as chasing and harassing wildlife.

One of the problems with your religion is it's anthropocentric.
A fish caught, killed accidentally and returned to the stream
is not "wasted" just because a human doesn't eat it. There is a
lot more to nature than just people and fish you know.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 21, 9:20 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberrywrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Far from sad Ken. Anyone culling fish legally caught in slot limit
waters is an angler in the tradition of tens of thousands of years.
But anyone releasing a fish legally caught in C&R only waters
is not an angler but a wanton killer of wildlife even though
the C&R fisherman kills fewer fish. Sorry man, that dog just
won't hunt, either they're both anglers or they're both wanton
killers of wildlife.

Yes, killing an animal that you never had any intention of utilizing
is wanton destruction and killing for sport. An angler who wants a few
for dinner has a nobl and justified reason for the act.

My personal feeling is that C&R is a contradiction to the laws
concerning waste of game as well as chasing and harassing wildlife.

One of the problems with your religion is it's anthropocentric.
A fish caught, killed accidentally and returned to the stream
is not "wasted" just because a human doesn't eat it. There is a
lot more to nature than just people and fish you know.

--
Ken Fortenberry

You're killing fish to feed the bugs and racoons? Try that with a
warden around.

Halfordian Golfer

This is really what your argument comes down to: a
philosophical/religious/ascetic position about C&R fishing. Your
argument is akin to PETA's stance on animals or one of the sects of
monks that search the ground before each step to avoid stepping on
an insect or a wide range of philosophic positions dictating how
different societies interact with animals.

Many people claim the moral/religious high ground. It's not something
YOU "own".
From my experience, the height of that ground usually has more to do with
where you stand than it does how high the ground really is.

Having heard the many permutations of your argument over the years, I
feel I have a good sense of your position. Although I still wouldn't agree
with your position, if you totally gave up ANY TYPE of C&R, I would
have respect for you for giving up something you enjoy because you feel
it is immoral.

But that is not the case and it makes your position rather hollow.

Willi