Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

On Mar 17, 10:21 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:17 am, "JT" wrote:



"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

...

JT
Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream
viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing.

Your question is the most elementary one that is dismissed within 10
minutes of the conversation. Not sure why you hang on to it and not
sure why you keep saying I don't answer your question when I have over
and over and over.

No you didn't and you know it....

JT
Catch & Release fishing is a conservation effort to protect stream
viability for future generations, while enjoying the sport of fishing.

JT do you or Willi have anything more to add to this thread?
Specifically anything about pure C&R fishermen doing anything to
prevent toxicity in the form of mercury and others in our fisheries?

For the record:
1) JT I answered your question specifically. Multiple times. In the
last one I earmarked it as "Answer". As well, if you honestly care
about the answer and aren't just "goading" you can search the archives
where I have addressed this, I'd suggest 30-100 times in the past
decade. Which part of my answer did not address your question
exactly?

2) Willi I asked you to post URL's to the specific management balance
plan you mentioned (so that I know what specifically you are asking in
the extreme oversimplification you have provided). You have not. My
position is that culling can benefit the fishery and take the place of
predation where it has been minimized and that nature provides a
bounty of harvest. This is at the basis of all sound fisheries
management, the math of which you and I never have a hope of
understanding, the pond equation and the study I cite is the best one
I know. The current management policies of the CDOW plus the fact that
pure C&R remains incredibly rare and only in places where it has been
established as a social regulation.

Halfordian Golfer

Willi,

Still waiting for the URL so I can understand your question. Have you
asked the CDOW this question as well?

Bone

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

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
et...

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.

Thanks Ken,

I said EOT for me, so I didn't want to respond. Your comments are exactly
what I wanted to reply.

JT

JT wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
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.

Thanks Ken,

I said EOT for me, so I didn't want to respond. Your comments are exactly
what I wanted to reply.

Yeah, I said EOT too but the only way to goad TBone into having
an honest discussion is to threaten him with silence. I mean if
an anti-C&R rant falls in the woods and there's nobody to hear
it was it really a rant ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
. net...
JT wrote:

I said EOT for me, so I didn't want to respond. Your comments are exactly
what I wanted to reply.

Yeah, I said EOT too but the only way to goad TBone into having
an honest discussion is to threaten him with silence. I mean if
an anti-C&R rant falls in the woods and there's nobody to hear
it was it really a rant ? ;-)


He he he,

You make a strong & valid point, I may just have to jump back in too!

My first suggestion for Tbone is to see a shrink, although I don't think
there is anything that will help him with the Demon's he struggles with.

JT
BTW, I'm anxious for your Pike TR! I hope to get out for a chance myself,
but fear I might have too many obligations this spring.

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, 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.

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.