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

That's the most twisted interpretation of what I said conceivable. No
critically thinking person would agree with it.

Let me state it again:

1) People exist on the food chain. Period. Whether we harvest grains,
produce meat or grow fruit we will constantly kill wild animals of all
kinds. It is unavoidable.

2) Killing animals purely for sport is avoidable in 100% of the cases.

Halfordian Golfer

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

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
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.

That's the most twisted interpretation of what I said conceivable. No
critically thinking person would agree with it.

No, it's not a twisted interpretation of your position it
is a clearly stated reiteration of your own twisted religion.

But you're right about one thing, nobody in their right mind
would agree with it.

--
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

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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.

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

No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs
it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing.
Happens in nature all the time.

My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough
Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity
pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically
dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put
that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger
but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if
you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and
eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to
the ranger ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 21, 9:52 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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.

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

No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs
it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing.
Happens in nature all the time.

My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough
Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity
pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically
dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put
that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger
but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if
you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and
eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to
the ranger ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R"

Please explain. This makes no sense.

Halfordian Golfer
The Hamilton franchise runs through it.

On Mar 21, 9:52 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
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.

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

No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs
it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing.
Happens in nature all the time.

My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough
Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity
pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically
dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put
that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger
but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if
you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and
eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to
the ranger ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken you said: "No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the
bugs it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing.
Happens in nature all the time."

Really? In nature, how many animals stress, maim and kill other
animals purely for sport.

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
You're killing fish to feed the bugs and racoons? Try that with a
warden around.
No, the accidental killing of fish is not to feed the bugs
it is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of fishing.
Happens in nature all the time.

My wife and I were camped at a backcountry campsite on Slough
Creek in Yellowstone. Slough Creek is by biological necessity
pure C&R. A big cutt swallowed my hopper and was practically
dead before I ever brought him to hand. I was reluctant to put
that dead fish back in the water because of the bear danger
but that was the only legal thing to do so it was done. Now if
you had caught that fish, decided to stick it in the pan and
eat it rather than "waste" it how would you explain *that* to
the ranger ?

"Slough Creek is by biological necessity pure C&R"

Please explain. This makes no sense.

LOL !! Just like a moth to the flame.

Here you go, another batch of public servants whose time you
can waste proselytizing for your kooky religion:

http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/fish_contact.htm

HTH

--
Ken Fortenberry