Catch and Release Hurts our Quality of Life

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.

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

On Mar 21, 12:52 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
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

I have no need to ask the public servants this question, though I will
be more than glad to if you won't even try. There's never a biological
imperative for pure C&R, by definition and the extremely simple fact
that a slot could be enforced that was just above a practical maximum,
the statistical anomaly, for the fishery making it, in effect, pure
C&R. Look back through this thread, we've been over this. In addition
to the slots, there are many other management techniques that would
accomplish exactly the same thing.

But, I want to hear about your statement: Slough Creek is by
biological necessity pure C&R

By this "imperative" you're statiting that the fish in slough creek
would perish if we did not hook and haul them for sport.

You meant to say that: If we want to allow all the tshirt buyng, gas
guzzlin', lodge dwelling, ale quaffing angling consumers to buy our
stuff we need to let them all fish as much as they want but we also
can't let them kill any fish because then the tshirt buyin, gas
guzzlin', lodge dwellin', ale quaffing city dwalling nature lovers
would freak out at the site of a fish dripping blood getting cleaned
in the restroom sink at the hamilton concession and baseball cap store
and they'll stop buying things there too. This is what is known as the
modern ecosystem, sure I'll give you that, in a world of mutliple use
politically correct compromise consumerism that is the NPS.

But please, don't say there is a biological necessity for pure C&R on
slough creek.

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
...
But, I want to hear about your statement: Slough Creek is by
biological necessity pure C&R ...

Like I said, waste the biologists time, I've already spent
way too much of mine arguing with a religious zealot. What
they will tell you is this, the only alternative to C&R on
Slough Creek is no fishing at all.

--
Ken Fortenberry