Quuick question

Hi All,

If the regulations wherever you lived were changed such that you had to
kill fish within a slot, but quit fishing when you had a limit, how
would this affect your fishing? Would you continue to fish and would
you support a regulation like this? Do you think the quality of
fishing, interms of quality fish caught as well as quality of the
experience (people astream) would go up or down?

Thanks,

TBone
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi All,

If the regulations wherever you lived were changed such that you had to
kill fish within a slot, but quit fishing when you had a limit, how
would this affect your fishing?

Really not worth considerin', unless folks like yourself are able to
infiltrate North Carolina's Wildlife Commission.

Would you continue to fish and would
you support a regulation like this?

I follow whatever the regulations of my state are--or the state I happen to
be fishin' in at the moment--but I certainly wouldn't support such a
hair-brained scheme.

Do you think the quality of
fishing, interms of quality fish caught as well as quality of the
experience (people astream) would go up or down?

It's a ridiculous question, but for the sake of argument, DOWN!

Op

Thanks,

TBone
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi All,

If the regulations wherever you lived were changed such that you had to
kill fish within a slot, but quit fishing when you had a limit, how
would this affect your fishing?

Really not worth considerin', unless folks like yourself are able to
infiltrate North Carolina's Wildlife Commission.

Would you continue to fish and would
you support a regulation like this?

I follow whatever the regulations of my state are--or the state I happen to
be fishin' in at the moment--but I certainly wouldn't support such a
hair-brained scheme.

Do you think the quality of
fishing, interms of quality fish caught as well as quality of the
experience (people astream) would go up or down?

It's a ridiculous question, but for the sake of argument, DOWN!

So you would agree with these regulations (as opposed to completely
unlimited catch and release)?

Thanks,

Halfordian Golfer

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi All,

If the regulations wherever you lived were changed such that you had to
kill fish within a slot, but quit fishing when you had a limit, how
would this affect your fishing?

Really not worth considerin', unless folks like yourself are able to
infiltrate North Carolina's Wildlife Commission.

Would you continue to fish and would
you support a regulation like this?

I follow whatever the regulations of my state are--or the state I happen
to
be fishin' in at the moment--but I certainly wouldn't support such a
hair-brained scheme.

Do you think the quality of
fishing, interms of quality fish caught as well as quality of the
experience (people astream) would go up or down?

It's a ridiculous question, but for the sake of argument, DOWN!

So you would agree with these regulations (as opposed to completely
unlimited catch and release)?

What part of "I certainly wouldn't support such a hair-brained scheme,"
don't you understand?

Tim, you remind me of a Christian religious zealot (the only ones I'm
familiar with) who can't be satisfied livin' his own life. No, he has to
try to convert everyone he meets, to his brand of religious zealotry. Not
content to live his sad life. He must try to drag everyone he meets down to
the depths of despair into with he has descended.

Op

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi All,

If the regulations wherever you lived were changed such that you had to
kill fish within a slot, but quit fishing when you had a limit, how
would this affect your fishing?

Really not worth considerin', unless folks like yourself are able to
infiltrate North Carolina's Wildlife Commission.

Would you continue to fish and would
you support a regulation like this?

I follow whatever the regulations of my state are--or the state I happen
to
be fishin' in at the moment--but I certainly wouldn't support such a
hair-brained scheme.

Do you think the quality of
fishing, interms of quality fish caught as well as quality of the
experience (people astream) would go up or down?

It's a ridiculous question, but for the sake of argument, DOWN!

So you would agree with these regulations (as opposed to completely
unlimited catch and release)?

What part of "I certainly wouldn't support such a hair-brained scheme,"
don't you understand?

Tim, you remind me of a Christian religious zealot (the only ones I'm
familiar with) who can't be satisfied livin' his own life. No, he has to
try to convert everyone he meets, to his brand of religious zealotry. Not
content to live his sad life. He must try to drag everyone he meets down to
the depths of despair into with he has descended.

Op

Op,

Serious question:

Specifically, why is a regulation that, at the minimum:

1) shows respect for a wild animal
2) improves the quality of fishng and the health of the fishery
3) creates a defensible position for the future of angling

A "hair-brained" scheme?

Also, I am NOT the one ramming this down anyones's throats. In the 2006
Colorado fishing pamphlet there are more and more rivers under
ridiculous regulations and 'Catch and Release Recommended" signs
erected by trout unlimited mavens along the stream. This is an absolute
attack on me as an angler. I do NOT support the current 'trend' in
flyfishing regulations where the 'conservation leaders' have the BALLS
to espouse angling 'competitions' on the public, moving waters of
Colorado and then lie that it is 'for conservation'. No way should we
use a wild animal like this and no way will I buy the spooge these
people are selling. But, please, do NOT say that I am forcing anything
down anyone's throats, just the opposite, I am protecting my right to
fish to catch, kill and eat fish.

Thanks,

TBone

wrote in message
oups.com...
Serious question:

Specifically, why is a regulation that, at the minimum:

1) shows respect for a wild animal

No, I doubt very seriously that regs are in place to show respect for fish.

2) improves the quality of fishng and the health of the fishery

Yes, I would hope so.

3) creates a defensible position for the future of angling

Yes, again.


A "hair-brained" scheme?

Yes!


Also, I am NOT the one ramming this down anyones's throats.

Yes you are. You yourself call trout fishing a sport. If you believe that
from it's inception that fly or any other form of fishing has been solely
about sustenance, you would be wrong. "Sport" of all kind has been with us
since man recognised his passion for competition, regardless of who or what
he competed against.

In the 2006
Colorado fishing pamphlet there are more and more rivers under
ridiculous regulations and 'Catch and Release Recommended" signs
erected by trout unlimited mavens along the stream. This is an absolute
attack on me as an angler.

How? "Catch and Release Recommended" is not a pohibition on catch and kill!

I do NOT support the current 'trend' in
flyfishing regulations where the 'conservation leaders' have the BALLS
to espouse angling 'competitions' on the public, moving waters of
Colorado and then lie that it is 'for conservation'.

Who said that you had to? I've had all sorts of things "recommended" to me
that I was not inclined to follow.

No way should we
use a wild animal like this and no way will I buy the spooge these
people are selling.

Are you a donating PETA member? If you are not donating to their cause, you
surely should be.

But, please, do NOT say that I am forcing anything
down anyone's throats, just the opposite, I am protecting my right to
fish to catch, kill and eat fish.

Come to NC. There are many *wild* trout stream in our national forests that
are catch and kill friendly.

Op


Thanks,

TBone

Sorry for the possible redundancy. I think I may have e-mailed this to
walketim and I wanted to post it here. I am new to posting on newsgroups but
thought I would add my $.02 Can. worth......Kerry

I think there is more to the question and answer than first seems apparent.
Some of the C&R streams are too small with a very limted population, to
sustain any catch and keep regulation. The argument could be made to not
fish that body of water at all, but I believe that in many cases, if there
are no folks fishing it, there are fewer folks protecting it from
development or effects of potential industrial pollution. I would say that
in at least some instances, trade-off's are necessary. I believe some
countries and possibly states have gone the way you have suggested, on at
least some bodies of water.
I believe that if we stop using a resource and start looking at it, we will
lose it. I know this topic could be argued and discussed forever without
resolution.
wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi All,

If the regulations wherever you lived were changed such that you had to
kill fish within a slot, but quit fishing when you had a limit, how
would this affect your fishing? Would you continue to fish and would
you support a regulation like this? Do you think the quality of
fishing, interms of quality fish caught as well as quality of the
experience (people astream) would go up or down?

Thanks,

TBone
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.