Recipes, anyone?

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:10 am, rw wrote:

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

On May 31, 6:15 pm, daytripper wrote:

On Sat, 31 May 2008 16:09:07 -0600, rw
wrote:

wrote:

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_127519.asp

If it ever happens here, my guess is it would start in ...
California :-)

Jon.

What is the point of banning BOTH C&R and barbed hooks?

A rule promulgated by idiots, the point is atop their heads...

/daytripper (obviously)

It's fairly obvious that humankind is moving, inextricably, towards a
more humane relationship with wild animals.

You have a choice.

1) call them idiots or
2) try to understand their point of view while protecting your right
to harvest from God's abundance

I repeat:

What is the point of banning BOTH C&R and barbed hooks?

I could see banning fishing altogether as being at least logically
consistent, but this? It's absurd.

------
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.


Guys. I've unsubscribed from ROFF. Just not worth the abuse from a few
people.

What abuse? Do you call my question "abuse?" What's abusive about it?
Its a simple and fair question.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 12:01:05 -0600, rw
wrote:

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:10 am, rw wrote:

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

On May 31, 6:15 pm, daytripper wrote:

On Sat, 31 May 2008 16:09:07 -0600, rw
wrote:

wrote:

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_127519.asp

If it ever happens here, my guess is it would start in ...
California :-)

Jon.

What is the point of banning BOTH C&R and barbed hooks?

A rule promulgated by idiots, the point is atop their heads...

/daytripper (obviously)

It's fairly obvious that humankind is moving, inextricably, towards a
more humane relationship with wild animals.

You have a choice.

1) call them idiots or
2) try to understand their point of view while protecting your right
to harvest from God's abundance

I repeat:

What is the point of banning BOTH C&R and barbed hooks?

I could see banning fishing altogether as being at least logically
consistent, but this? It's absurd.

------
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.


Guys. I've unsubscribed from ROFF. Just not worth the abuse from a few
people.

What abuse? Do you call my question "abuse?" What's abusive about it?
Its a simple and fair question.

Tim *doesn't do* simple and fair questions.
He ignores them - or calls them "abuse".
But you knew that - as does everyone else.

Anyone that can cheerlead for "mandatory kill" - and at the same time espouse
the virtues of "culling" - is one confused, conflicted soul...

/daytripper (who had a lovely morning C&Ring a bunch of nice trouties :-)

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 10:10:11 -0600, rw
wrote:


I repeat:

What is the point of banning BOTH C&R and barbed hooks?

I could see banning fishing altogether as being at least logically
consistent, but this? It's absurd.

Not necessarily. I can understand some of the "pro" argument(s): for
example, if one doesn't use barbed hooks, the fish might more-easily
escape and do so with less harm done - a "more fair" chase, if you will.
There are changes going into effect in Gulf and Atlantic fishing that
some would say are along the same lines (manditory hypos/vent tools on
board to release air bladder pressure, hook changes, etc. -
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/pdfs/Di...lity%20FAQ.pdf)


TC,
R



------
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Jun 1, 6:40 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 10:10:11 -0600, rw
wrote:

What is the point of banning BOTH C&R and barbed hooks?

example, if one doesn't use barbed hooks, the fish might more-easily
escape and do so with less harm done - a "more fair" chase, if you will.

Could be but I think the reason is that there are still regulations
like size limits, species limits, etc., and since live bait and barbed
hooks cause more damage while extracting, they banned them so that a
fish accidentally caught that must be released can be done so with
less harm. There's really no contradiction or difficulty.

Jon.