fishing fly in eye

On 24 Jul 2006 16:03:04 -0700, wrote:

Why don't you ask your buddies over at Trout Unlimited if this is a
"wild" fishery.

I don't really know many TU guys. You might consider actually reading the
studies you post links to, though. g
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

Lot's of fish do get scarred by catch and release.
A fair number die from it.
When I gill hook a fish, or poke one in the eye,
I bring it home and eat it........even if from catch and release
water. I live by my own rules. Always have.

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

asadi wrote:
http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/flyeye.html

I guess I don't understand this. Why didn't the guy just grab the hook
with his Dr. Slicks and pull it out? I mean, c'mon, if you foul hook a
trout in the eye are you going to risk losing your tee time while you
drive it to the vet? I just showed this to a new angler who couldn't
(or did not want to) watch it. I find this amazing. The marketing
fiction, that catch and release angling, where all fish are caught
harmlessly in the corner of the mouth, does not hurt the fish, is,
apparently working. I can't wait to see the video of removing a Grizzly
Kings from genetalia. Catch 100 trout and, what, 10?, will be hooked in
the vicinity of the eye and anus. Just math.

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.

All of which makes it impossible to be anything but impressed and amazed
that all of the fish YOU catch and release escape entirely unscathed.
How
DO you manage it......you fatassed brain-dead hypocrite?

Enter the priest.

So, you NEVER release undersized fish? You do know that's illegal, don't
you?

Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

Stupid. Just plain stupid.

We caught one fish the other day on the Los Pinos, and that fish was
missing it's lower lip entirely and could not close its mouth.

Well......gosh.

I'll post a picture.

And......what? You think that will get the hag off your back?

1. We've been over this before. Slot limits, not catch and release.
This is selective harvest, which has a sound biological reason and
helps eliminates random class mortality. Moreover, I'm not a saint and
more often then not lately I can not kill a beautiful fish and I
release it, this is my constent torment amd why I often sign my posts
'guilt replaced the creel'. This bothers me.

2. No, not really. Wild is a term to describe the relative wildness of
an animal which is, specifically, a term relative to the 'absence of
the hand of man'. It does not mean 'indiginous' and it does not mean
'born and reared in the river'. Catching and releasing a fish, is in
specific contradiction of the term and a caught and released fish, by
definition, is less wild than it had been before being caught. This is
manifested as empirical evidence in the behavior changes the fish
exhibits.

3. Well gosh is right. Someone ripped the lips off this fish. Pretty
barbaric. Wait until *that* picture is on a 36 foot billboard (no I
will keep the rights to the one I have).

4. No ,not by a longshot my good internet buddy.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Lot's of fish do get scarred by catch and release.
A fair number die from it.
When I gill hook a fish, or poke one in the eye,
I bring it home and eat it........even if from catch and release
water. I live by my own rules. Always have.


Most poachers do.

Op --yep, them fishin' regs only apply to those ignorant enough to follow
them--

wrote in message
oups.com...

asadi wrote:
http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/flyeye.html

I guess I don't understand this. Why didn't the guy just grab the hook
with his Dr. Slicks and pull it out? I mean, c'mon, if you foul hook a
trout in the eye are you going to risk losing your tee time while you
drive it to the vet? I just showed this to a new angler who couldn't
(or did not want to) watch it. I find this amazing. The marketing
fiction, that catch and release angling, where all fish are caught
harmlessly in the corner of the mouth, does not hurt the fish, is,
apparently working. I can't wait to see the video of removing a Grizzly
Kings from genetalia. Catch 100 trout and, what, 10?, will be hooked in
the vicinity of the eye and anus. Just math.

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.


"It's deja vu all over again!" Y Berra

--
Some of my angling snaps:

http://gallery.fishbc.com/gallery/vi...bumName=RalphH

wrote in message
oups.com...

asadi wrote:
http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/07/flyeye.html

I guess I don't understand this. Why didn't the guy just grab the hook
with his Dr. Slicks and pull it out?

fellow I know as fishing with his father in law (a Dentist) and got a barbed
fly stuck in the corner of his eye. Father in law couldn't pull it out with
a pair of forceps.and they had to head for the nearest emergency,

--
Some of my angling snaps:

http://gallery.fishbc.com/gallery/vi...bumName=RalphH

Opie wrote:

Most poachers do.
Op --yep, them fishin' regs only apply to those ignorant enough to follow
them--

Does this mean you think it's important to return a dying fish to the
water?

The Montana bag limit is (usually) 5 fish per day.
I kill about 5 per year. They're mostly fish that didn't look
like they were going to make it. Returning those fish to the
water is, in my book, a crime, even if the current water happens
to be catch and release.

If that makes me a poacher, so be it.

wrote in news:1153794751.128318.107440
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

When I gill hook a fish, or poke one in the eye,
I bring it home and eat it........even if from catch and release
water. I live by my own rules. Always have.




If you don't like the regs on C&R water, maybe you shouldn't be fishing
there.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote:

Does this mean you think it's important to return a dying fish to the
water?

The Montana bag limit is (usually) 5 fish per day.
I kill about 5 per year. They're mostly fish that didn't look
like they were going to make it. Returning those fish to the
water is, in my book, a crime, even if the current water happens
to be catch and release.

If that makes me a poacher, so be it.

It certainly does make you a poacher and it's sheer
nonsense to consider returning a dead fish to the water
a "crime". You're not the only link in the food chain
you know, that dead fish will be a fine meal even if
you don't take it home for yourself.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:

Does this mean you think it's important to return a dying fish to the
water?

The Montana bag limit is (usually) 5 fish per day.
I kill about 5 per year. They're mostly fish that didn't look
like they were going to make it. Returning those fish to the
water is, in my book, a crime, even if the current water happens
to be catch and release.

If that makes me a poacher, so be it.

It certainly does make you a poacher and it's sheer
nonsense to consider returning a dead fish to the water
a "crime". You're not the only link in the food chain
you know, that dead fish will be a fine meal even if
you don't take it home for yourself.

Honest question: Isn't this a vector for whirling disease?

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.