Poll: If you had to keep your fish, would you still fish?

Poll

If the fishing laws were written in such a way that you had to kill
all legal fish that you caught and, as well, you had to quit when you
had a bag, would you still fish?

Halfordian Golfer

On Mar 12, 5:09 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Poll

If the fishing laws were written in such a way that you had to kill
all legal fish that you caught and, as well, you had to quit when you
had a bag, would you still fish?

Halfordian Golfer

Yes

Halfordian Golfer

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:09:05 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

If the fishing laws were written in such a way that you had to kill
all legal fish that you caught and, as well, you had to quit when you
had a bag, would you still fish?

That's put and take water. Only Purina Dog Chow fish in that water.
I wouldn't fish it NOT because I had to kill fish, but because the
fish wouldn't be worth fishing for or killing to eat.

Dave

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Poll

If the fishing laws were written in such a way that you had to kill
all legal fish that you caught and, as well, you had to quit when you
had a bag, would you still fish?

Halfordian Golfer



In waters that can support self sustaining fish populations, I want
regulations based on science/biology, not based on politics or someone's
idea of what's right. You can't show how such regulations would be a
superior way to manage a fishery. A law of that type would merely
appease YOUR personal moral dilemma.


Willi

No. For the same reason that I no longer hunt: there are just times
when I'm too tired at the end of the day to clean game/fish.

If I'm after food, the supermarket is cheaper.

On Mar 12, 5:52 pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:09:05 -0700 (PDT), Halfordian Golfer

wrote:
If the fishing laws were written in such a way that you had to kill
all legal fish that you caught and, as well, you had to quit when you
had a bag, would you still fish?

That's put and take water. Only Purina Dog Chow fish in that water.
I wouldn't fish it NOT because I had to kill fish, but because the
fish wouldn't be worth fishing for or killing to eat.

Dave

Ho Dave,

Iit would not assume put and take by a long shot, anymore than that
put and take wild salmon on your plate this evening. Though it would
include put and take areas. Only when they stock catchables which
represents a considerable expense and which is not done as much as
folks think it is.

Bone

On Mar 12, 6:52 pm, Willi wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Poll

If the fishing laws were written in such a way that you had to kill
all legal fish that you caught and, as well, you had to quit when you
had a bag, would you still fish?

Halfordian Golfer

In waters that can support self sustaining fish populations, I want
regulations based on science/biology, not based on politics or someone's
idea of what's right. You can't show how such regulations would be a
superior way to manage a fishery. A law of that type would merely
appease YOUR personal moral dilemma.

Willi

I take that as a No.

Thanks,

Halfordian Golfer

Halfordian Golfer a écrit :
Poll

If the fishing laws were written in such a way that you had to kill
all legal fish that you caught and, as well, you had to quit when you
had a bag, would you still fish?


Yes, fishing is like meditating... And neither cell or Internet can be
reach on the river. :-P

--
Hope to read you soon,

Denis
www.uqtr.ca/~lamyd

You'll have to eat the SPAM to E-mail

On Mar 13, 12:09 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Poll

If the fishing laws were written in such a way that you had to kill
all legal fish that you caught and, as well, you had to quit when you
had a bag, would you still fish?

Halfordian Golfer

Where I fish, that is largely the case anyway. So yes.

With the codicil that I would not fish for fish that I could not use.
This is largely what limits my fishing nowadays in any case. Also, I
no longer fish for migartory fish on their spwaning runs, and have not
done so for a number of years now.

Further, I agree with Willi that fishery management on self sustaining
waters in general should be based on good scientific grounds, and
independent of various moral, ethical or political standpoints. In an
ideal world there would be no "other" waters, as they are practically
all deleterious to the environment,(most especially the farming of
salmonids and other piscivores) and/or run solely to make a profit for
somebody, or fill a presumed "need" for easy and cheap recreation for
"anglers" wishing to indulge in such.

This results in various "Fish and Game" departments and authorities
actually causing far more environmental problems, instead of easing or
preventing those they were originally designed to prevent.

TL
MC