I need help.

On 2008-04-23, wrote:

Yes, that's the basic gist. While Tim's one-liner may seem
_practically_ ridiculuous in the caught-one-time limit, the lesson
behind it rings true if you've ever fished heavily C+R'd waters. The
fish _do_ become somewhat domesticated, used to the presence of man,
even to the point of following a wading person around to eat whatever
they kick up. Although such waters can provide interesting and fun
fishing opportunities, they should not be mistaken for fishing for
truly wild fish., such as a mountain stream where the mere sight of
just your rod in the air will send the 8" trout scurrying for cover...

I was looking for an honest anwser and I thank you for providing it.

nb

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:24:31 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Halfordian Golfer wrote:
C&R regulations are in themselves no more, or less, respectful of the
fish than any of our other game laws.

Really? Than why are all pure C&R regulations socially derived and
none of them have actual biological imperatives?

You continue to spout the same old lying nonsense even after
you've been directed to fisheries which have biologically
necessary C&R regulations.

Um, why is it "biologically necessary?" Can you direct me to a fishery
run by fish which have mandated such necessity? I mean, if someone can
produce a committee of fish which have OK'd the catching but requested
that their fellow fish are released so as to ensure the population, it
would seem such might carry a lot of weight in the on-going CnR, um,
debate.

So, you think that fish can, do, will, should, would, or could mandate
biological necessity? Words are just a swarming mass of fuzzy things that
swirl and twirl around your head and every so often swoop in to tear out a
small hunk of flesh......right? The good news is that this is going to get
a whole lot worse before it gets any better.

OTOH, if humans have decided that it "biologically necessary"
so humans can continue to fish for sport (and practice CnR), er, well,
no so much so...

Right, kennie is just as stupid as you.

Smallmouth bass fishery, Sylvania Wilderness, Michigan.

See above.

Now begone troll boy.

Which one?

Doesn't matter. It ain't gonna happen, is it?

O.k., just this once, let's pretend that you two are human adults......just
because.

Nobody and nothing "mandates" biological necessity. Biological necessity is
a complex and as yet only dimly understood set of requirements that
individual organisms and various groupings of individual organisms must meet
in order to stay alive and propagate. Note that this "necessity" is
contingent on the organism's or group's need (however one may wish to define
"need") to stay alive and propagate.....the universe at large doesn't much
give a damn. The whole mess is a result of historical accidents that
resulted from initial sets of circumstances we can only guess at and which
are, importantly, value free outside the human reference framework (they
existed long before the evolution of human beings, the fact of their
existence continues through the current devolution, and that fact will
remain long after you astonishingly pinheaded fools are dead......which, god
willing, we won't have to wait long to celebrate). Thus, in the broad view,
neither the continued existence of trout, nor of the considerably less
intelligent and attractive species (if we take yourselves as representative)
that pursues them is a biological necessity.

None of this has anything at all to do with the ethical concerns surrounding
catch and release fishing......or any other style, method, or philosophy.
Catch and release fishing is, to put it as simply as possible and as
complexly as anyone will ever need to, nothing more or less than a highly
successful resource management tool. As such, it is neither decidedly
ethical nor demonstrably unethical. Ethics enter into the matter only
insofar as individual participation is affected by perceptions about whether
doing so is good or bad, right or wrong. In REAL adults such questions are
matters of concern for reasons I will not go into here because they do not
apply to you and you have no hope whatsoever of understanding them.

Well then, so much for make believe. Speak up if you want more, but be
advised that subsequent installments will delivered in a form appropriate
for the audience.

Wolfgang

wrote:
On Apr 23, 9:01 am, notbob wrote:

On 2008-04-23, Halfordian Golfer wrote:


It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish.

I don't get your drift. What? It becomes domesticated upon leaving your
hand/net?


Yes, that's the basic gist. While Tim's one-liner may seem
_practically_ ridiculuous in the caught-one-time limit, the lesson
behind it rings true if you've ever fished heavily C+R'd waters. The
fish _do_ become somewhat domesticated, used to the presence of man,
even to the point of following a wading person around to eat whatever
they kick up. Although such waters can provide interesting and fun
fishing opportunities, they should not be mistaken for fishing for
truly wild fish., such as a mountain stream where the mere sight of
just your rod in the air will send the 8" trout scurrying for cover...

Jon.

I think Tim has a consistent, defensible position from a point of
personal ethics. He's also pointed out a practical problem with C&R --
the unintended mortality of released fish when anglers C&R many more
fish than they would under C&K regs.

It's when he proselytizes his personal ethics with absurd arguments that
bugs me. The "subsistence" argument is the most absurd. That someone
would go to the expense of a typical flyfishing outing (gas, gear,
license, etc.) to put meat on the table is more than far fetched. That a
subsistence angler would limit himself to fly fishing is merely far fetched.

I think Tim feels that eating a fish you've caught (at a cost of maybe
$100/lb and up) somehow endows the whole effort with moral
righteousness, while releasing a fish, that you probably don't want to
eat anyway, amounts to playing with your food. I don't see much if any
difference.

When was the last time you went flyfishing because you were hungry?

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

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:43:27 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Halfordian Golfer wrote:
C&R regulations are in themselves no more, or less, respectful of the fish than any of our other game laws.
Really? Than why are all pure C&R regulations socially derived and
none of them have actual biological imperatives?
You continue to spout the same old lying nonsense even after
you've been directed to fisheries which have biologically
necessary C&R regulations.

snip the stupid ****
OTOH, if humans have decided that it "biologically necessary"
so humans can continue to fish for sport (and practice CnR), er, well,
no so much so...

That is precisely why the C&R regulations are biologically
necessary in Sylvania, so that fisherman can fish those lakes
without decimating the smallmouth population.

So it isn't "biologically necessary," it's economically necessary. As
such, Tim hasn't been directed to any such fisheries because there are
no such fisheries...I mean, the whole name - "fishery" - seems to
suggest they do nothing because it's "biologically necessary" and that,
if fact, they themselves aren't "biologically necessary"...well, maybe
if Ray Bergman had written "Tilapia," things wouldn't seem, so, well,
complex...

But then you knew that already

Well, yeah, there is that...

and are just posting silly **** to amuse yourself.

Um, yeah, so OK, that, too...

Smallmouth bass fishery, Sylvania Wilderness, Michigan.

See above.

Ditto.

LIMBAUGH FAN! LIMBAUGH FAN!!

Now begone troll boy.

Which one?

Either one or both of you, preferably both.

Um, still too broad...is another of those damned "we" and "all of us"
think "they" and "all of them" things...? Those are always so
confusing...one is always pretty sure that one isn't too excited about
being in such elite company as the aforementioned groups...one might
find oneself voting Democrat or something...

Help? Oh, we think it does,
R

"rw" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Apr 23, 9:01 am, notbob wrote:

On 2008-04-23, Halfordian Golfer wrote:


It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish.

I don't get your drift. What? It becomes domesticated upon leaving your
hand/net?


Yes, that's the basic gist. While Tim's one-liner may seem
_practically_ ridiculuous in the caught-one-time limit, the lesson
behind it rings true if you've ever fished heavily C+R'd waters. The
fish _do_ become somewhat domesticated, used to the presence of man,
even to the point of following a wading person around to eat whatever
they kick up. Although such waters can provide interesting and fun
fishing opportunities, they should not be mistaken for fishing for
truly wild fish., such as a mountain stream where the mere sight of
just your rod in the air will send the 8" trout scurrying for cover...

Jon.

I think Tim has a consistent, defensible position from a point of personal
ethics.

Oh, good grief! timmie doesn't have a position at all. All timmie has is
guilt and a monstrous indifference to human decency almost the equal of
yours.

He's also pointed out a practical problem with C&R --
the unintended mortality of released fish when anglers C&R many more fish
than they would under C&K regs.

He has consistently ignored the incidental mortality among all the fish that
he and other catch an kill enthusiasts release because they are too small to
keep legally, as well as those that are big enough but not as big as the one
caught an hour or four later.

It's when he proselytizes his personal ethics with absurd arguments that
bugs me.

Your mistake is in supposing that he's got anything resembling personal
ethics. He's like you; he does what he wants and then justifies it (to the
extent that he's truthful about what he does) later.

The "subsistence" argument is the most absurd.

No, what's most absurd is the impossible to kill fiction that he has any
argument at all.

That someone would go to the expense of a typical flyfishing outing (gas,
gear, license, etc.) to put meat on the table is more than far fetched.
That a subsistence angler would limit himself to fly fishing is merely far
fetched.

Well, that's true enough, but it's hardly germane. timmie doesn't have any
idea of what subsistence fishing means.

I think Tim feels that eating a fish you've caught (at a cost of maybe
$100/lb and up) somehow endows the whole effort with moral righteousness,

No, that's what he desperately WANTS to believe. It doesn't work.

while releasing a fish, that you probably don't want to eat anyway,
amounts to playing with your food.

No, like you and so many others, he's simply looking for someone to hate
more than himself. It doesn't work.

I don't see much if any difference.

No, of course not.

When was the last time you went flyfishing because you were hungry?

When's the last time you did anything but eat because you were hungry?

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote:
Unless timmie steered you to Mr. Kerasote's work, I fail to see the
connection.

He didn't, I stumbled into Kerasote when the C+R vs. C+K debate was
raging nine or ten years ago. I think I posted something back then, to the
effect that, if Tim spoke as eloquently as Kerasote (defending the same
point of view), he wouldn't seem like such a nutcase. All the same, I still
practice C+R because flyfishing for trout is just too much fun to quit after
catching dinner, and on a normal day on my home river I'd have to quit in
10-15 minutes. Driving home after having a HUGE day, I sometimes wonder how
many carefully released fish still perished for the sake of my amusement. I
make the justification that's it's probably OK, since their molecules will
be recycled by the biomass that will feed future trout.

Charlie Wilson wrote:
... Driving home after having a HUGE day, I sometimes wonder how
many carefully released fish still perished for the sake of my amusement. I
make the justification that's it's probably OK, since their molecules will
be recycled by the biomass that will feed future trout.

That sorta mirrors an epiphany of my own.

My wife and I were camped on Slough Creek in Yellowstone when
I gut hooked a cutt with a hopper. The fish was practically
dead by the time I brought it to hand. Normally I'd cook up
a trout which I knew to be dead anyway but this was Yellowstone,
strictly C&R. So I reluctantly slid it back into the stream
while worrying that the griz would find it, then us, in the
middle of the night.

The more I thought about it though the more I thought it was
sheer hubris to assume that since I didn't eat the fish it was
somehow "wasted". The otters would take some, the turtles would
have a good meal and so on down the food chain. That fish wasn't
wasted by being put back into the stream it was just an early
feast for other critters.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Charlie Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote:
Unless timmie steered you to Mr. Kerasote's work, I fail to see the
connection.

He didn't, I stumbled into Kerasote when the C+R vs. C+K debate was
raging nine or ten years ago. I think I posted something back then, to
the effect that, if Tim spoke as eloquently as Kerasote (defending the
same point of view), he wouldn't seem like such a nutcase.

Eloquence isn't timmie's core problem; it isn't even close.

All the same, I still practice C+R because flyfishing for trout is just
too much fun to quit after catching dinner, and on a normal day on my home
river I'd have to quit in 10-15 minutes. Driving home after having a HUGE
day, I sometimes wonder how many carefully released fish still perished
for the sake of my amusement. I make the justification that's it's
probably OK, since their molecules will be recycled by the biomass that
will feed future trout.

Personally, I'm a bit uncomfortable with that justification, which is not to
say that I reject it. Taken singly, any of the justifications for
recreational angling whether one releases all of the fish he catches or only
the ones that can't be kept legally, are rather weak. But then, reliance on
a single simple justification for anything controversial and/or ethically
problematic dooms an honest person to failure. An ethical justification for
recreational angling is a lot like the pursuit itself in that it is a
lifelong quest. Those who find the answers early (or at all, for that
matter) are a lot like those who think the object of all the time, effort
and expense of fishing is about ending up with a mess of fish.

Wolfgang

On Apr 23, 12:26*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Charlie Wilson wrote:
... *Driving home after having a HUGE day, I sometimes wonder how
many carefully released fish still perished for the sake of my amusement.. *I
make the justification that's it's probably OK, since their molecules will
be recycled by the biomass that will feed future trout.

That sorta mirrors an epiphany of my own.

My wife and I were camped on Slough Creek in Yellowstone when
I gut hooked a cut with a hopper. The fish was practically
dead by the time I brought it to hand. Normally I'd cook up
a trout which I knew to be dead anyway but this was Yellowstone,
strictly C&R. So I reluctantly slid it back into the stream
while worrying that the Griz would find it, then us, in the
middle of the night.

The more I thought about it though the more I thought it was
sheer hubris to assume that since I didn't eat the fish it was
somehow "wasted". The otters would take some, the turtles would
have a good meal and so on down the food chain. That fish wasn't
wasted by being put back into the stream it was just an early
feast for other critters.

--
Ken Fortenberry

This rings true particularly here in the Northwest. A key element in
salmon recovery is to take spawned out hatchery carcasses way upstream
to get the invertebrate populations up, and therefore boost fry
survival. Constant harvest, next to our rain regime, inevitably
depletes the fertility of our wet-side streams to the point of
sterility. Stand in a stream full of spawners, soak in the full
oppressive liquid odor of death amidst the struggle for life and you
will get a profound new understanding of the biological wealth that
carrion represents if a river is to be productive and healthy.

Dave
Maybe old dead fishermen carcasses could be deposited in the
headwaters as a part of a new TU/AARP legacy program?

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.. .
Charlie Wilson wrote:
... Driving home after having a HUGE day, I sometimes wonder how many
carefully released fish still perished for the sake of my amusement. I
make the justification that's it's probably OK, since their molecules
will be recycled by the biomass that will feed future trout.

That sorta mirrors an epiphany of my own.

My wife and I were camped on Slough Creek in Yellowstone when
I gut hooked a cutt with a hopper. The fish was practically
dead by the time I brought it to hand. Normally I'd cook up
a trout which I knew to be dead anyway but this was Yellowstone,
strictly C&R. So I reluctantly slid it back into the stream
while worrying that the griz would find it, then us, in the
middle of the night.

The more I thought about it though the more I thought it was
sheer hubris to assume that since I didn't eat the fish it was
somehow "wasted". The otters would take some, the turtles would
have a good meal and so on down the food chain. That fish wasn't
wasted by being put back into the stream it was just an early
feast for other critters.

Sounds like an excellent reason to slit your wrists and slide into the
stream.

Wolfgang
who, personally, does not endorse throwing garbage into america's waterways.