A Fishing forum. FishingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FishingBanter forum » alt.fishing & alt.flyfishing newsgroups » Fly Fishing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

life imitates art



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 2nd, 2006, 10:22 PM posted to alt.flyfishing
Mr. Opus McDopus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default life imitates art


"Opie" wrote in message
...

Do you want me to ask them or will you?


By all means, you ask'em. Hey, be sure to share their rely too!

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.





  #12  
Old August 2nd, 2006, 11:44 PM posted to alt.flyfishing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default life imitates art


Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
"Opie" wrote in message
...

Do you want me to ask them or will you?


By all means, you ask'em. Hey, be sure to share their rely too!

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.




Will do:

The letter is below.

TBone

-----------------------


Hi John,

My name is Tim Walker and I am an avid angler from Colorado that has
been blessed with over 40 years of active flyfishing in this beautiful
state. A recent discussion came up regarding the biological imperative
of pure catch and release fishing regulations versus establishing the
practical equivalence through critical slots and reduced bags, or catch
kill and quit. For example, on a day with exceptional conditions, an
angler that has released 20-30 wild trout has probably inflicted
mortaility on 1-3 of these fish as well as occupying a place on the
stream and crushing forage biota through wading. Further, a slot limit
set very high, such as 2 fish over 16 inches on these streams, would be
the 'practical' equivalent but which allows for some harvest, an
extremely important concept when considering the ethics of sport
fishing in general.

If you consider the report from the Norwegian Fisheries Council you can
see the result of a comprehensive study of the ethics of 'pure,
unlimited catch and release'.

http://org.umb.no/etikkutvalget/English/catch.htm

Which includes this summary:

A form of angling where fish, once caught, are then released, known as
"catch and release", is prevalent in a number of countries. The
authorities are now considering whether the concept should be
introduced as a way of limiting catches in some Norwegian rivers. The
"catch and release" concept is a new principle in natural resource
management compared with the catch regulation measures adopted
previously. "Catch and release" completely separates fishing from its
original purpose, which was to procure food. In the view of the
Council, it is important to support and develop attitudes that
safeguard natural resources and manage them in a sustainable manner.
This also entails a respect for life. There is little doubt that fish
experience pain and stress in connection with fishing, regardless of
whether they are killed or released. The difference is that a fish that
is caught and released is subjected to this stress merely to satisfy
people's need for recreation. The suffering and damage inflicted on the
fish in this connection is disregarded. The Council does not find it
ethically acceptable to use live animals in this way. If the fishing
stock is so low that it will not tolerate harvesting the alternative in
the view of the Council is not to fish. Against this background, the
Council advises against the introduction of "catch and release" as a
resource management measure in Norway.

My question then is, given that there is no 'biological' or 'fisheries
management' 'imperatives' to pure catch and release fishing coupled
with the fact that any fishery which can not stand the random mortality
incident to these activities should be closed to fishing, and given
that the distinction of 'pure catch and release fishing' is akin to
'wildlife harassment for pleasure alone', which is a clear target of
folkes with anti-fishing agendas, why would North Carolina opt to
impose these regulations?

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.

Sincerely,

Tim Walker
-----------------------

  #13  
Old August 3rd, 2006, 08:45 PM posted to alt.flyfishing
Opie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default life imitates art


wrote in message
oups.com...

Will do:

The letter is below.

TBone

-----------------------


Hi John,

My name is Tim Walker and I am an avid angler from Colorado that has
been blessed with over 40 years of active flyfishing in this beautiful
state. A recent discussion came up regarding the biological imperative
of pure catch and release fishing regulations versus establishing the
practical equivalence through critical slots and reduced bags, or catch
kill and quit. For example, on a day with exceptional conditions, an
angler that has released 20-30 wild trout has probably inflicted
mortaility on 1-3 of these fish as well as occupying a place on the
stream and crushing forage biota through wading. Further, a slot limit
set very high, such as 2 fish over 16 inches on these streams, would be
the 'practical' equivalent but which allows for some harvest, an
extremely important concept when considering the ethics of sport
fishing in general.

If you consider the report from the Norwegian Fisheries Council you can
see the result of a comprehensive study of the ethics of 'pure,
unlimited catch and release'.

http://org.umb.no/etikkutvalget/English/catch.htm

Which includes this summary:

A form of angling where fish, once caught, are then released, known as
"catch and release", is prevalent in a number of countries. The
authorities are now considering whether the concept should be
introduced as a way of limiting catches in some Norwegian rivers. The
"catch and release" concept is a new principle in natural resource
management compared with the catch regulation measures adopted
previously. "Catch and release" completely separates fishing from its
original purpose, which was to procure food. In the view of the
Council, it is important to support and develop attitudes that
safeguard natural resources and manage them in a sustainable manner.
This also entails a respect for life. There is little doubt that fish
experience pain and stress in connection with fishing, regardless of
whether they are killed or released. The difference is that a fish that
is caught and released is subjected to this stress merely to satisfy
people's need for recreation. The suffering and damage inflicted on the
fish in this connection is disregarded. The Council does not find it
ethically acceptable to use live animals in this way. If the fishing
stock is so low that it will not tolerate harvesting the alternative in
the view of the Council is not to fish. Against this background, the
Council advises against the introduction of "catch and release" as a
resource management measure in Norway.

My question then is, given that there is no 'biological' or 'fisheries
management' 'imperatives' to pure catch and release fishing coupled
with the fact that any fishery which can not stand the random mortality
incident to these activities should be closed to fishing, and given
that the distinction of 'pure catch and release fishing' is akin to
'wildlife harassment for pleasure alone', which is a clear target of
folkes with anti-fishing agendas, why would North Carolina opt to
impose these regulations?

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.

Sincerely,

Tim Walker


The guy in NC that gets your email is gonna say, "Another ****in' PETA
letter boss!"

Op


  #14  
Old August 3rd, 2006, 09:15 PM posted to alt.flyfishing
Charlie Choc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default life imitates art

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:45:56 -0400, "Opie" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

Will do:

The letter is below.

TBone

-----------------------


Hi John,

My name is Tim Walker and I am an avid angler from Colorado that has
been blessed with over 40 years of active flyfishing in this beautiful
state. A recent discussion came up regarding the biological imperative
of pure catch and release fishing regulations versus establishing the
practical equivalence through critical slots and reduced bags, or catch
kill and quit. For example, on a day with exceptional conditions, an
angler that has released 20-30 wild trout has probably inflicted
mortaility on 1-3 of these fish as well as occupying a place on the
stream and crushing forage biota through wading. Further, a slot limit
set very high, such as 2 fish over 16 inches on these streams, would be
the 'practical' equivalent but which allows for some harvest, an
extremely important concept when considering the ethics of sport
fishing in general.

If you consider the report from the Norwegian Fisheries Council you can
see the result of a comprehensive study of the ethics of 'pure,
unlimited catch and release'.

http://org.umb.no/etikkutvalget/English/catch.htm

Which includes this summary:

A form of angling where fish, once caught, are then released, known as
"catch and release", is prevalent in a number of countries. The
authorities are now considering whether the concept should be
introduced as a way of limiting catches in some Norwegian rivers. The
"catch and release" concept is a new principle in natural resource
management compared with the catch regulation measures adopted
previously. "Catch and release" completely separates fishing from its
original purpose, which was to procure food. In the view of the
Council, it is important to support and develop attitudes that
safeguard natural resources and manage them in a sustainable manner.
This also entails a respect for life. There is little doubt that fish
experience pain and stress in connection with fishing, regardless of
whether they are killed or released. The difference is that a fish that
is caught and released is subjected to this stress merely to satisfy
people's need for recreation. The suffering and damage inflicted on the
fish in this connection is disregarded. The Council does not find it
ethically acceptable to use live animals in this way. If the fishing
stock is so low that it will not tolerate harvesting the alternative in
the view of the Council is not to fish. Against this background, the
Council advises against the introduction of "catch and release" as a
resource management measure in Norway.

My question then is, given that there is no 'biological' or 'fisheries
management' 'imperatives' to pure catch and release fishing coupled
with the fact that any fishery which can not stand the random mortality
incident to these activities should be closed to fishing, and given
that the distinction of 'pure catch and release fishing' is akin to
'wildlife harassment for pleasure alone', which is a clear target of
folkes with anti-fishing agendas, why would North Carolina opt to
impose these regulations?

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.

Sincerely,

Tim Walker


The guy in NC that gets your email is gonna say, "Another ****in' PETA
letter boss!"

Op

The guy in NC might already know that Norwegian report was pretty much ignored
by everyone in the universe except Tim and PETA, and that C&R isn't banned in
Norway. In fact, according to
http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RObserve.html it is actually practiced
there and has been for some time.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
  #15  
Old August 3rd, 2006, 09:45 PM posted to alt.flyfishing
Mr. Opus McDopus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default life imitates art


"Charlie Choc" wrote in message
...
The guy in NC might already know that Norwegian report was pretty much
ignored
by everyone in the universe except Tim and PETA, and that C&R isn't banned
in
Norway. In fact, according to
http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RObserve.html it is actually
practiced
there and has been for some time.
--
Charlie...


Well, is that too!

Op


  #16  
Old August 3rd, 2006, 11:03 PM posted to alt.flyfishing
Charlie Choc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default life imitates art

On 3 Aug 2006 14:54:38 -0700, wrote:

Regarding the scholarly study of this from a pure ethics standpoint one
would be very hard pressed to beat RalphH's post and discussion from:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...e6774d e0f435

You keep saying the Norwegians "get it" when it fact they do allow C&R - you're
trying to equate an entire country with a few AR folks. I'm in no way capable of
getting the monkey off your back, but you could at least climb off the poor
Norwegians. g
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
  #17  
Old June 16th, 2011, 06:18 PM
ralsonngrace ralsonngrace is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by FishingBanter: Jun 2011
Posts: 5
Default

There is clearly something traveling on. I'm not abiding why, to be honest, authentic catch and absolution fishing is any altered than acrylic brawl hunting deer. If someone has a anticipation why this is the case, I'd like to apprehend it.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
life imitates art [email protected] Fly Fishing 9 August 1st, 2006 01:35 AM
life imitates art [email protected] Fly Fishing 0 July 31st, 2006 12:21 AM
Life in Congo, Part whatever....Vacation riverman Fly Fishing 1 March 24th, 2006 02:24 PM
Life in Japan, part 2 angler Fly Fishing 2 December 27th, 2005 03:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FishingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.