On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?

On 28 Jul 2006 15:02:37 -0700, wrote:


Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:

The way I see this progressing is that animal rights interest groups
will have steadily increasing public support and will become more and
more organized. They will go after specific bans and various 'minor'
successes then build on that.

You may feel that way, but none of the links you posted support that
claim. If you have any evidence that efforts like those you cited have
been garnering "steadily increasing public support", please do post them.

http://www.peta.org/feat/annualreview05/numbers.asp

Can't be more than a few hundred people in that picture...

/daytripper (another forecast shot to hell ;-)

daytripper wrote:
On 28 Jul 2006 15:02:37 -0700, wrote:


Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:

The way I see this progressing is that animal rights interest groups
will have steadily increasing public support and will become more and
more organized. They will go after specific bans and various 'minor'
successes then build on that.

You may feel that way, but none of the links you posted support that
claim. If you have any evidence that efforts like those you cited have
been garnering "steadily increasing public support", please do post them.

http://www.peta.org/feat/annualreview05/numbers.asp

Can't be more than a few hundred people in that picture...

And a LOT of them look like they had bacon for breakfast*.

/daytripper (another forecast shot to hell ;-)

Wolfgang
*often.

wrote:

As I have already documented, starting with the state parks.

http://www.animalrights.net/archives...02/000019.html
http://www.mosportsmen.com/fishing/fishnews2.htm
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/1129

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.



A quote from one of the articles YOU cited. (Although I find this pretty
surprising)


"In fact, while many Americans might be ambivalent about hunting,
fishing remains very popular. In a Harris poll of Americans which asked
people to rank their favorite leisure activities, fishing came in 3rd
tied with spending time with family and kids, and behind only reading
and watching television."

As long as this is the case, I don't think we need to be concerned about
banning sport fishing.

Willi

Willi wrote:
wrote:

As I have already documented, starting with the state parks.

http://www.animalrights.net/archives...02/000019.html
http://www.mosportsmen.com/fishing/fishnews2.htm
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/1129

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.



A quote from one of the articles YOU cited. (Although I find this pretty
surprising)


"In fact, while many Americans might be ambivalent about hunting,
fishing remains very popular. In a Harris poll of Americans which asked
people to rank their favorite leisure activities, fishing came in 3rd
tied with spending time with family and kids, and behind only reading
and watching television."

As long as this is the case, I don't think we need to be concerned about
banning sport fishing.
[sig snipped]

Willi,

You should know better. Fishing will not be banned, only golfing for
fish will be banned. Fishing for sound biological management reasons
will never be banned. This, very specifically, will be the major
concession point between pure sportsfishers and animal rights groups,
which do force us to examine our ethical stance with wilderness at all
times. This affects our group of anglers [flyfishing] more directly
than any other group specifically which is why we should discuss it
here and probably take it a bit more seriously. If our tactics include
simply calling these folks 'loons', we've got a long row to hoe. I
point to the Norwegian document, as tired as it is, often, because, I
believe it is the most defensable stance and a good, fair, one most
folks would probably agree with.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

wrote:

You should know better. Fishing will not be banned, only golfing for
fish will be banned. Fishing for sound biological management reasons
will never be banned.

What make you think that C&R trout fishing isn't a sound biological
management practice in many cases?

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

On 29 Jul 2006 08:34:46 -0700, wrote:

You should know better. Fishing will not be banned, only golfing for
fish will be banned. Fishing for sound biological management reasons
will never be banned.

Oh, now I get it. Sound biological reasons are like those they
imposed on the Rapid River a few years ago. With a dropping native
brook trout population because of meat collectors, Maine fisheries
management put a C and R policy on the Rapid. In a few short years
the brook trout population rebounded and catching five pound (and
larger!) brook trout is now the norm. I no longer have to go to
Labrador to catch big brook trout - C&R has made it possible in the
Rapid (but only in the spring and early fall when the river temp is
sufficiently low). Catch and Kill almost killed the Rapid.

Dave, who is heading back to Labrador in August for Landlocks and
brout trut.

On 29 Jul 2006 08:34:46 -0700, wrote:

I
point to the Norwegian document, as tired as it is, often, because, I
believe it is the most defensable stance and a good, fair, one most
folks would probably agree with.

Just out of curiosity, what changes in fishing can you point to that are a
direct result of the Norwegian document?
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On 29 Jul 2006 08:34:46 -0700, wrote:

You should know better. Fishing will not be banned, only golfing for
fish will be banned. Fishing for sound biological management reasons
will never be banned.

Oh, now I get it. Sound biological reasons are like those they
imposed on the Rapid River a few years ago. With a dropping native
brook trout population because of meat collectors, Maine fisheries
management put a C and R policy on the Rapid. In a few short years
the brook trout population rebounded and catching five pound (and
larger!) brook trout is now the norm. I no longer have to go to
Labrador to catch big brook trout - C&R has made it possible in the
Rapid (but only in the spring and early fall when the river temp is
sufficiently low). Catch and Kill almost killed the Rapid.

Dave, who is heading back to Labrador in August for Landlocks and
brout trut.

A (2) over 18", mandatory kill, would have worked as well, would it
not? There is no sound biological reason, ever, for pure catch and
release. If the fishery can not withstand the mortality incident to
catch and release, it must be closed to fishing. The distinction may be
subtle but it is a vitally important one.

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel

Charlie Choc wrote:
On 29 Jul 2006 08:34:46 -0700, wrote:

I
point to the Norwegian document, as tired as it is, often, because, I
believe it is the most defensable stance and a good, fair, one most
folks would probably agree with.

Just out of curiosity, what changes in fishing can you point to that are a
direct result of the Norwegian document?
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

None and that's the point. Traditional fishing has been going on
feeding the animals and people of this unbelievable planet for the 10's
of thousands of years. It has been redfined in a few places in the past
40.The Norwegians clearly understand fishing and fisheries management.
But mostly they speak of 'respect for life" which is impossible when we
exploit, stress, maim and kill an animal solely for our own pleasure,
is this not true Choc?

From the report:
"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."

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel

On 30 Jul 2006 07:28:48 -0700, wrote:


Charlie Choc wrote:
On 29 Jul 2006 08:34:46 -0700, wrote:

I
point to the Norwegian document, as tired as it is, often, because, I
believe it is the most defensable stance and a good, fair, one most
folks would probably agree with.

Just out of curiosity, what changes in fishing can you point to that are a
direct result of the Norwegian document?
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

None and that's the point. Traditional fishing has been going on
feeding the animals and people of this unbelievable planet for the 10's
of thousands of years. It has been redfined in a few places in the past
40.The Norwegians clearly understand fishing and fisheries management.

Norway does not prohibit catch and release fishing.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com