Catch and release Ethics; was An Environmental Think Tank member
ralph heidecke
From: heid...@direct.ca (ralph heidecke)
Well Tim I've done a bit of homework.
Now what follows is for everyone who has an interest.
I apologize if it is a bit simplified as while I've read a bit of
philosophy (mostly the classic Greeks) I've never studied it
formally and I want this to be short and 'digestible'
I' hope to show below; that
- Kohlberg's stages are of limited guidance in deciding if catch and release
is ethical. In fact they strike me to be of little help in deciding if any
action is ethical.
- we have to consider if fishing in general is ethical and if it is
Why certain practices may be ethical and others not.
- that the ethical questions regarding catch and release and fishing in general
are secondary questions that have more to do with quality of life issues
than huge issues of right and wrong.
>
>KOHLBERG'S MORAL STAGES
>Stage 1: Obedience and punishment orientation
>Stage 2: Naively egotistic orientation
>Stage 3: Good-boy/good-girl orientation
>Stage 4: Authority and social-order-maintaining orientation
>Stage 5: Contractual/legalistic orientation
>Stage 6: The morality of individual principles of conscience
>
Kohlberg's stages do not define moral or ethical behaviour but
describes a theory of moral development. From J. Q. Wilson's
The Moral Sense "...it presupposes a general agreement as to what
constitutes the universe within a rule is to operate " Wilson also
argues that Kohlberg's stage 6 is taken from Kant and that Kant's rule
can be easily reformulated to suite circumstances that contradict the
notion of a universal morality. It is possible for people with opposing
薦thical' positions (ie pro-life vs pro-choice) to be at identical stages
-ie stage 6 - of moral development.
I'd further say that the motivation behind ethical behaviour is of little consequence.
The greater question (at least here) is what is ethical.
>someone who fishes with harvesting food in mind and realizes
>full well the consequences of killing the animal is clearly
>operating at a higher moral level then a Bassmasters pro who
>is definitely (arguments here ????) operating at stage 3 (
>only insert "OLD" at the hyphens).
>
This isn't a rational of moral behaviour at all. You are assuming (ass+u+me remember?)
that the choice is universally right or will be seen as right by anyone at this 壮tage 6'
of moral development.
What are the ethical issues regarding fishing and the use of fish for our pleasure
(ie through sport fishing and/or eating fish)?
Let us survey three alternative theories:
1) Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics" which argues (weakly) that all species
are equal and that therefore the inflicting of pain and the killing of non human
species for food is not ethical period.
Singer argues animals are all equal. We are guilty of specie-ism just as our ancestors
who kept slaves were guilty of racism. That pain (all pain apparently) is bad or evil.
The goal of ethical behaviour is to maximize satisfaction of all equals therefore it is
wrong to inflict suffering upon and /or kill other species for our enjoyment.
(- this theory of maximizing satisfaction or happiness is 爽tilitarianism'. I
t figures in all 3 theories. Singer expands it to include all animal life)
We should all be vegetarians.
To me the argument is weak as: pain is not always negative or evil but often helpful
and necessary ie I got a root canal last week my mouth hurt for days afterwards.
Is my Dentist an evil man? Another case. When he was two my son touched the red hot
element of our stove he suffered only a slight burn because the pain caused him to
take is hand away. If he experienced no pain his hand could have been permanently damaged.
The pain here was good. Have you ever known a woman in labour who said she was having a
good time?
The specie-ism argument is weak because it relies heavily on the racism analogy.
The difference between races is trivial. As people inter-acted this became obvious.
The difference between species and phylum is qualitatively huge.
Most non-human species act exclusively from genetic determination and immediate self interest.
Humans actions have cultural, genetic, social, learned and creative (individual) determinates.
The specie-ism argument is further weaken by the fact that the notions of race and species
are artificial. In fact biology has less and less use for the concept of species being more
and more confronted with the fact that the prime operative in evolution and survival is
the genome. The species is useful for simple taxonomic purposes and comparisons in space
and time. Genome classification requires autopsy.
All life animal, vegetable, bacterial etc has genes. Is all life thus equal? But
virtually all animal life must consume life to survive. So we must consume our equals.
I think the argument (and hence the argument that fishing is 創ot ethical') Is too weak to be
tenable unless of course Mr Singer and the animal rights movement can make manna fall
from heaven.
2) The view (cited by Singer) of Tooley that use of non self conscious beings
for food is likely ok. Fish are the only cited example - fish have no concept of
themselves or their future. Death is merely the cessation of experience; fish
have no capacity to suffer /no capacity to enjoy. A fish is not a sentient creature
(self aware) but a receptacle of experience.
It has no true notion of it's past or it's future. It's existence is biological
not biographical.
Singer qualifies his reluctant acceptance of this view with the caveat that death should
be instantaneous, painless and the dead should be immediately replaced with individuals
of identical quality.
Let's consider this idea how it relates to the possible ethics of catch and release.
Now Singer elsewhere in his book describes different levels of qualitative pain
that may have less import in this context. Giving a horse a good slap is less
worrisome than giving a slap of the same force to a baby.
Here I remind the reader that for the most part we accept the large numbers of finding that
mortality among released fish is low.
So if a fish isn't self conscious and forgets the pain after the event there is no huge huge
ethical question. Particularly so if the release of a fish means the required replacement
with an individual of identical quality is rendered unnecessary.
This theory is a modified version of the 1st likely concocted by a lover of seafood.
It is weak for the same reasons.
3) The theories of John Rawls and David Gauthier that ethical codes should only be extended
to those species that are capable of ethical conduct.(I got this from Singer - to be honest
he doesn't like it but again doesn't argue persuasively (to me) against it.)
Now 3) appeals to me because it seems to fit our 'moral' behaviour.
As an aside I use 'morals or morality' to describe a limited number of
inherently accepted notions of right and wrong/ good and evil.
It is also more consistent with the theories of social-biology (the idea the gene is
the prime operative of evolution and hence behaviour) and more consistent with observed
Human behaviour.
Fish certainly never have demonstrated ethical capability
I find support for this view in the theories of Timothy Cooney ("Telling Right from Wrong:
what is moral, what is immoral and what is neither one or the other": Prometheus Books
1985).
Cooney argues that there is a primary moral code that bans and censures behaviour
that endangers the viability of human groups. Specifically murder, robbery, assault, arson
and pollution. Right and wrong (morality) has limited determinates. The application of
morality (ethics) has limitless possibilities. His book is an exploration of the troubles
of applying this basic moral principle (he calls the Primary Code) . He basically argues that
many so called moral ideas are in fact not part of the primary code but are secondary questions
of the quality of life that do not threaten the group. He argues that we need to recognize this
and develop a greater tolerance for differences in how different people and groups of people
pursue their quality of life...
"What I am advocating is that... those with a broader desire or criterion in mind recognize
what they are doing and stop beating the world over the head... with the charge of
immorality when the world is guilty of nothing more than not sharing a broader
criterion.... It is one thing to propose this criterion ( and be personally guided by it)
and quite another to call these acts in violation of such a criterion immoral."(p.140)
In this case I would also say to call them unethical is the same kettle of fish.
There is no huge ethical question in the catch and relase vs catch and kill debate.
You are really not arguing an ethical question but a quality of life choice you've made
for yourself and trying to force it on others by claiming if they don't follow your choice
they are unethical. You are trying to intimidate them by calling them names.
Questions of ethics in sport fishing are secondary in nature; questions that have soley
to do with our quality of life and not primary questions of right or wrong.
What are the secondary principle ethical questions for fishers? Towards other fishers current,
future, to themselves and the environment/ecology that sustains the happiness (qualtiy of life)
they get from fishing.
Happiness (or satisfaction) is a constant in ethical discussions. Maximizing it is
the object of the utilitarians. Aristotle stated it was the only true goal of ethical conduct.
So if a fisherman who sits by the water, works on stream improvement or reads scientific
studies that describe the relative health of his fishery and also indicate almost all fish
properly released survive and this fisher decides that releasing all or most (me) of
his catch is necessary to sustain the future satisfaction and happiness he and others
obtain from his sport and the ecology that supports it he is acting ethically at
Kohlbergs stage 6.
Similarly a fisher who meditates in the same manner and decides that where he fishes he
can kill a limited number of fish that this sustains his happines and not at the expense
of others he too is ethical at Kohlberg's stage 6.
Here we can find usefull tools for determining if certain actions by fishers and fishery
managers are ethical.
Examples;
You can answer these as yes, no or indifferent. The interesting aspect is why and what does
this have to do with your own values re: quality of life.
A fisher catches and releases 50 fish one day on a river where the bag limit is 2. He knows
studies on the river indicate about 7% of all released fish die within 24 hours. He also knows
the fish stocks are very high; likely at natural carrying capacity. Was he acting
ethically?
Another angler catches and kills 2 salmon on a river with a run of 20,000 fish. He has read that on average 2,000 anglers will each kill 2 fish per year on the river. Biologists believe
15,000 spawners are needed to sustain the run. Was it ethical to kill the 2 fish?
A fisheries manager is trying to decide what regulations are needed for a steelhead stream
With an expected run of 600 (+/- 20%) fish on average. The stream is currently in a sort of
equilibrium. Productivity is about 2.1 adults returned for 2 spawners. The maximum capacity
of the stream is estimated to be 800 to 1000 fish. The river is accessible
to thousands of anglers many who wish to kill a fish or two. His general mandate is to
maximize the fishing opportunity and pleasure of citizens in the juridiction while
maintaining or even enhancing current fish populations. He sees the following options.
1) close the river completely until maximum capacity is reached (several years)
2) restrict access through a special lottery
3) open the river but monitor kills as closely as possible closing the river when the
estimated available surplus of 60 is killed.
4) establish a catch and release regulation.
He chooses option 4) reasoning that options 1 and 2 conflict with maximizing fishing
opportuntiesand pleasure, 3 is too expensive and risky. Is the choice ethical?
Ralph H
Moe Skeeter
[Some deleted...]
> From: heid...@direct.ca (ralph heidecke)
> Well Tim I've done a bit of homework.
And it shows Ralph !!!
> Now what follows is for everyone who has an interest.
[although this sentence is a bit redundant...]
> I' hope to show below; that
> - Kohlberg's stages are of limited guidance in deciding if catch and release
> is ethical. In fact they strike me to be of little help in deciding if any
> action is ethical.
Probably is...but it is at least 'some' guidance. In an area where it
is
devoid, except by the promotors of equipment and services, this in
itself
*is* significant. At the very least, it is a point of departure.
> - we have to consider if fishing in general is ethical and if it is
> Why certain practices may be ethical and others not.
I do not want to consider if fishing or eating meat is ethical, and you
will probably lose me in this effort. Fishing and hunting and the
eating
of meat is beyond discussion. This is survival and I will not change my
view on this. The argument would go that eating is like breathing. It
is required. The fishes in particular are designed to be eaten. This
can not even be a component of this discussion, in my mind, which is
about the ethics of pure C&R fishing.
> - that the ethical questions regarding catch and release and fishing in general
> are secondary questions that have more to do with quality of life issues
> than huge issues of right and wrong.
Ummmmm...well yes, pure C&R as an ethical decision does not rival bigger
decisions,
like raising beef in the rain forest.
> Kohlberg's stages do not define moral or ethical behaviour but
> describes a theory of moral development.
Yes. This is true.
> From J. Q. Wilson's
> The Moral Sense "...it presupposes a general agreement as to what
> constitutes the universe within a rule is to operate " Wilson also
> argues that Kohlberg's stage 6 is taken from Kant and that Kant's rule
> can be easily reformulated to suite circumstances that contradict the
> notion of a universal morality. It is possible for people with opposing
> ‘Ethical' positions (ie pro-life vs pro-choice) to be at identical stages
> -ie stage 6 - of moral development.
No questions here, either.
> I'd further say that the motivation behind ethical behaviour is of little consequence.
> The greater question (at least here) is what is ethical.
Correct. It doesn't matter why Eddie feels like kicking poodles. But
it
is clear that kicking poodles IS ethical, right ? That would be the
pure
C&R-ers perspective, to be sure. Anything less would be slightly
hypocritical,
yes ? I kicked the poodle because I derive a great deal of pleasure
from the
act !. We could say...
> >someone who fishes with harvesting food in mind and realizes
> >full well the consequences of killing the animal is clearly
> >operating at a higher moral level then a Bassmasters pro who
> >is definitely (arguments here ????) operating at stage 3 (
> >only insert "OLD" at the hyphens).
> >
>
> This isn't a rational of moral behaviour at all. You are assuming (ass+u+me remember?)
> that the choice is universally right or will be seen as right by anyone at this ‘stage 6'
> of moral development.
I am assuming that it's ok to hunt and fish and eat the thus harvested
game. Nothing more,
nothing less...
> What are the ethical issues regarding fishing and the use of fish for our pleasure
> (ie through sport fishing and/or eating fish)?
>
> Let us survey three alternative theories:
>
> 1) Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics" which argues (weakly) that all species
> are equal and that therefore the inflicting of pain and the killing of non human
> species for food is not ethical period.
Well...I guess that means that I do not subscribe to Singerism. Neither
are you and
I know this.
> Singer argues animals are all equal. We are guilty of specie-ism just as our ancestors
> who kept slaves were guilty of racism. That pain (all pain apparently) is bad or evil.
> The goal of ethical behaviour is to maximize satisfaction of all equals therefore it is
> wrong to inflict suffering upon and /or kill other species for our enjoyment.
While this is a bunch of gunk, I do not think that we should cause undue
suffering
in animals either. The real sportsman makes a clean shot, or no shot at
all.
> The specie-ism argument is weak because it relies heavily on the racism analogy.
> The difference between races is trivial. As people inter-acted this became obvious.
> The difference between species and phylum is qualitatively huge.
Agreed. We are not Singerists.
> Most non-human species act exclusively from genetic determination and immediate self interest.
> Humans actions have cultural, genetic, social, learned and creative (individual) determinates.
Ok...
> The specie-ism argument is further weaken by the fact that the notions of race and species
> are artificial. In fact biology has less and less use for the concept of species being more
> and more confronted with the fact that the prime operative in evolution and survival is
> the genome. The species is useful for simple taxonomic purposes and comparisons in space
> and time. Genome classification requires autopsy.
Fine..
> All life animal, vegetable, bacterial etc has genes. Is all life thus equal? But
> virtually all animal life must consume life to survive. So we must consume our equals.
Still whicha Ralph...
[a bunch ripped here...]
> Here I remind the reader that for the most part we accept the large numbers of finding that
> mortality among released fish is low.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It is never 0.
> So if a fish isn't self conscious and forgets the pain after the event there is no huge huge
> ethical question. Particularly so if the release of a fish means the required replacement
> with an individual of identical quality is rendered unnecessary.
That we ask a wild animal to perform this role is amazing. You need
only look at a
really battered old warrior in a heavily fished C&R area, to make up
your mind what
is right and wrong here.
> This theory is a modified version of the 1st likely concocted by a lover of seafood.
> It is weak for the same reasons.
You really missed me here. Eating seafood is a weak argument ?
HARRRRRRUMPHHHHHHHH !!!!!!
From an pro-C&R perspective ???? Hilarious.
[deleted]
> Fish certainly never have demonstrated ethical capability
Good grief. What species save human does...?
> I find support for this view in the theories of Timothy Cooney ("Telling Right from Wrong:
> what is moral, what is immoral and what is neither one or the other": Prometheus Books
> 1985).
>
> Cooney argues that there is a primary moral code that bans and censures behaviour
> that endangers the viability of human groups. Specifically murder, robbery, assault, arson
> and pollution. Right and wrong (morality) has limited determinates. The application of
> morality (ethics) has limitless possibilities. His book is an exploration of the troubles
> of applying this basic moral principle (he calls the Primary Code) . He basically argues that
> many so called moral ideas are in fact not part of the primary code but are secondary questions
> of the quality of life that do not threaten the group. He argues that we need to recognize this
> and develop a greater tolerance for differences in how different people and groups of people
> pursue their quality of life...
> "What I am advocating is that... those with a broader desire or criterion in mind recognize
> what they are doing and stop beating the world over the head... with the charge of
> immorality when the world is guilty of nothing more than not sharing a broader
> criterion.... It is one thing to propose this criterion ( and be personally guided by it)
> and quite another to call these acts in violation of such a criterion immoral."(p.140)
> In this case I would also say to call them unethical is the same kettle of fish.
Well...let's get the boy on-line for a little discussion as it relates
to pure C&R of
a wild animal ! (as opposed to murder, robbery, assault...etc).
> There is no huge ethical question in the catch and relase vs catch and kill debate.
>
> You are really not arguing an ethical question but a quality of life choice you've made
> for yourself and trying to force it on others by claiming if they don't follow your choice
> they are unethical. You are trying to intimidate them by calling them names.
This is not true at all. If anyone is doing the forcing, it is the pure
C&R-ers. Look
at that one guys signature "Don't be a dick, practice C&R". I saw a
bumper sticker the
other day.."Be an ethical Sportsman, Practice C&R". Now tell me
Ralph...this guy with
the bumper sticker...has he been influenced by the flyfishing industry,
or did he mutate
fishing completely on his own ?. Kohlberg puts the guy at about stage
3. Me too.
> Questions of ethics in sport fishing are secondary in nature; questions that have soley
> to do with our quality of life and not primary questions of right or wrong.
> What are the secondary principle ethical questions for fishers? Towards other fishers current,
> future, to themselves and the environment/ecology that sustains the happiness (qualtiy of life)
> they get from fishing.
>
> Happiness (or satisfaction) is a constant in ethical discussions. Maximizing it is
> the object of the utilitarians. Aristotle stated it was the only true goal of ethical conduct.
Sure it is, agreed. But, I find none of the above in the heavily fished
pure C&R areas. These
same people enjoying this horse hockey would have a ball fishing with me
after a hike in
somewhere and realize how false, unhappy and empty that pure C&R is.
> So if a fisherman who sits by the water, works on stream improvement or reads scientific
> studies that describe the relative health of his fishery and also indicate almost all fish
> properly released survive and this fisher decides that releasing all or most (me) of
> his catch is necessary to sustain the future satisfaction and happiness he and others
> obtain from his sport and the ecology that supports it he is acting ethically at
> Kohlbergs stage 6.
But, it is never, ever necessary. It is only one of the myriad
approaches. You pure C&R
guys can't get off this dime, can you ? It is all selective harvest.
Even pure C&R is
if you state "that mortality incidental in pure C&R equals precisely the
mortality required
to sustain the fishery". Like my wifes deer hunting argument, "enough
get killed by
cars..."
> Similarly a fisher who meditates in the same manner and decides that where he fishes he
> can kill a limited number of fish that this sustains his happines and not at the expense
> of others he too is ethical at Kohlberg's stage 6.
But, society needs some rules. Some guidelines. We can not accept that
Eddie kick
poodles, even if Eddie feels justified at Stage 6.
> Here we can find usefull tools for determining if certain actions by fishers and fishery
> managers are ethical.
>
> Examples;
>
> You can answer these as yes, no or indifferent. The interesting aspect is why and what does
> this have to do with your own values re: quality of life.
>
> A fisher catches and releases 50 fish one day on a river where the bag limit is 2. He knows
> studies on the river indicate about 7% of all released fish die within 24 hours. He also knows
> the fish stocks are very high; likely at natural carrying capacity. Was he acting
> ethically?
No. He should have eaten the 2 and he would have been in a plus 1.5
fish situation.
He wasted 3.5 fish for nought, it is not ethical to waste the resource,
by anyones
definition.
> Another angler catches and kills 2 salmon on a river with a run of 20,000 fish.
> He has read that on average 2,000 anglers will each kill 2 fish per year on the river. Biologists believe
> 15,000 spawners are needed to sustain the run. Was it ethical to kill the 2 fish?
Of course it is. You are in a plus 1000 fish situation.
It is much closer to *WHY* we sustain the resource.
> A fisheries manager is trying to decide what regulations are needed for a steelhead stream
> With an expected run of 600 (+/- 20%) fish on average. The stream is currently in a sort of
> equilibrium. Productivity is about 2.1 adults returned for 2 spawners. The maximum capacity
> of the stream is estimated to be 800 to 1000 fish. The river is accessible
> to thousands of anglers many who wish to kill a fish or two. His general mandate is to
> maximize the fishing opportunity and pleasure of citizens in the juridiction while
> maintaining or even enhancing current fish populations. He sees the following options.
>
> 1) close the river completely until maximum capacity is reached (several years)
> 2) restrict access through a special lottery
> 3) open the river but monitor kills as closely as possible closing the river when the
> estimated available surplus of 60 is killed.
> 4) establish a catch and release regulation.
>
> He chooses option 4) reasoning that options 1 and 2 conflict with maximizing fishing
> opportuntiesand pleasure, 3 is too expensive and risky. Is the choice ethical?
He made the wrong choice and for the wrong reasons. That which he
attempted to preserve,
he has ruined. Now, the people will come. There will be no quality
left for anyone or
anything in the area.
But, along comes the guides and shop owners and magazines ! They will
say "This *IS*
fun", This *IS* what it's all about. And these people, a whole bunch of
them in fact,
will buy off on this. They will go to the Bighorn or the San Juan or
the Frying Pan or Henry's Fork,
or any other similar flyfishing carnival. They'll have contests and
they'll all say..
"This is what flyfishing is all about !!!" and they'll snicker at the
old man in
the leaky boat with the Mitchell 300 and some minnows. They'll call him
a littering
bait fisherman ! Yes, A whole bunch of people stuck at stage 3 will do
this and they'll
do it 9 times out of 10.
No. Had he chosen 1 or 2. The tough call. The *RIGHT* call.
Consider...
I'll still need a rod when I do get there after a 3 or 4 year wait.
I'll need a bunch of
bugs and a place to stay and food to eat while I'm there.
And I'll go. I'll go for the quietude and peace and I'll fish for
healthy never
caught wild fish. I'll go and I'll relish that 1 or 2 days every 5
years. And, I'll
naturally spread out in the meantime...I'll go after brookies and
whitefish and bass
and bluegill.
But man, I'll relish that experience and savour it as I savour life
itself.
TimW
Ralph H
In article <331AFC...@rof.net>, Moe Skeeter <twa...@rof.net> says:
>
>[Some deleted...]
>rtain practices may be ethical and others not.
>
>I do not want to consider if fishing or eating meat is ethical, and you
>will probably lose me in this effort. Fishing and hunting and the
>eating
>of meat is beyond discussion. This is survival and I will not change my
>view on this. The argument would go that eating is like breathing. It
>is required.
the point is do not and cannot fish to survive. You are unable by law
and econmic circumstance to gather enough caloric intake to support
yourself from catching fish. the argument that the gathering of food for
survival justifies kill fisheries but not release (which are founded
on fun or enjoyment) rests on a false premise.
[snip]
>>
>> A fisher catches and releases 50 fish one day on a river where the bag limit is 2. He knows
>> studies on the river indicate about 7% of all released fish die within 24 hours. He also knows
>> the fish stocks are very high; likely at natural carrying capacity. Was he acting
>> ethically?
>
>No. He should have eaten the 2 and he would have been in a plus 1.5
>fish situation.
>He wasted 3.5 fish for nought, it is not ethical to waste the resource,
>by anyones
>definition.
>
I find it interesting you turn this into a numbers game. So following the logic
above the fellow who c&r's 20 fish and quits for the day is more ethical
than the guy who catches 2 and then packs up and doubly more than the guy who
catches 20 kills only #19 and 20 and then goes home.
You have to agree this follows from your reasoning above.
Is the guy who c&r's 20 and goes home a 'pure' c&r guy?
>
Ralph H
Ralph H
>will probably lose me in this effort. Fishing and hunting and the
>eating
>of meat is beyond discussion. This is survival and I will not change my
>view on this. The argument would go that eating is like breathing. It
>is required. The fishes in particular are designed to be eaten. This
>can not even be a component of this discussion, in my mind, which is
>about the ethics of pure C&R fishing.
>
You have to to get to the meat (pun intended) of the issue
If the whole practice is not ethical then the questions we pose are moot.
[snip]
>Correct. It doesn't matter why Eddie feels like kicking poodles. But
>it
>is clear that kicking poodles IS ethical, right ? That would be the
>pure
>C&R-ers perspective, to be sure. Anything less would be slightly
>hypocritical,
>yes ? I kicked the poodle because I derive a great deal of pleasure
>from the
>act !. We could say...
>
Poodles and fish are qualitatively different creatures by orders of magnitude.
The analogy is thus limited. Secondly when I fish I don't kick animal
but (usually) prick it in the mouth.
>Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It is never 0.
best evidence is that it is low with artificial lures
>
>> So if a fish isn't self conscious and forgets the pain after the event there is no huge huge
>> ethical question. Particularly so if the release of a fish means the required replacement
>> with an individual of identical quality is rendered unnecessary.
>
>That we ask a wild animal to perform this role is amazing.
>> This theory is a modified version of the 1st likely concocted by a lover of seafood.
>> It is weak for the same reasons.
>
>You really missed me here. Eating seafood is a weak argument ?
>
>
know this was a joke; ie I like seafood I'll concocte an argument that
let's me have my cake ( ethical treatment of animals) and eat it too!
>> Fish certainly never have demonstrated ethical capability
>
>Good grief. What species save human does...?
>
Altruism is displayed by many animals. Is that ethical behaviour?
>
>This is not true at all. If anyone is doing the forcing, it is the pure
>C&R-ers. Look
>at that one guys signature "Don't be a dick, practice C&R". I saw a
>bumper sticker the
>other day.."Be an ethical Sportsman, Practice C&R". Now tell me
>Ralph...this guy with
>the bumper sticker...has he been influenced by the flyfishing industry,
>or did he mutate
>fishing completely on his own ?. >
So both sides are both guilty; some guy just told me I was full of crap
>Kohlberg puts the guy at about stage
>3. Me too.
>
How do you know what Kohlberg says?
>> So if a fisherman who sits by the water, works on stream improvement or reads scientific
>> studies that describe the relative health of his fishery and also indicate almost all fish
>> properly released survive and this fisher decides that releasing all or most (me) of
>> his catch is necessary to sustain the future satisfaction and happiness he and others
>> obtain from his sport and the ecology that supports it he is acting ethically at
>> Kohlbergs stage 6.
>
>But, it is never, ever necessary. It is only one of the myriad
>approaches. You pure C&R
>guys can't get off this dime, can you ? It is all selective harvest.
>Even pure C&R is
>if you state "that mortality incidental in pure C&R equals precisely the
>mortality required
>to sustain the fishery".
I am not a 'pure c&r guy'. I also wish you'd define this term.
What isn't pure c&r and how is it better than pure c&r?
Ralph H
Moe Skeeter
Ralph H wrote:
[Snip !]
> You are unable by law
> and econmic circumstance to gather enough caloric intake to support
> yourself from catching fish.
NO. You have taken (wrongly and unfairly) an extreme position here.
Wild Game only augments (sometimes substantially) my nutrition
(if you can call it that) pimped on me by The AgriBusiness.
I can not buy wild brook trout at the store Ralph.
It is my religion.
I am a Brooktheologist.
Pure C&R is therefore religious persecution.
Call my lawyer I'm suing TU !
What is the point of maintaining a fishery if not to harvest the
fish...? What exactly are we conserving ? If it to keep a
steady supply of golf balls, count me out. We don't raise
cows for pets that we can beat on, and we certainly should
not take that position on animals in the wild.
> >> A fisher catches and releases 50 fish one day on a river where the bag limit is 2. He knows
> >> studies on the river indicate about 7% of all released fish die within 24 hours. He also knows
> >> the fish stocks are very high; likely at natural carrying capacity. Was he acting
> >> ethically?
> >
> >No. He should have eaten the 2 and he would have been in a plus 1.5
> >fish situation.
> >He wasted 3.5 fish for nought, it is not ethical to waste the resource,
> >by anyones
> >definition.
> >
>
> I find it interesting you turn this into a numbers game. So following the logic
> above the fellow who c&r's 20 fish and quits for the day is more ethical
> than the guy who catches 2 and then packs up and doubly more than the guy who
> catches 20 kills only #19 and 20 and then goes home.
>
> You have to agree this follows from your reasoning above.
>
> Is the guy who c&r's 20 and goes home a 'pure' c&r guy?
Huh ? The guy C&R -ed 20 fish in a 7% mortality area...he
killed a couple whether he saw their slow agonizing death
or not...he KILLED A COUPLE and THEY ROTTED, THEY WASTED.
Mr. Puritan WASTED a couple of fish...THE BASTARS !!!!
This is JUST AS BAD AS BUBBA throwing away some from the freezer.
Isn't it ?
Why not ?
Love ya...
--
TimW
Halfordian Golfer
Moe Skeeter
Ralph H wrote:
> Secondly when I fish I don't kick animal but (usually) prick
> it in the mouth.
Just don't mouth it in the....sounds of George Carlin, deleted
for our sensitive viewers...
> I am not a 'pure c&r guy'. I also wish you'd define this term.
> What isn't pure c&r and how is it better than pure c&r?
Really a core question. Thanks for asking it.
Pure C&R is pure mandated C&R regulations where the mortality
incidental to this C&R is equaivalent to the desirable mortality
necessary to maintain a healthy and normal population of fish.
I contend until proven otherwise that this condition never exists.
If it does, then fishing for that species should be closed. Period.
Say...Selective Harvest...Not Catch and Release.
--
TimW
Halfordian Golfer
Jon Ernst
OK, but who the hell is Bubba anyway? I knew a guy named Bubba. He
lived in Oakland and liked to catch Kingfish (White Croaker) off the 7th
St. pier with pile worms and grass shrimp for bait. He ate every one of
those fish. Does this pertain?
Ralph H
In article <331C46...@rof.net>, Moe Skeeter <twa...@rof.net> says:
>
Ralph H wrote:
[Snip !]
>> You are unable by law
>> yourself from catching fish.
>NO. You have taken (wrongly and unfairly) an extreme position here.
>Wild Game only augments (sometimes substantially) my nutrition
>(if you can call it that) pimped on me by The agribusiness.
Look you can hold to this if you want and you are welcome to this
view if you want but that's all it is; a point of view, a quality of life
issue!
It is no more effective than the veggie people who argue you don't need to
eat meat ergo meat eating is not ethical.
THE POINT REMAINS: you do not need to sport fish to survive. You cannot
base an ethical argument (ok to catch and kill not catch and release) on
this false premise.
>I can not buy wild brook trout at the store Ralph.
>It is my religion.
>I am a Brooktheologist.
>Pure C&R is therefore religious persecution.
>Call my lawyer I'm suing TU !
Ignoring the fact that this is a fatuous argument - like me and many other
have come to expect from you:
if you want to reduce this to religion that's fine. You worship in your
temple I can worship in mine. There are plenty of lakes rivers and oceans
where you can catch and kill: many many more than waters you must release
all your catch.
Go ahead take TU to court. The headlines will be hilarious!
Back to fatuous statement; the more your justifications become arcane
and obtuse the more people will see them for they are; bankrupt.
>What is the point of maintaining a fishery if not to harvest the
>fish...? What exactly are we conserving ?[snip].
Oh gee some of think the fish themselves have a value. I remember
some post by you urging a boycott of Oregon as they wouldn't cooperate with
a plan to release water levels to enhance conditions for an endangered
species of squawfish. You plannin' on fishing these babies Timmy?
> >> A fisher catches and releases 50 fish one day on a river where the bag limit is 2.
He knows
> >> studies on the river indicate about 7% of all released fish die within 24 hours. He also knows
> >> the fish stocks are very high; likely at natural carrying capacity.
Was he acting
> >> ethically?
> >
> >No. He should have eaten the 2 and he would have been in a plus 1.5
> >fish situation.
> >He wasted 3.5 fish for nought, it is not ethical to waste the resource,
> >by anyones
> >definition.
> >
>
>> I find it interesting you turn this into a numbers game.
>>So following the logicabove the fellow who c&r's 20 fish and quits for
>>the day is more ethical
>> than the guy who catches 2 and then packs up and doubly more than the
>> guy who
>> catches 20 kills only #19 and 20 and then goes home.
>
>> You have to agree this follows from your reasoning above.
>
>> Is the guy who c&r's 20 and goes home a 'pure' c&r guy?
>Huh ? The guy C&R -ed 20 fish in a 7% mortality area...he
>killed a couple whether he saw their slow agonizing death
>or not...he KILLED A COUPLE and THEY ROTTED, THEY WASTED.
>Mr. Puritan WASTED a couple of fish...THE BASTARS !!!!
>This is JUST AS BAD AS BUBBA throwing away some from the freezer.
Bubba's fish end up in the land fill while Mr "releases his 20 and goes home"'s
mort or two (if he's just average) end up staying in the river
providing finegrub for caddis larva, stone fly nymphs, crayfish and a bunch
a other creaturesthat trout love to eat. Same with the fish you and ME
take home; we poop ‘emdown into the sewage plant. Nothing like being part of
the natural sewer chain eh Timmy! 8^)
I have a big problem with this waste fetish. Any good fall or winter day and I walk
my favourite streams and they are littered with dead salmon. Stinks to beat
the damn but that's the smell of some fine trout fishing late next summer
when the cutt's come in to gobble the sticklebacks fatting on the plankton
that grew off all those Pacific Ocean nutrients the dead salmon brought to
sterile home streams.
What waste ? Nature abhors a vacuum
>Love ya...
--
>TimW
>Halfordian Golfer
I hear Halford golfed as well as he fished!
Take care and don't laugh to hard old buddy!
Ralph H
>> it in the mouth.
>
>Just don't mouth it in the....sounds of George Carlin, deleted
>for our sensitive viewers...
>
>> I am not a 'pure c&r guy'. I also wish you'd define this term.
>
>> What isn't pure c&r and how is it better than pure c&r?
>
>Really a core question. Thanks for asking it.
>
>Pure C&R is pure mandated C&R regulations where the mortality
>incidental to this C&R is equaivalent to the desirable mortality
>necessary to maintain a healthy and normal population of fish.
So if the mortality associated with c&r is less than desirable
mortality - whatever that is - then it isn't pure c&r?
Ralph H
Mike Uetz
snipped
> What is the point of maintaining a fishery if not to harvest the
> steady supply of golf balls, count me out. We don't raise
> cows for pets that we can beat on, and we certainly should
> not take that position on animals in the wild.
>
Really? So if you can't eat them, fuggem all and bulldoze the place?
I keep trying to explain that by maintaining a habitat fit for trout you
have to protect much more than just the fish.
Mike
Robert Golder
In article <5fkd28$hfg$1...@orb.direct.ca>, heid...@direct.ca (Ralph H)
wrote:
> In article <331D98...@rof.net>, Moe Skeeter <twa...@rof.net> says:
> >Ahhh...I see...C&R justified because it hastens the process of
> >rot. Now there is a damned good argument...I'll have to go and
> >contemplate the #14 renegade on this one...
> No No Tim, my point (which I'm sure most others got if you did not),
> was that the c&r mort Mr Purist leaves on the river bottom stays
> as part of the river's nutrient 'inventory'
The sad part is that Tim _did_ seem to understand the points I was making a
few days ago regarding the interrelationships of natural mortality and
angling mortality, and how the issue of mortality relates to freshwater
stream ecology. It would seem that I was too optimistic in this
assessment.
All fish are going to die someday. There is a natural mortality rate; fish
are dying at a given rate over a given period of time. Low-level human
impacts, such as C&R angling, may be swallowed up within the natural
mortality numbers. The fish which would have been ambushed, pursued and
eaten by an otter tomorrow is one of the very few which is mortally wounded
by a clumsy C&R angler today. Drifting downstream after release, the fish
is seized and eaten by the otter today. But now this fish has been removed
from the population of fish which is exposed to the risk of natural
mortality for the remainder of the time that we are studying this river tio
assess mortality rates. In this scenario, if you eliminated all fishing,
you might actually increase the natural mortality rate. The net result in
this scenario would be no overall change in rates.
Tim's comment about C&R supposedly being justified "because it hastens the
process of rot" does raise an interesting point. So-called "rot" is not a
bad thing. As any ecologist can tell you, the transport of nutrients
throughout an aquatic ecosystem is essential. Catch-and-kill does indeed
remove nutrients from the river, and from the cycle of life within that
river, so I suppose C&K could potentially be criticized on this basis. But
unlike Tim, I'm not about to get on a soapbox over a hypothesis, as though
it were the One True Path of fly fishing.
Bob Golder rgo...@mbl.edu
Woods Hole, MA USA
Moe Skeeter
Ralph H wrote:
[rip !]
> if you want to reduce this to religion that's fine. You worship in your
> temple I can worship in mine. There are plenty of lakes rivers and oceans
> where you can catch and kill: many many more than waters you must release
> all your catch.
There are less and less opportunities for quality fishing Ralph.
There are not *plenty*. Not here anyway. Colorado will be boasting
a population of 4,000,000 by 2000.
It is shrinking, shrinking...
Where can we hunt and where can we fish ? God if I can not
hike in somewhere at least and bonk a brookie and eat it...
> >What is the point of maintaining a fishery if not to harvest the
> >fish...? What exactly are we conserving ?[snip].
>
> Oh gee some of think the fish themselves have a value. I remember
> some post by you urging a boycott of Oregon as they wouldn't cooperate with
> a plan to release water levels to enhance conditions for an endangered
> species of squawfish. You plannin' on fishing these babies Timmy?
The sqawfish issue had nothing to do with oregon. I urged a boycott
of Oregon because of extreme prejudice by the flyfishing community
there against all other fisherman. Sort of a "Rod Supremicy" issue.
> >This is JUST AS BAD AS BUBBA throwing away some from the freezer.
> Bubba's fish end up in the land fill while Mr "releases his 20 and goes home"'s
> mort or two (if he's just average) end up staying in the river
> providing finegrub for caddis larva, stone fly nymphs, crayfish and a bunch
> a other creaturesthat trout love to eat. Same with the fish you and ME
> take home; we poop ‘emdown into the sewage plant. Nothing like being part of
> the natural sewer chain eh Timmy! 8^)
Oh Ralph, Ralph, Ralph...
The only pooop around here is that completely silly argument.
The flesh of the wild fish gives me enormous muscles and a huge brain.
> I have a big problem with this waste fetish. Any good fall or winter day and I walk
> my favourite streams and they are littered with dead salmon. Stinks to beat
> the damn but that's the smell of some fine trout fishing late next summer
> when the cutt's come in to gobble the sticklebacks fatting on the plankton
> that grew off all those Pacific Ocean nutrients the dead salmon brought to
> sterile home streams.
> What waste ? Nature abhors a vacuum
Ahhh...I see...C&R justified because it hastens the process of
rot. Now there is a damned good argument...I'll have to go and
contemplate the #14 renegade on this one...
> I hear Halford golfed as well as he fished!
He was probably an anal grammarian as well.
> Take care and don't laugh to hard old buddy!
You have to laugh. Above all, you have to laugh.
--
TimW
Halfordian Golfer
Moe Skeeter
Mike Uetz wrote:
>
> snipped
> > What is the point of maintaining a fishery if not to harvest the
> > steady supply of golf balls, count me out. We don't raise
> > cows for pets that we can beat on, and we certainly should
> > not take that position on animals in the wild.
> >
> snipped
>
> Really? So if you can't eat them, fuggem all and bulldoze the place?
Of course not.
> I keep trying to explain that by maintaining a habitat fit for trout you
> have to protect much more than just the fish.
Who is arguing this ?
--
TimW
Halfordian Golfer
Moe Skeeter
Ralph H wrote:
>
> In article <331C44...@rof.net>, Moe Skeeter <twa...@rof.net> says:
> >
> >Ralph H wrote:
> >> Secondly when I fish I don't kick animal but (usually) prick
> >> it in the mouth.
> >
> >Just don't mouth it in the....sounds of George Carlin, deleted
> >for our sensitive viewers...
> >
> >> I am not a 'pure c&r guy'. I also wish you'd define this term.
> >
> >> What isn't pure c&r and how is it better than pure c&r?
> >
> >Really a core question. Thanks for asking it.
> >
> >Pure C&R is pure mandated C&R regulations where the mortality
> >incidental to this C&R is equaivalent to the desirable mortality
> >necessary to maintain a healthy and normal population of fish.
>
> So if the mortality associated with c&r is less than desirable
> mortality - whatever that is - then it isn't pure c&r?
>
Could you restate this. It did not compile for me...
TimW
Ralph H
>
>> >This is JUST AS BAD AS BUBBA throwing away some from the freezer.
>> Bubba's fish end up in the land fill while Mr "releases his 20 and goes home"'s
>> mort or two (if he's just average) end up staying in the river
>> providing finegrub for caddis larva, stone fly nymphs, crayfish and a bunch
>> a other creaturesthat trout love to eat. Same with the fish you and ME
>> take home; we poop ‘emdown into the sewage plant. Nothing like being part of
>> the natural sewer chain eh Timmy! 8^)
>
>Oh Ralph, Ralph, Ralph...
>
>The only pooop around here is that completely silly argument.
>
>The flesh of the wild fish gives me enormous muscles and a huge brain.
Check again; it doesn't seem to be working on the grey matter! 8^)
>
>> I have a big problem with this waste fetish. Any good fall or winter day and I walk
>> my favourite streams and they are littered with dead salmon. Stinks to beat
>> the damn but that's the smell of some fine trout fishing late next summer
>> when the cutt's come in to gobble the sticklebacks fatting on the plankton
>> that grew off all those Pacific Ocean nutrients the dead salmon brought to
>> sterile home streams.
>
>> What waste ? Nature abhors a vacuum
>
>Ahhh...I see...C&R justified because it hastens the process of
>rot. Now there is a damned good argument...I'll have to go and
>contemplate the #14 renegade on this one...
>
Oh that's where all that fish flesh has gone; hoping it's going to a
#2 soon eh?
8^)
No No Tim, my point (which I'm sure most others got if you did not),
was that the c&r mort Mr Purist leaves on the river bottom stays
as part of the river's nutrient 'inventory'
the fish Bubba tosses in garbage and the ones you and I eat end up
somewhere far far away!
Ralph H
>--
>TimW
>Halfordian Golfer
Robert Golder
In article <331EF5...@rof.net>, Moe Skeeter <twa...@rof.net> wrote:
> No question about it. My contention is simply dat, ol' TBone Walker
> gets a few, da bugs gets a few and da otter gets a few...day am enuf
> to go 'round sho 'nuf...
You're a class act, Tim. Nice blackface make-up. It doesn't disguise the
fact that you know nothing about stream ecology.
> in reality though the amount of fish flesh
> contributing naturally to this cycle is incredibly small in a high
> altitude freestoner
ALL nutrient sources are "incredibly small" in low-productivity streams.
The inportance of each source is correspondingly quite high. But as you're
not listening, why should I explain further?
> Where does them diatom come from, anyway ?
Pass the watermelon, funny man.
Moe Skeeter
Robert Golder wrote:
>
> In article <5fkd28$hfg$1...@orb.direct.ca>, heid...@direct.ca (Ralph H)
> wrote:
>
>
> > >Ahhh...I see...C&R justified because it hastens the process of
> > >rot. Now there is a damned good argument...I'll have to go and
> > >contemplate the #14 renegade on this one...
>
> > was that the c&r mort Mr Purist leaves on the river bottom stays
> > as part of the river's nutrient 'inventory'
>
Ahh...the object of and product of pure C&R is otter and bug shit !
We can all agree on this.
"Handle 'em rough lefty, I saw a racoon family down around the bend.."
The circle of life does include the consumption of the flesh of fish.
No question about it. My contention is simply dat, ol' TBone Walker
gets a few, da bugs gets a few and da otter gets a few...day am enuf
to go 'round sho 'nuf...in reality though the amount of fish flesh
contributing naturally to this cycle is incredibly small in a high
altitude freestoner (might be different for Ralphies sea runs).
Where does them diatom come from, anyway ?
--
TimW
Halfordian Golfer
Ralph H
The natural mortality argument here is simple; a weakened fish taken by a predator
means a stronger fish will not be taken by that same predator. It makes
sense day to day.
Ie salmon fishing here on the coast. As the Double Hander points out we
have a large Seal population. A seal that takes a released salmon will not
be taking another salmon that hasn't been caught - so there is a balancing
out day to day.
However if seal populations increase will there be a net negative impact?
Ralph H
(ps what we really need is a good run of great white sharks to eat them
seals - water's too cold to swim here anyway!)
Moe Skeeter
> >The flesh of the wild fish gives me enormous muscles and a huge brain.
> Check again; it doesn't seem to be working on the grey matter! 8^)
I was quoting Hans and Frans.
> No No Tim, my point (which I'm sure most others got if you did not),
> was that the c&r mort Mr Purist leaves on the river bottom stays
> as part of the river's nutrient 'inventory'
No Mr. Purist ignores his mortality completely and this is really
sad.
> the fish Bubba tosses in garbage and the ones you and I eat end up
> somewhere far far away!
Bubba is throwing away less and less these days, that's fer damned
sure.
> >TimW
> >Halfordian Golfer
--
TimW
Halfordian Golfer
David Delacey
On 6 Mar 1997, Jim B. Powlesland wrote:
>
> 1) "he killed a couple": 20 fish / 7% mortality = 1.4 fish, not a
> "couple".
Hey! It's that guy with 2.2 kids! Hi, Jim!
Mike Uetz
> > snipped
> >
> > Really? So if you can't eat them, fuggem all and bulldoze the place?
>
> Of course not.
>
> > I keep trying to explain that by maintaining a habitat fit for trout
you
> > have to protect much more than just the fish.
>
> Who is arguing this ?
>
> --
> TimW
> Halfordian Golfer
>
In countless scenarios in my local stomping grounds that is what your hard
and fast rules would result in.
There are too many people here to be able to selectively harvest (3,500,000
in a 100 mile radius). If it weren't for the C&R practice there would be
nothing left of the fishery. Closing stream down would only result in
short openings.
Without a reason for fishermen to protect these streams (ie. having an
opportunity to catch fish) the fat cats would come in with the bulldozers.
Faster than you could false cast they would have a set of condos on the
upper bank and a golf course in the valley.
Ralph H
In article <01bc2a94$aa0f7f40$3f94cfcd@vip240>, "Mike Uetz" <M.U...@aci.on.ca> says:
>
>
>
>There are too many people here to be able to selectively harvest (3,500,000
>in a 100 mile radius). If it weren't for the C&R practice there would be
>nothing left of the fishery. Closing stream down would only result in
>short openings.
>
this seems an obvious situation where anyone concerned with the goal of
a maintainable fishery for a large number of people would have to consider
catch and release management. How can any stream survive any harvest? how
could a lottery based offer anything to any but a luckly few (better to
have the luck of being born rich I say - if I have about a 5% chance of
being able to fish when I want I am not going to bother; long term the sport
and many fisheries will die as no one will care)
But even where the population is low c&r may be better than selective harvest
I cite British Columbia's trial 'fallow' streams strategy of the early 80's.
Many rivers and creeks had been fished out by local based anglers. lowering
limits hadn't improved the fishery. The locals rejected c&r proposals; they
wanted to catch and eat fish. Streams (Yahk Creek comes to mind) were
closed for 3 or 4 years to allow populations to recover and reopened with
modest bags of 4 fish a day. Within weeks they were fished out again.
The experiment was a failure.
Ralph H
Moe Skeeter
Jim B. Powlesland wrote:
>
> In article <331C46...@rof.net>, Moe Skeeter <twa...@rof.net> wrote:
>
> >Huh ? The guy C&R -ed 20 fish in a 7% mortality area...he
> >killed a couple whether he saw their slow agonizing death
> >or not...he KILLED A COUPLE and THEY ROTTED, THEY WASTED.
>
>
> 1) "he killed a couple": 20 fish / 7% mortality = 1.4 fish, not a
> number of 20.
I rounded up (I'm a fisherman)
You conclude zero.
Good grief.
It is a safe enough bet that there is no such thing as 0% mortality
in C&R. Noone, noone at all claims 0% mortality. The number
approaches 0% under ideal conditions by experts, but it can never,
ever be 0% Jim.
> 2) the fish automatically have a "slow agonizing death": chances are > dying
> and wounded fish are eaten by other fish long before they expire.
As opposed to a quick rap with a priest ? Slow and agonizing are
subjective terms and therefore relative.
> 3) the fish "rotted": chances are the fish was probably eaten by other
> fish long before decomposition set in.
The very definition of rot is that something is consumed by another
organism.
> 4) fish that die in a watershed are "wasted": nothing in nature is
> wasted; everything is recycled.
Fine. Why don't you practice Catch-Bonk-Release then ?
--
TimW
Halfordian Golfer
Moe Skeeter
************************************************************
BE WARNED GENTLE READER OF PROFANITY OF EMOTION CONTAINED
HEREIN BROUGHT ON BY OUTRAGEOUS AND SUPERCILIOUS CLAIMS OF ONE
************************************************************
Robert Golder wrote:
>
> In article <331EF5...@rof.net>, Moe Skeeter <twa...@rof.net> wrote:
>
> > No question about it. My contention is simply dat, ol' TBone Walker
> > gets a few, da bugs gets a few and da otter gets a few...day am enuf
> > to go 'round sho 'nuf...
>
> You're a class act, Tim. Nice blackface make-up. It doesn't disguise the
> fact that you know nothing about stream ecology.
Jesus Bob.
My post had not a single racist color remark or connotation anywhere in
it. Just poor ol' Tbone Walker wantin' to catch a few fish, maybe
with Otis if Andy would let him out of jail...what sick component
of your twisted academic brain made this a racist comment ?!?!!?!
I am outraged.
If your perfect little scientific world knows so fucking much about
stream ecology then why will Colorado be dumping 3.3 million fish
with whirling disease this year ?
A little common sense would go a long way here.
I have a pretty good idea what role the sun plays and what exactly
the insects eat and what exactly eats the insects and that is
precisely why I am a flyfisherman. I know the role of the stonefly
in converting leaf fall into energy in the east and I can identify
most of the blobs and critters that I can strain from my local rivers
and streams.
But to be told be his almighty fucking Bob fucking Golder that
I am a racist and know *nothing* about stream ecology only tells
me that you have exhausted your legitimate responses in this
discussion which only proves to me that pure C&R can not be
justified even by The World's Leading Authority on the subject, Bob
Fucking Golder.
> > in reality though the amount of fish flesh
> > contributing naturally to this cycle is incredibly small in a high
> > altitude freestoner
>
> ALL nutrient sources are "incredibly small" in low-productivity streams.
> The inportance of each source is correspondingly quite high. But as you're
> not listening, why should I explain further?
>
> > Where does them diatom come from, anyway ?
Dammit Bob just what is your fucking problem ?
Look at the above...I state a fact and then you come along and
confirm the fact and the you call me racist and ignorant about
stream ecology. This is beyond belief to me.
Why are you so insecure Bob ?
> Pass the watermelon, funny man.
That you have managed to turn this into a racist thread makes
me sick.
Insulting me means nothing at all...but "playing the race card,
Marcia", is revolting.
Bye. You have lost all credibility with me.
--
TimW
Halfordian Golfer
Mr. G.
snipped:
>
> I find it interesting you turn this into a numbers game. So following the logic
> above the fellow who c&r's 20 fish and quits for the day is more ethical
> than the guy who catches 2 and then packs up and doubly more than the guy who
> catches 20 kills only #19 and 20 and then goes home.
>
> You have to agree this follows from your reasoning above.
>
> Is the guy who c&r's 20 and goes home a 'pure' c&r guy?
> >
>
RALPH? Do you suppose if they Catch & Choke the first two and Catch &
Squirt the next 18, in a days fishing, this makes him a 'Fishing
Squirt?'
;)
Mr. G.