http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=3530

The article indicates this fisherman caught some heat for bringing it
home.
The boat captain said it was the fisherman's choice.
Seems to me the captain gets to set the rules.
????

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=3530

The article indicates this fisherman caught some heat for bringing it
home.
The boat captain said it was the fisherman's choice.
Seems to me the captain gets to set the rules.
????

--Vic


It would have been more "manly" to let it go...alive.

On Jul 8, 6:13*pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=3530

The article indicates this fisherman caught some heat for bringing it
home.
The boat captain said it was the fisherman's choice.
Seems to me the captain gets to set the rules.
????

--Vic

It would have been more "manly" to let it go...alive.

""It's wonderful news to hear of the existence of large breeding
animals, but from a conservation point of view, it was a shame the
shark was not released alive."

what was he supposed to do? release it when it's dead?

I think it should have gone to market and fed a lot of people.

People eat fish, including sharks, even biggun's

That's not he only fresh water shark in existance.

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:02:33 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=3530

The article indicates this fisherman caught some heat for bringing it
home.
The boat captain said it was the fisherman's choice.
Seems to me the captain gets to set the rules.
????

Well, let's put it this way.

The Captain is in charge of the boat. Which means that with respect to
anything that happens on the boat, he sets the rules.

So given that as a fact, it would seem that if the Captain said to let
it go, that would be it and the fish would be released.

However, and this is the sticky part, the client also has a right to
the fish. He has paid the Captain for the use of the boat and the
Captain's expertise for the express purpose of catching a fish or
multiple fish.

The only way that a Captain can affect some kind of outcome or
decision is if the client or boat is in danger - then the client does
not have any part of the decision process.

Based on the description of the catch, it was the client's decision to
keep or let the fish go - that may be the rules in that part of the
world - that I can't say.

There's also a problem with records. Most records, including IGFA
records, are landed records - meaning that they are brought ashore and
weighed on a certified scale, the rig is certified as legal,
statements are signed and witnessed, forms submitted along with
pictures, etc. So that's a problem too.

In my experience, I always explained the rules ahead of time - WAY
ahead of time. On my boats, market fish were the keepers - any trophy
fish was to be released as (1) the larger fish are almost always
breeders and female and (2) a picture of the fish along side the boat,
a certificate by me would be issued and I have a contact who does high
quality replica mounts for a very reasonable price.

Now having said that, what I would have done is try to convince the
client not to land the fish - just settle for one hell of a story,
some pictures and maybe offer to pay for a mount if that's what the
client wanted.

Reminds me of the Oak Harbor Shark Tournament a few years ago. Two
guys hooked up with a 1,300 lb Tiger shark off Martha's. They had no
chance to win the tournament because they couldn't make it back to Oak
Harbor in time to weigh in, but they took the shark anyway for the
record. I was out there the day it happened and to tell the truth, I
felt ****ed off that they took this beautiful predator out of the
ecosystem just for the record.

That was bull**** in my book.

One final thought - we, and I mean all tournament fishermen, need to
reevaluate the landed tournaments and go towards the X series
billfish and shark tournament model - on board judges who film,
document, measure and tag all catches which are then released back
into the eco system.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :)

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:02:11 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Jul 8, 6:13*pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=3530

The article indicates this fisherman caught some heat for bringing it
home.
The boat captain said it was the fisherman's choice.
Seems to me the captain gets to set the rules.
????

--Vic

It would have been more "manly" to let it go...alive.

""It's wonderful news to hear of the existence of large breeding
animals, but from a conservation point of view, it was a shame the
shark was not released alive."

what was he supposed to do? release it when it's dead?

I think it should have gone to market and fed a lot of people.

People eat fish, including sharks, even biggun's

That's not he only fresh water shark in existance.

Not the point. That fish was most likely a female and most likely
still breeding.

You want to keep fish like that in the water and producing more little
fishies.

On Jul 8, 7:13*pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=3530

The article indicates this fisherman caught some heat for bringing it
home.
The boat captain said it was the fisherman's choice.
Seems to me the captain gets to set the rules.
????

--Vic

It would have been more "manly" to let it go...alive.

Just like the 12 foot Sturgeon 3 guys wrestled in near Goderich,
Ontario. They are FORCED to let it go, by law. It did swim away.

On Jul 8, 7:02*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=3530

The article indicates this fisherman caught some heat for bringing it
home.
The boat captain said it was the fisherman's choice.
Seems to me the captain gets to set the rules.
????

--Vic

Is that Loogy in the picture?

Scott Dickson wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:13 pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=3530
The article indicates this fisherman caught some heat for bringing it
home.
The boat captain said it was the fisherman's choice.
Seems to me the captain gets to set the rules.
????
--Vic
It would have been more "manly" to let it go...alive.

Just like the 12 foot Sturgeon 3 guys wrestled in near Goderich,
Ontario. They are FORCED to let it go, by law. It did swim away.


I guess I just don't understand fishing or hunting for "trophies." When
I fish to actually catch fish, I go for "table fish," common fish of
ordinary size that aren't so big they've become tough or bad-tasting.
Hell, I don't much like the taste of the sought-after striped bass in
chesapeake bay. I prefer flounder or sea trout.

On Jul 8, 7:21*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:02:11 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:



On Jul 8, 6:13*pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=3530

The article indicates this fisherman caught some heat for bringing it
home.
The boat captain said it was the fisherman's choice.
Seems to me the captain gets to set the rules.
????

--Vic

It would have been more "manly" to let it go...alive.

""It's wonderful news to hear of the existence of large breeding
animals, but from a conservation point of view, it was a shame the
shark was not released alive."

what was he supposed to do? release it when it's dead?

I think it should have gone to market and fed a lot of people.

People eat fish, including *sharks, even biggun's

That's not he only fresh water shark in existance.

Not the point. That fish was most likely a female and most likely
still breeding.

You want to keep fish like that in the water and producing more little
fishies.

Very good Capt. i do appreciat your explaination. and it does make
sens, but please re-note my mis-spelled disclaimer:

"That's not he only fresh water shark in existance. "

i know what you're saying, but I look at it as maybe not as big, that
species isn't endangered, also there's *propably* plenty more where
that came from.

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:36:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Jul 8, 7:21*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:02:11 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:



On Jul 8, 6:13*pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...px?NewsID=3530

The article indicates this fisherman caught some heat for bringing it
home.
The boat captain said it was the fisherman's choice.
Seems to me the captain gets to set the rules.
????

--Vic

It would have been more "manly" to let it go...alive.

""It's wonderful news to hear of the existence of large breeding
animals, but from a conservation point of view, it was a shame the
shark was not released alive."

what was he supposed to do? release it when it's dead?

I think it should have gone to market and fed a lot of people.

People eat fish, including *sharks, even biggun's

That's not he only fresh water shark in existance.

Not the point. That fish was most likely a female and most likely
still breeding.

You want to keep fish like that in the water and producing more little
fishies.

Very good Capt. i do appreciat your explaination. and it does make
sens, but please re-note my mis-spelled disclaimer:

"That's not he only fresh water shark in existance. "

i know what you're saying, but I look at it as maybe not as big, that
species isn't endangered, also there's *propably* plenty more where
that came from.

That's been the thinking about sharks for years.

Turns out, not so much as thought.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06...ce-extinction/