|
For animal lovers...
|
For animal lovers...
On 5/5/12 11:44 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2012 10:37:50 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 5/5/12 10:30 AM, wrote: On Sat, 5 May 2012 08:50:05 -0400, wrote: In , says... You do understand that a very significant number of "released" fish die from the experience? Actually, treated correctly, most do NOT die and most don't hardly suffer at all. Fish don't have the same neurology network that other animals do. I bet PETA would disagree with you. So? I am just pointing out the incongruities in "I"'s argument He started out saying he was always catch and release, then he said he eats the bass he catches, now he says the fish doesn't even feel a hook in his cheek. That is denial. Who "he"? |
For animal lovers...
On 5/5/12 6:42 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 5/5/2012 1:40 AM, wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2012 19:28:55 -0400, X ` Man wrote: Bass fishermen are different, nobody wants to eat a freshwater bass anyway, and artificials are perfect for them... Other fishermen catch fish you want to eat, and they don't do as well with artificials. I suppose you are gonna' tell us you never took a fish, never killed a fish, and never used natural bait, right??? Pffffttt. I suppose you will. Lots of people eat freshwater bass, jerkwater. Not serious bass fishermen. That is the old fish story isn't it? The largest recorded large mouth was reportedly caught by an old woman who had it weighed at a local store. When the word got out about it and the record people tracked her down, they were just finishing it up ... or so the legend goes. After all it is a fish story. None of the guys I fish fresh water with keep a bass. They will catch a mess of specks if they want a fish fry. On the other hand all of the salt water people I know are in the fillet and release club. Of course nobody eats fresh water Bass, he just said it, it's what he does... "Of course nobody eats fresh water Bass..." Yet another example of your not knowing anything real. Plenty of people eat freshwater largemouth bass. |
For animal lovers...
|
For animal lovers...
On 5/5/12 1:47 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:01:15 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:36:59 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: This is more the result of man killing the predators and then growing great food crops for the deer. A lot more deer than the natural world would support. That is true. There are far more deer in the US, particularly the east, than there were when the Mayflower landed. Crops are a real gravy train for them but it turns out that they also thrive on ornamental plants in suburbia. I am still not sure why they were on the Whitehurst freeway that night but I assume it was just a short cut from the yummy food up on Foxhall road and the parkland in Foggy Bottom. We have a herd of at least six, that I saw last year, roaming our damn neighborhood. I am a long way from the 'country'. The anti-hunter ideas of 'saving the wildlife' are pure bull****. Africa is a different story, but we're not talking about shooting elephants and tigers. I expect those who talk about shooting 'fish in a barrel' have never tried to hit a quail or pheasant on the fly or gone rabbit hunting with a .22 (and brought home dinner). It takes a real man to shoot a tiny bird like a quail. |
For animal lovers...
In article ,
says... On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:01:15 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:36:59 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: This is more the result of man killing the predators and then growing great food crops for the deer. A lot more deer than the natural world would support. That is true. There are far more deer in the US, particularly the east, than there were when the Mayflower landed. Crops are a real gravy train for them but it turns out that they also thrive on ornamental plants in suburbia. I am still not sure why they were on the Whitehurst freeway that night but I assume it was just a short cut from the yummy food up on Foxhall road and the parkland in Foggy Bottom. We have a herd of at least six, that I saw last year, roaming our damn neighborhood. I am a long way from the 'country'. The anti-hunter ideas of 'saving the wildlife' are pure bull****. Africa is a different story, but we're not talking about shooting elephants and tigers. I expect those who talk about shooting 'fish in a barrel' have never tried to hit a quail or pheasant on the fly or gone rabbit hunting with a .22 (and brought home dinner). No, it's not bull****. My uncle's father, who lived to be 99 used to tell me stories when I was a kid. He was a son of a farmer, then a farmer in the middle of no where. He never saw a deer until he was in his 30's because before they started regulating the hunt, they were almost wiped out. |
For animal lovers...
On Fri, 04 May 2012 18:03:47 -0400, Oscar wrote:
On 5/4/2012 4:22 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 5/4/12 4:07 PM, wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:54:33 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 5/4/12 3:47 PM, wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:17:34 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 5/4/12 2:52 PM, wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:31:00 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 5/4/12 1:09 PM, wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an elk or a moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high powered rifle and scope. How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one of the ballyhoo you are trolling? The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you did was reel it in. Well, it is less sporting because fishing for big pelagics is a lot more dangerous than shooting a moose or an elk, but I'm not a fan of that sort of "hunting," either. It is basically the same as the canned hunt you are talking about on a game ranch and I am not sure where the danger is ... unless the boat sinks. I wasn't making a comparison to a canned hunt but to "regular" hunting, and if you've never been aboard a boat targeting 500-pound fish, you have no idea of the dangers involved...that have nothing to do with the boat sinking. What dangers? We are not talking about Alaskan crab fishermen here. How many recreational fishermen are killed every year? (tossing out the ones who just get drunk and fall out of the boat) You mean, other than being pulled overboard by a fish, being bitten by a pelagic, falling and hitting your head, arm strain, neck strain, back strain, being impaled with large fish hooks, stabbed by knives, sun poisoning, and heatstroke, among other things? I am sure that pales in comparison to the number of hunters who fall out of tree stands, drown in freezing water, get attacked by the animal they are hunting, get bit by snakes, get shot by other hunters or just shoot themselves. They still have all of those exposure risks, knife injury risks and strain injuries trying to drag that elk out of the woods. I suppose we could get some kind of numbers but I don't care that much because they are probably meaningless. You are still ignoring all the fishermen who are simply bottom fishing off their dock. (probably analogous to shooting squirrels off your porch) Indeed, I was discussing big game fishing, since you mentioned sportfish boats, tuna, ballyhoo and mates. Oh, I wouldn't shoot a squirrel or any other animal. Man is animal. It's OK to kill baby humans. |
For animal lovers...
On 5/5/12 6:22 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 18:03:47 -0400, wrote: On 5/4/2012 4:22 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 5/4/12 4:07 PM, wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:54:33 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 5/4/12 3:47 PM, wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:17:34 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 5/4/12 2:52 PM, wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:31:00 -0400, X ` Man wrote: On 5/4/12 1:09 PM, wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:39:56 -0400, X ` Man I don't do much fishing anymore. I do, however, think it is more sporting than hunting. There's nothing sporting about seeing an elk or a moose a few hundred yards away and then shooting it with a high powered rifle and scope. How is that any less "sporting" than sitting in the lounge of your sport fish, sipping a cold drink, waiting for a tuna to hit one of the ballyhoo you are trolling? The mate probably rigged the bait and struck the fish. All you did was reel it in. Well, it is less sporting because fishing for big pelagics is a lot more dangerous than shooting a moose or an elk, but I'm not a fan of that sort of "hunting," either. It is basically the same as the canned hunt you are talking about on a game ranch and I am not sure where the danger is ... unless the boat sinks. I wasn't making a comparison to a canned hunt but to "regular" hunting, and if you've never been aboard a boat targeting 500-pound fish, you have no idea of the dangers involved...that have nothing to do with the boat sinking. What dangers? We are not talking about Alaskan crab fishermen here. How many recreational fishermen are killed every year? (tossing out the ones who just get drunk and fall out of the boat) You mean, other than being pulled overboard by a fish, being bitten by a pelagic, falling and hitting your head, arm strain, neck strain, back strain, being impaled with large fish hooks, stabbed by knives, sun poisoning, and heatstroke, among other things? I am sure that pales in comparison to the number of hunters who fall out of tree stands, drown in freezing water, get attacked by the animal they are hunting, get bit by snakes, get shot by other hunters or just shoot themselves. They still have all of those exposure risks, knife injury risks and strain injuries trying to drag that elk out of the woods. I suppose we could get some kind of numbers but I don't care that much because they are probably meaningless. You are still ignoring all the fishermen who are simply bottom fishing off their dock. (probably analogous to shooting squirrels off your porch) Indeed, I was discussing big game fishing, since you mentioned sportfish boats, tuna, ballyhoo and mates. Oh, I wouldn't shoot a squirrel or any other animal. Man is animal. It's OK to kill baby humans. Once they are born and actual baby humans, conservatives don't give a **** about them. "“Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.” ~William E. Gladstone |
For animal lovers...
On Sat, 5 May 2012 16:45:18 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On Fri, 04 May 2012 13:01:15 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 4 May 2012 09:36:59 -0700, "Califbill" wrote: This is more the result of man killing the predators and then growing great food crops for the deer. A lot more deer than the natural world would support. That is true. There are far more deer in the US, particularly the east, than there were when the Mayflower landed. Crops are a real gravy train for them but it turns out that they also thrive on ornamental plants in suburbia. I am still not sure why they were on the Whitehurst freeway that night but I assume it was just a short cut from the yummy food up on Foxhall road and the parkland in Foggy Bottom. We have a herd of at least six, that I saw last year, roaming our damn neighborhood. I am a long way from the 'country'. The anti-hunter ideas of 'saving the wildlife' are pure bull****. Africa is a different story, but we're not talking about shooting elephants and tigers. I expect those who talk about shooting 'fish in a barrel' have never tried to hit a quail or pheasant on the fly or gone rabbit hunting with a .22 (and brought home dinner). No, it's not bull****. My uncle's father, who lived to be 99 used to tell me stories when I was a kid. He was a son of a farmer, then a farmer in the middle of no where. He never saw a deer until he was in his 30's because before they started regulating the hunt, they were almost wiped out. Kevin, you just made the case for today's hunting laws. They bring back the animals. Now, there needs to be more hunting to thin the population enough such that the rest of the herds can remain healthy. Thanks for your insightful post. Well done. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com