(Before I continue, let me say that I think it is wrong to kill any animal whose species is endangered. I also think that as long as anyone is stringing gill nets across the rivers, all the arguing about C&R vs. C&K is rather moot. From the little I've seen, only about 1 out of 5 people with a rod-n-reel have any clue what they're doing, so they're not much of a hazard to the fish.)

It has always puzzled me why C&R advocates think so highly of themselves WRT preservation of the species. I mean, if you hook a fish that just swam upstream 100 miles, then fight it for 1/2 an hour with a hook stuck in its mouth, do you think it's going to be in any mood to spawn, if it survives at all?

Would you shoot a deer with a bow-n-arrow (carefully, in a non-lethal location), then track it until it is too weak to run, patch up its wound, and send it on its way? Of course not. The deer might not survive. Why do this to fish?

I hear you guys bragging about how you C&R multiple fish per day. Don't you think this induces about the same mortality as the fella that catches one fish, kills it, then goes home?

I know it's a terrific thrill to catch a big fish, but how can you rationalize your treatment of the fish, and then be so inflammatory when someone asks about killing and eating one?

If you really want to protect the species, why not leave them alone?

Thanks, and regards.

Mike
Woodinville