I think RT is correct here.

Here is the definition of the word hypocrite from Encarta:
Somebody feigning high principles: somebody who gives a false appearance of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings

To keep it connected to fishing, a hypocrite might be someone who says he believes in releasing all improperly hooked fish, condemns others for not doing it, then goes out and keeps a snagged fish. Can you correctly call somebody a hypocrite because he refuses to keep a snagged fish, but runs a red light now and then? I think that presumes that person has admirable principals, beliefs or feelings about public safety at intersections. Not necessarily the case. In fact, he may just admit that he runs a red light now and then.

To call someone a hypocrite because it is possible that they keep snagged fish after saying they don’t is presuming the worst of an otherwise “innocent until proven guilty” person. You pretty much have to know if they lie about keeping snagged fish don’t you? Otherwise, you are simply reverting to personal attacks.

There is something wrong with keeping snagged fish. It is against the rules. Does it happen? Hell yes. There will always be the breakers of rules for whatever reason, economic or just plain disregard for the rules. There is certainly nothing wrong disagreeing with Dave Jackson’s thinking and finding it flawed based on “admirable principles, beliefs or feelings” as defined. Doesn’t mean the guy is a hypocrite at all, unless you get his photo pitching buzz bombs at Big Creek.

Dave, Don't be surprised by the reaction. There are some very stong feelings and concerns about the health and future of this resouce.

If you keep a fish "accidentally" buttoned foul, it is against the rules. Plain and simple.

[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Pitch Pocket ]