Ouch!

http://washingtonlakes.com/ReportComment.aspx?id=3997&lid=7337&t=3

why on earth do people brag about killing wild Steel? moron...

Reading through those comments, it blows me away how many bonkers are still among us. So much ignorance, it's unbelievable.

WOW,crazy to see this kind of stuff going on this day and age.Speechless.Good luck,
SZ

Who runs that website ? I would have a site get together and chilliwack half them.

They vhad a booth at the sportsman show. Could've chilliwacked them then.

Pretty lame....
its funny how many people still think it ok to kill wild steelhead big or small... how much you want to bet that that individual will still fish for the wilds and probably keep his next one! Pretty fukken lame with all those on that site thinking its ok, and backing the killers motive...

Most of my favorite attempts to rationalize bonking wild steelhead are in the comments somewhere. My favorite one today is, "better you than a seal or an Indian net." It's comforting to know that my fellow sportsmen are fully aware that we are in a race with the other user groups, not to mention natural preditors, to see who can kill the last wild fish. Without their keen grasp of what's really going on out there, we might be in danger of losing that race.

Sadly, the "If I don't kill them, someone else will" mentality is all over our rivers and the ocean. Of course, I think it is noteworthy that the management strategy the co-managers use validates that sentiment. Until that paradigm changes, wild fish will continue to be no more than a commodity to be traded.

What actions would need to be taken to change the regs and make it illegal to kill any nates? My kid is currently looking for a worthy Boy Scout Eagle Project. He is an avid steelheader and hates the thought of anyone not releasing native fish. If it's a matter of signatures and legislation I'm sure there are alot of people that would be willing to work toward making this happen. Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.

I find it interesting that so much disdain is directed at a person who followed the law. As far as we know the fish was legally caught and he was within his right to keep that fish. If we don't like it then change the law. In the meantime we should respect his right to keep that fish. I wouldn't as I think fiberglass mounts are far superior to skin mounts, but who are we to judge as long as he followed the law. I have more of a problem with lawbreakers.

The nets are killing far more natives than are fishermen. We have people on this forum that are killing far more natives each year than the fisherman who keeps one a year. All those natives that are C&R don't survive. I hear the argument that the difference is is that those fish weren't bonked and at least had a chance, but dead is dead. Whether you bonked it or released it to die.

Just sayin'.....

The tribes are following the law, too.

Fish on...

Todd

+1,000,000, pretty bad that the people backing him get to post but if you have a different opinion, keep it to yourself.

That site is a complete joke, just like most of the people on it and especially the owner...

The fact it is legal doesn't make it ethical if he is aware of the concern for wild stocks. Not caring, or being apathetic is equally disappointing. So, he defends his position with an excuse when he acknowledges such a fish is rare, valued and half of it was still wasted. There is no reason to respect his actions if we really believe he is doing wrong.


Pitiful and slovenly IMO.




Redd-D

Even if it is true that PP members who share a common belief that wild stocks should be preserved and only represent a minority (?) it doesn't discount the validity of the cause. In a room of a hundred followers, one independent thinker can still win every argument. While it is currently legal to retain the fish, that just means the law hasn't been over-turned YET and raising awareness is our obligation.

" The tribes are following the law, too. "


So your point is Todd?

My point is that if you want to say "he's within his rights to kill a wild fish", then you also cannot argue with the tribes, commercial fishermen, timber companies, water companies, development companies, power companies and road builders who are all legally destroying the habitat or catching the fish that are degrading the fish runs.

Fish on...

Todd

Nope FP and nope again. What is moral to one can be very immoral to another dependant upon one's beliefs and values. The constant of any society governed by law is if you feel a law is unjust or immoral you get it changed be it right down to civil disobedience to do so. Don't like the law? Put your [Bleeeeep!] on the line and get it changed as that is how one participates in a democratic society. The concept that the average citizen is corrupt or immoral for abiding by and complying with the laws of the land gets little traction in most of society.

T from my view that would be correct. To attack those who legally conduct themselves is not the correct or even effective way to address a issue. YOU GO AFTER THE SOB's who wrote the laws. They are the cause NOT the citizen conducting themselves in a legal manner.

Your signature line is fitting.



Just because an act is legal doesn't mean it is ethical. Simplified, that means just because we CAN, it doesn't mean we SHOULD and criticising those that DO is certainly reasonable.

legal or not, its selfish... people that kill fish like that do it for one reason, and one reason only, to feel better about their inept fishing abilities... obviously he didnt need it to eat, as he gave a bunch away, and honestly, i think he posted it because:
1 he doesnt care about the fish

2 he did it to piss people off because he doesnt care about the fish

3 fully knows that they are in a bind, but doesnt care about the fish

4 is selfish, and doesnt care about the fish...

It amazes me that some people, adults even, don't seem to grasp this concept.

Why are those things mutually exclusive? It is both the law and the citizen choosing to kill the fish that are the problem.

As an example, it is my legal right to call you all sorts of nasty names, fart whenever I'm in your general vicinity, and generally behave like an arsehole. That doesn't make it *wrong* for you to criticize such legal behavior.