Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Fishsqueezer

  1. Kudu


    Bad form to speculate on someones motives? I'm sorry, but to fully understand ones position it requires an understanding of where they are coming from. Is it bad form for a Democrat to try to understand the basis of a Republican position? How is it possible for you to sway my opinion if there is always the question in my mind of why you want to sway it?


    I will try the common usage thing once more. The common usage of football is the game - not a league. When someone says football they think of the game - not the NFL or AFC. The NFL is not football, it is a league of professional players. The AFC is not football, it is a conference within the NFL. The game is football.


    In the United States, when someone says scouts they think of BSA, not Baden-Powell Scouts or Youthscouts or the British Boy Scouts. Scouts is Boy Scouts of America. Boy is not boy scouts, it is a young man. The common usage of boy is to identify a young male human. America is not boy scouts, that is the country where the organization is located. The common usage of America is to identify the United States of America. In other countries scout may be commonly used to describe youth organizations. The case we are discussing is in the USA, therefore it is the common usage in the USA that is relevant.


    I don't believe I suggested that you could not or should not provide your opinion. The whole purpose of this board is to share opinions and ideas. What I did do was wonder aloud (or technically wonder in print) why you weigh in so heavily against the BSA when I presumed you were not directly involved with BSA. Generally people don't get that vehemently involved unless they have a personal stake in the fight. Again, I was seeking information as to the basis of your position not trying to shut you out.


  2. Kudu


    My apologies for you feeling personally attacked. I'm not exactly sure how my asking "why" questions would be construed as a personal attack though. I merely asked why you presented the "special congressional action" the way you did and why you are so concerned that America gets the same diversity of scouting organizations that you enjoy. I was merely seeking information about why you do or say what you do. If you feel that is a personal attack, then I guess I will have to refrain from asking you questions or seeking information.


    Actually I believe you are incorrect to assert that everywhere in the English speaking world that scouting refers to the B-P game (do you have data to back that up? - no insult intended). If a poll were taken I suspect 95+% would have never heard of Baden-Powell or his scouting game. At least 80% would associate it with Boy Scouts. I'm not aware of any poll that has been done. That is merely presented from my personal experiences and, were I a wagering man, I suspect it is an accurate observation. Maybe those in your area are much more enlightened. If you noted a recent MSN poll, Americans knew more about the Simpson's and American Idol than they did about their own Constitution. Their knowledge of the history of scouting would be way below that.


    Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts were chartered in the same "special congressional action". No problem for them both to use scouts. Personal opinion.


    A circular argument is one the premise depends on the truth of the matter in question. An example: A scout always speaks the truth. A scout is speaking. Therefore the scout is telling the truth. While they are logical, they do nothing to establish the truthfulness of the statement. I made no such argument. I stated clearly that the common usage of scouting is to refer to the Boy Scouts of America. I don't need to create a straw man to shoot down.


    You almost said something I agree with when you stated: "Rather than dismissing Scouting or seeking to change the BSA, they should establish alternative Scouting associations ". Had you said alternative associations and left out scouting, I would have wholeheartedly agreed. Instead of creating their own identity they wish to leverage that of an existing one, hence the difficulty.


    Based on your information and previous posts I was under the assumption that you were in England and were not a member of BSA since you seem to despise the organization and their archaic religious beliefs and all. My apologies if I was wrong. I would ask if you are a member but that might be construed as a personal attack ;-)


    Ditto the cheers



  3. Kudu


    I read through the complaint and the opposition case really is the stronger one. The BSA demonstrated its rights more than did "youthscouts".


    If you noted, in all the definitions the word scout, when used as a verb, always meant the action of seeking as in scout out the enemy position. When used as a noun it only had two definitions - that of a scout ship that does the action of scouting and, low and behold, a Boy Scout or Girl Scout. So if all those dictionaries say the common noun usage of scout is Boy Scout and Girl Scout then that fairly well establishes the fact. We shall see, won't we.


    If "Boy" and "America" were the common usage to recognize the Boy Scouts of American then you would probably be correct. However, they are not used that way. Only Scouts and Scouting are used that way therefore they are the common usage. Your reasoning concerning common usage is quite the stretch.


    Why do all these groups wish to use scout in their name when there are many other options available? Why wouldn't pioneer, pathfinder, woodswalker, campers, trackers, hikers, seekers or mountaineers work? The reason is name recognition. Where does that name recognition come from? Common usage would say Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. So, instead of trying to establish their own reputation, they try to leverage their name using the Boy Scout name that is more commonly recognized. That is why it is trademark infringement.


    As far as not having TM next to the words, why are Boy Scouts of American held to a different standard than any other business? I popped onto a number of commercial web sites and none had TM next to their name or abbreviation of their name. They had ® next to their logos as part of the logo on some but not all. I have magazines and printed materials from a number of companies in my office and none of them have TM next to their name. Apparently it is not as customary as some would have us believe.


    I also noted something else in the legal papers. You have been wont to mention that "special act of congress" concerning the Boy Scouts of America. Your implication is that it was just for the boy scouts. You fail to mention that it also deals with the Red Cross, DAR, American Historical Society, DAV, Marine Corps League, Civil Air Patrol, and many more - even the Military Chaplains Association (egad a religious organization). Why the implication that this was "special legislation"? Ulterior motive?


    I'm still not sure why you have so much concern for us and our choices here when you already have so much choice in England. It is heartening to know that the Continent still cares (or at least a part of it) for the opportunities our children have. Perhaps we will one day have the opportunity to return your concern and provide guidance to one of your scouting organizations.



  4. Kudu,


    I compliment you on your knowledge of scouting history. I daresay you could compile your posts into a scouting history book. I would say, however, that your references to previous use of scouts is irrelevant to the case. The words federal and express were in very common usage prior to the company trademarking the name. That doesn't negate their trademark due to common usage of the abbreviation of their name. Common usage is established after the brand trademark as you stated in your post. Boy Scouts of American was trademarked - the other scout names were not. A first dibs kind of thing. After the trademark was established the common usage of scouts came to refer to BSA. I could trademark a group called Kudu Kids. Even though that is your common usage handle, it does not give you marketing rights to that name until it is trademarked. Should you then establish a kids group using the Kudu name, I would then have a legal right to sue you to cease and desist based on American trademark law. The history of scouting has nothing to do with trademark protection - it is a legal question. The BSA has the legal right to the name and the related common usage - that is the law. Whether that is the "right" thing is where opinions weigh in.


    I'm not sure how we Americans are restricted from free choice and free market. We have BSA and Campfire and a number of other groups that have been mentioned on this board that we can join or attend. The only restriction is the legal protection of a trademarked name. A free market means we have choice of brand name items - not that all items get to call themselves the same brand name.


    I am curious about your obsession with BSA. If it is such a vile thing, why would you want to be associated with the name? One would think you would want to distance yourself from it as far as possible. Personally, I think the KKK is a vile organization so I would avoid any organization that had Klan in its name. It would seem that you would be the same way about Scouts. As you say, you are in England and you do have choice;-)


    BTW - little league does not have the word baseball in its name and common usage is for the sport not the organization so the analogy doesn't fly.


    You assertion that the bylaws of the BSA are secret also appears questionable, at least in my council. As indicated earlier, I emailed the council office to request a copy. Within a few hours they offered to copy and mail me all 3 books of bylaws. If it is that easy to get a copy then they hardly count as secret.


    Perhaps it is not the scouting name that fuels your fire but that scouting is a faith based organization. One need only to dilute the relationship of scouting with religious faith to begin removing faith from scouting completely?



  5. Kudu


    I think my Nike was right on, but if you don't like that comparison then look at common usage that has also been protected under trademark - think "what can brown do for you" with UPS and FedEx for Federal Express. The common usage was associated with the trade name and therefore came under trademark protection. Scouts, scouting, and boy scouts are all common usages of Boy Scouts of America and therefore can be legitimately claimed under the trademark and as you say, even B-P wanted to protect the name scouts. The fact that England has 3 different scout groups and the name could not be trademarked is irrelevant to US trademark law. There really isn't much to the affidavits since they are small screen shots related to the sale of the materials so your point on that was lost on me.


  6. Kudu


    I will have to cede the bylaws question to you since I have not made the effort to obtain a copy. Since we have been in this discussion I have emailed my council to request a copy. We'll see what happens.


    As to the registered trademark of boy scouts, I'm not sure how you have a complaint. It is a national registered trademark name. You would get the same response should you try to start Nike boys or NFL players, or associate with any other trademarked name. I suspect it would not go very far. Just because you want to use it and you share the same heritage there is no conferred right to use the name.


  7. Bobanon


    You state "I also assumed there would be a portion of the members of this forum that will take the tact that I need to move on to some other endeavor. I understant their mindset fully, as I have lived my entire life in the bible belt. It has been my experience that those who scream loudest against non-xtians, and even liberal xtians, do not understand and know the history of their relgion, nor have they ever read the bible in entirity. I myself have read the bible through on two occasions and on both times came away with only uestions."


    Is it your intention to imply that individuals that disagree with you do not fully understand the situation? The way I read your statement it could be summarized "Obviously if you don't agree with me you really don't understand as well as I do." I would suggest that your generalization and trivialization of those that disagree should be backed with a bit more proof. Most conservative Christians I know have read the bible numerous times. Maybe my experiences differ from yours.





    I have an adult application here in my hands. The actual wording is not what you indicated. The actual wording is:


    "Excerpt from the Declaration of Religious Principle

    The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore,recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership."


    When I looked up the Declaration on the BSA website it has this definition:


    "Religious Principle, Declaration of

    The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no person can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, acknowledges the religious element in the development of youth members. However, the BSA is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious development. Its policy is that the organization or institution with which youth members are connected shall give definite attention to their religious life. Only adults willing to subscribe to this declaration of principle and the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership."


    Essentially it is the same text. I would emphasize that is says "willing to subscribe to THIS declaration" indicating that it is THE declaration.


    As far as a free marketplace, your organization is an existing and operating scouting organization. How are you being prevented from operating as an independent alternative?





  8. The best crossover bridge we ever did was one the boys lashed together during the ceremony. It consisted of 4 tripods connected by a crossbar for each pair then poles laid from crossbar to crossbar. The boy scout troop lashed one set of tripods while the webelos lashed the other set. This was done while I was talking about the scout law's 12 points (it so happens that there are 12 lashing on the tripods). Then as I talked about the 3 points of the oath, they placed the poles on the crossbars to make the bridge (3 sections of the bridge). They then walked across the bridge they built to transition to the troop. This bridge takes 14 poles and 14 ropes to complete but with practice it is done fairly quickly.

  9. Source: Emory University Health Sciences Center

    Posted: January 31, 2006


    Emory Study Lights Up The Political Brain

    When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.

    The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.

    "We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.

    Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

    "None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

    During the study, the partisans were given 18 sets of stimuli, six each regarding President George W. Bush, his challenger, Senator John Kerry, and politically neutral male control figures such as actor Tom Hanks. For each set of stimuli, partisans first read a statement from the target (Bush or Kerry). The first statement was followed by a second statement that documented a clear contradiction between the target's words and deeds, generally suggesting that the candidate was dishonest or pandering.

    Next, partisans were asked to consider the discrepancy, and then to rate the extent to which the person's words and deeds were contradictory. Finally, they were presented with an exculpatory statement that might explain away the apparent contradiction, and asked to reconsider and again rate the extent to which the target's words and deeds were contradictory.

    Behavioral data showed a pattern of emotionally biased reasoning: partisans denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate that they had no difficulty detecting in the opposing candidate. Importantly, in both their behavioral and neural responses, Republicans and Democrats did not differ in the way they responded to contradictions for the neutral control targets, such as Hanks, but Democrats responded to Kerry as Republicans responded to Bush.

    While reasoning about apparent contradictions for their own candidate, partisans showed activations throughout the orbital frontal cortex, indicating emotional processing and presumably emotion regulation strategies. There also were activations in areas of the brain associated with the experience of unpleasant emotions, the processing of emotion and conflict, and judgments of forgiveness and moral accountability.

    Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning (as well as conscious efforts to suppress emotion). The finding suggests that the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments likely occur outside of awareness, and are distinct from normal reasoning processes when emotion is not so heavily engaged, says Westen.

    The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. "The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen says.

    The study has potentially wide implications, from politics to business, and demonstrates that emotional bias can play a strong role in decision-making, Westen says. "Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,' " Westen says.

    Coauthors of the study include Pavel Blagov and Stephan Hamann of the Emory Department of Psychology, and Keith Harenski and Clint Kilts of the Emory Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.




  10. You need to reread the article as it does not equate to what the Catholic church did. The article points out ignorant and inept camp and council staff not following BSA guidelines and probably state guidelines about reporting child abuse. To be a parallel with the Catholic church, the BSA would have to know about the pedophile and continue to have him direct camps and move him around to other camps when things got "hot". There is nothing in the article that the BSA covered anything up.


    The problem with paranoia is that there is nobody you can ever really trust.


  11. Something a bit on the lighter side.


    I have observed, over the years, a personality type that puzzles me. I am a fairly regimented kind of guy so I notice things that are out of my usual pattern. Why do some personality types always take from the larger or most full instead of using up the smaller? A case in point. Our office restroom has a double paper dispenser. The other guy in the office always uses paper from the largest roll instead of using up the smallest (I don't watch - we're the only two that use that restroom). My wife will open a full bag of sugar instead of using up the almost empty bag first. Before we got married she was manipulating 3-4 boxes of bisquick at a time.


    I wondered if it was a conservative/liberal kind of thing but the two mentioned above are diametrically opposed in political thought so I figured it can't be that. Why would you risk having them both run out at the same time instead of using one and having time to refill while you use the other? Just an idle contemplation.


    Apparently I don't have enough to do!

  12. I guess I will take the walk down the Woodbadge path. As has been indicated, one can learn new things in any training and it can only help the boys in the troop for the leaders to have more training. Anything that generates that much enthusiasm among graduates must have something good to offer. I guess my skeptical self wonders about the hard sell I usually get when I mention Woodbadge. Sometimes I feel like I just walked into a used car lot with an obvious wad of money. You definitely attract ardent attention from the sales staff.

  13. I have been contemplating attending the local woodbadge training for some time, but I still haven't come up with a definitive reason why I need the training. I have met with and talked to many woodbadgers about the course and they all say it is great and I should go. I guess my hesitation comes from the following areas:


    Does it make a difference in the scouting program? I know many WB and non-WB leaders. They all seem to have great programs and are great leaders. They are all enthused and committed to the boys. If there is no self-evident difference, is there any difference?


    I have attended high quality leadership training over many years through my job. Will WB add anything to that training or will it rehash what I've already had?


  14. You have no argument from me Lisabob. Women do make just as good of leader as men. And mothers with sons do understand boys more than mothers with daughters. I also think fathers with daughters would make very good girl scout leaders and understand girls better. My argument is against girls as members of cub scouts or regular boy scout troops. Intentional or not, people do treat and view boys and girls differently and they interact differently. When they are in the same group biases will show and I believe they will show to the detriment of the boys.

  15. I think I would have to weigh in with leaving the Boy Scouts as boys only. While I think it is great that they have interactions - maybe cooperative activities with local Girl Scout troops - the drawbacks are too great. If you have kept up with current research in emotional and educational development of kids you would note that boys and girls do not develop the same in either area. Educational research has shown that single sex classrooms in school improve learning and social interaction significantly for both sexes over coed classes. The learning and interaction of boys is simply too different. When girls are involved they tend to be much more attentive to the instructor, follow instructions better, and cooperate more. While not intentional, this leads to teachers (and probably scout leaders) preferring girls as the "model" citizen and, in effect, labels the boys as "defective girls."


    If girls were involved, their style of learning and leadership would essentially take over the troop and end up disenfranchising the boys. I'm sure somebody has the information about registration of boys in troops. I don't have specific information, but I suspect that the average size of troops in areas where they have gone coed is about the same before and after. But since girls are now involved that means the program is now reaching fewer boys. Instead of having 2+2=4 (GSA+BSA=lots of kids) we now have 2+2=2. BP was right when he talked about boys gathering as natural packs.

  16. I'm not sure spreading it out is the best thing. As an extreme example - one major paved road through the mountains has much less impact than 100 4-wheeler trails. Logically, if you move your impact to a new or recovering trail you are leaving more trace than if you had kept to the well worn trail. The well worn trail is already there and likely will be for decades. By moving you are adding another well worn trail.


    I'll assume your kill wildlife comment is meant as out of season, without a license, and as wasting game where you would be absolutely correct. I would hope you haven't run across a lot of killed wildlife in your travels. In all my years in the field it has been an extremely rare occurrence.

  17. You read way too much into things Gern. I was addressing your comment. You made a comment, and through implication, that if one was to pick up a baby bird that you have essentially killed that bird. I was providing information that called to question your conclusion. You have extended that beyond the text and intent, not I. Don't put words in someone elses mouth (or post I suppose).


    It is great that you are an ethical rock climber. I tried it myself for a brief period back in the 80's. And, it is great that you support LNT as do I - so we both do agree with LNT. I suppose our disagreement is on the specifics of LNT. LNT is not a football game with specific rules required to play. LNT is a set of guidelines that people should follow to reduce their impact on the environment. We don't have refs enforcing the rules and we don't have to pass a test before we go into the wilds. LNT is an attempt to educate people about their impact and to lessen that impact. If you choose to read it as a set of hard, fast rules, that is your choice. It is not the intent of LNT.


    Anything on how C&R damages a fishery yet?

  18. Actually, handling the birds would have very little impact. It is common practice among bird biologists to take young out of the nest, weigh and measure them, place bands on their legs, and even place equipment near the nest - all without damaging the little birds or shortening their life span. So - you can't see it plus there is no lasting effect just like C&R fishing only it is C&R birding.


    The discussion that we have been having is not whether there is a benefit of C&R to the environment, but whether C&R is detrimental to the fish or fishery or environment or to scout ethics. You have yet to show me how it would have a negative impact on any of those. I have provided information about how it can help the environment by providing fees plus it has additional benefits to those who partake of the sport as others have indicated.


    I guess whether you lump fish and wildlife together depends on the common usage. If you check most universities the degree programs they have are either fisheries biology or wildlife biology or fish and wildlife biology so in resource management they are separated. The common usage for the public is that wildlife is birds and mammals, fish are fish, and bugs are insects. If you use a strict definition then fish are wildlife just as humans are primates along with the great apes and monkeys. Common usage has a separation.


  19. Gern,

    Im sure I would have loved your Pulitzer effort. Most PETA type writing is quite entertaining, especially since they arent bound by any norms of factual reporting or science.

    Now for LNT. Since we are talking about scouts, lets look at the BSA Leave No Trace. Here is the BSA web address with LNT http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=ba so everyone will know what it really says.

    Quote Leave No Trace helps reinforce that mission, and reminds us to respect the rights of other users of the outdoors as well as future generations. Also "What can we do to reduce our impact on the environment and on the experiences of other visitors?"

    So the LNT ethic is for respect of the rights of other users (read other people) of the outdoors. It is not a standard for fish and wildlife. It is not LNT so no fish or wildlife species ever knew you were there.

    6. Respect Wildlife Quick movements and loud noises are stressful to animals. Considerate campers practice these safety methods:

     Observe wildlife from afar to avoid disturbing them.

     Give animals a wide berth, especially during breeding, nesting, and birthing seasons.

     Store food securely and keep garbage and food scraps away from animals so they will not acquire bad habits. Never feed wildlife. Help keep wildlife wild.

    You are too close if an animal alters its normal activities.

    If you are observing wildlife you should keep your distance. If you are seeking to catch wildlife you will need to get closer. Since a fishs normal activity is feeding and the angler has enticed the fish to feed, then the angler is not too close.

    The scouting site also refers people to the LNT website (www.lnt.org) if they want more information. I suppose this is where you got your quote of do not touch. That quote about respecting wildlife is cut a bit short. This is still an excerpt, but it does include enough information to transmit its purpose. It is actually worded:

    Do not touch, get close to, feed or pick up wild animals. It is stressful to the animal, and it is possible that the animal may harbor rabies or other diseases. Sick or wounded animals can bite, peck or scratch and send you to the hospital. Young animals removed or touched by well-meaning people may cause the animals parents to abandon them. If you find sick animals or animal in trouble, notify a game warden.

    So, if we look at it in context, what animals have rabies or may bite, peck or scratch fish? Im not aware of that species. How about parents abandoning young ones because someone picked them up that doesnt sound like fish either. Dont crop those quotes too tightly. I know it makes for faster reading and better sound bites, but it does leave important information out. I guess you were so quick to get here that you completely bypassed the overview page. If you look at the page http://www.lnt.org/programs/index.html, what do you suppose one finds there under Purpose?

    Leave No Trace is an national and international program designed to assist outdoor enthusiasts with their decisions about how to reduce their impacts when they hike, camp, picnic, snowshoe, run, bike, hunt, paddle, ride horses, fish, ski or climb. The program strives to educate all those who enjoy the outdoors about the nature of their recreational impacts as well as techniques to prevent and minimize such impacts. Leave No Trace is best understood as an educational and ethical program, not as a set of rules and regulations.

    Notice that both hunting and fishing are included. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe because they are legitimate activities under LNT? Please show me how C&R leaves more of a trace than just angling.

    So you dont like fishing because you found it difficult and uncomfortable. That seems to be the same reason I dont golf. It still does not provide any source of information upon which you base your opinion. I hope your Pulitzer juices start flowing again. I can hardly wait.

  20. To me leave no trace is leaving no obvious physical evidence that I was in the area (past tense). Just the fact that you are in an area is a trace. People can see or hear you and your camp. Once you leave, it should be very difficult for someone to detect that you were ever there. If you were to talk to the famous tracker Tom Brown I suspect he would tell you that it is impossible to really leave no trace.


    As for your absolutes of not molesting, hindering or annoying wildlife, I guess you do no outdoor activities with your troop or on your own. The mere presence of a human will alter or hinder an animals behavior. They will know you are there and alter their behavior whether you know they are there or not - that is hindering and annoying. Just leaving a scent trail will alter behavior. Preventing a squirrel from foraging can be considered molesting. You have an impact.


    LNT is the attempt to minimize the impact of people on other users of the resource. The basis is to make it so another human will not be able to tell you were there. This is a human standard designed to increase human enjoyment of the resource.


  21. I'm not sure how C&R would violate LNT. How many fish have you personally seen in a wild area with hook marks? Don't tell me about someone you knew who once talked to somebody who saw it. How many have you seen in any wild stream or lake? If you have seen no evidence of it then it is LNT. Leave No Trace means you have left no visible evidence that another person would know you had been there. You are more likely to run across a cat hole, tent depression, or trackway than to see any fish at all much less a hook marked one. Your LNT argument is baseless.


    To further your point why don't you explain your personal experience with fish and fishing and how you came about your information. I get my information through personal experience and scientific literature. I have fished all my life. I have a Master's Degree in fish and wildlife biology and have been a practicing fisheries biologist for 20 years. I have practical field experience with both fished and unfished populations and with many different species. Please make sound arguments based on science and facts instead of emotions.


  22. The ethical question concerning fishing can be addressed in different ways. First there is the belief that all living things have the same right to life. One may also look at the animal nature of humans, the holistic approach with the greatest benefit, and the basis for ethical reasoning. While some may call this Judeo-Christian or a western phylosophy, mainly the reasoning comes from an anthropocentric view of life and the world.


    Do all living things have the same right to life? Believing that you have the right to fish is an anthropocentric stance. It requires that the human believes he is above the animal. To believe that we are equal with the fish is equivalent to the PETA statement that a cat is a rat is a boy. The ethical question is based on the assumption that humans and animals are equals, yet the very argument of ethics of humans and not of animals proves the point that animals and humans are not equal. You may argue then that we have the intellect to decide what is ethical or right but animals dont. By this mere fact that you believe you are more ethical than the animals, you automatically place yourself above the animals. From this position of superiority you have already diminished the innate value of other animals. If we were all equal then we would also be discussing the ethical requirements of animals.


    To deny entertainment to humans is to deny our animal nature. If humans did not have a strong desire for play and entertainment we would not have the arts, sports, and literature that we have today. We do have reasoning power. We can control our actions and to some extent our environment. We cannot totally override our innate desires. You believe that catching a fish merely for the entertainment is ethically wrong. Is it also ethically wrong for the cat to play with the mouse even if will not kill it? Is it ethically wrong for the bear to waste the salmon by killing it and only eating a small portion of the fish before it kills another? But! You argue, We are logical, reasoning human beings that are above that. We are logical and reasoning, but we are also part of the baser nature of all animals. To deny that is to remove yourself from nature to where you become an observer and not a participant.


    If you look at catch and release fishing in a holistic view you can reason that what is right does the most good for the natural community in which the action takes place. The act of fishing is on the individual fish. Ethical angling can be approached using the principle of restitution. If the ethical angler is catch and release fishing, he should return the fish to its habitat in the same condition as prior to the catch. Since stress and some physical damage have occurred, this is impossible. The angler then owes the fish some restitution for the impact the angler has had on the fish. While the act of fishing is on the individual animal, restitution can be paid to benefit the population as a whole or the habitat thereby providing more benefit to the species and other associated species than would have been provided if angling had not occurred. Promoting and protecting the habitat and funding activities that benefit the species are morally defensible ethical restitutions. When humans stop impacting the environment to the detriment of natural communities, only then can one say that we have reached parity with nature and can cease fishing and funding the resource. The overall benefit to the fish community is greater than the cost to the individual fish. As Spock would say the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. The billions of dollars that recreational fishing generates in the economy do more to protect the ecosystems fish live in than does any other activity. Fishing, including catch and release, is providing a greater benefit.


    My last comment would be on the ethical standards themselves. How were the ethical standards set? Where did they come from? (Those are rhetorical questions) Obviously they are a derivation of human thought and therefore are based on human perspective. You live only in a human world and can only comprehend from that perspective. Your reasoning against catch and release is then purely based on how you think you would feel if you were the fish. It is all a matter of personal limits. It is OK if you catch a fish if you are going to eat it, but not if you let it live. The angler gets a certain level of anticipation and joy from the catch in either case but the C&R angler has the additional joy and anticipation that the fish will live and that he may have the challenge to catch the same fish at a later date. How can you reason from the fishs perspective? I know of individual fish that have been caught and released 3 or 4 times in a single day. Apparently the event was not that extraordinarily stressful.


    Can you apply human ethics to an environmental question? Can you equate how you would treat a fish with how you would treat another human? If it is wrong to catch a fish for entertainment, then is it also wrong to build an art gallery that removes a whole biome? The gallery is merely for entertainment. Would you also be willing to give up the timber used to build your home because it came from a tree farm or even worse was taken from an old-growth forest? After all, your house is not a life requirement. You could live much simpler. Your house and many other things are merely things to make your life easier at the expense of other creatures. The increased erosion caused by timbering can slowly suffocate entire fish populations in streams. Is that ethical? You have a choice but the plants and animals do not. Is it worse to harm an individual of a species or a biota? We all have an impact. You have chosen not to participate in fishing fine, it is your choice. I have chosen a different level based on my own ethical beliefs.


    When a trout chooses to prey upon what he thinks is weaker than himself, the angler ought not be blamed for it. George Washington Bethune (1847)




  23. So using animals for entertainment is bad (unless you are a bug - I suspect there are others who would rather draw the line at reptiles or maybe rats - that dang line just keeps moving depending on who's drawing it). You give a fine example of dog fighting at the extreme. What about rodeo? How about AKC dog shows? How about watching your hamster in an exercize wheel or fish in a tank? How far down your personal road would you require the rest of the world to go?


    You have a personal set of values that you stand by - and that is great. You have a personal aversion to fishing as is your right. I don't understand your comparison of dog fighting and catch and release fishing - they are completely different to most people. Maybe if you compared dog fighting and placing two male bettas in a tank to watch them fight.


    Do you think your personal aversion to fishing should be the gold standard for the rest of the world? Is this a self-appointed thing? If so, there are a few things I would like to dictate to the world too so I think I will appoint myself. Will we have to duel for the world or can we amicably divvy it up north and south or east and west? As for the rest of you - sorry it is taken.



  • Create New...