life imitates art

I was quite stricken by the similarities in the up close impression of
a trout being caught.

Take a minute to contrast Jeff's Montana picture of a gorgeous trout
with Gustave Courbet's 1872, "The Trout" (Oil on canvas).

http://css.sbcma.com/timj/roffpics/2...a/P7100056.JPG
http://artchive.com/artchive/C/courb...trout.jpg.html

Take a hard look at the trout, isolated from the rod, in the largest
image you can see.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

wrote in message
oups.com...
I was quite stricken by the similarities in the up close impression of
a trout being caught.

Take a minute to contrast Jeff's Montana picture of a gorgeous trout
with Gustave Courbet's 1872, "The Trout" (Oil on canvas).

http://css.sbcma.com/timj/roffpics/2...a/P7100056.JPG
http://artchive.com/artchive/C/courb...trout.jpg.html

Take a hard look at the trout, isolated from the rod, in the largest
image you can see.

Why? What am I supposed to be looking for?

In the painting, it appears as though the fish was caught on *live* bait.

Op

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I was quite stricken by the similarities in the up close impression of
a trout being caught.

Take a minute to contrast Jeff's Montana picture of a gorgeous trout
with Gustave Courbet's 1872, "The Trout" (Oil on canvas).

http://css.sbcma.com/timj/roffpics/2...a/P7100056.JPG
http://artchive.com/artchive/C/courb...trout.jpg.html

Take a hard look at the trout, isolated from the rod, in the largest
image you can see.

Why? What am I supposed to be looking for?

In the painting, it appears as though the fish was caught on *live* bait.

Op

Fair question.

A famous Robert Hughes quote is:

"A Gustave Courbet portrait of a trout has more death in it than
Rubens could get in a whole Crucifixion."

All 'you' see is a fish caught on live bait?

Gordon Wickstrom in, "Notes from an Old Fly Book" says:

"As we gaze at the picture, we are spared nothing. The trout's sentient
eye, filled with fear, pain, desolation, holds the angler in its
supplication - or perhaps, accusation"

Still, you just see the fish? The "look" of the trout is
indistinguishable between the pictures.

Thomas McIntyre in the short piece "Being Uncool in a Cold Stream"
written for Sport's Afield wrote:

"Hemingway said some place in his oeuvre that, because we assumed a
godlike stance not in keeping with the humility of the pious, it was a
pagan act to take an animal's life. How much more pagan and godlike -
even maniamanical - then, must it be to grant an animal it's life. Now,
there is a matter more than serious enough for me."

The modern catch and release angler really
seems to have lost his sense about these things. The trout, in a wet
golf game, becomes just a click, a detente, a 'trophy', if you will.
Yet, there it is, clearly, starkly, in Jeff's picture and Gustav's
painting, the trout knows it is dying, regardless of our intentions.
And we pat ourselves on the back when, after hooking and hauling the
trout, we grant it it's life in some moral delusion that this is
somehow 'good'.

A question posed here years back, "if you had to kill every legal fish
you caught would you continue to fish?". The answer was almost
unanimously no, that really, the modern fisherman doesn't even really
like to eat trout and certainly does not want the burden of having to
prepare, carry out, clean and cook their catch. I find this supremely
ironic and I would love for the sportsmen to have the streams and lakes
back on the premis that, if an angler can not see the Courbet in his
actions, than he should not be allowed astream.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel
A cash flow runs through it

wrote in message
oups.com...

The modern catch and release angler really
seems to have lost his sense about these things.

One man's perspective, I gather?

The trout, in a wet
golf game, becomes just a click, a detente, a 'trophy', if you will.

So you have surveyed most flyfishermen/women?

Yet, there it is, clearly, starkly, in Jeff's picture and Gustav's
painting, the trout knows it is dying, regardless of our intentions.

Now you comune with the trout?

And we pat ourselves on the back when, after hooking and hauling the
trout, we grant it it's life in some moral delusion that this is
somehow 'good'.

Not necessarily for the "good." I release so that there will be trout to
fish for in the future.

A question posed here years back, "if you had to kill every legal fish
you caught would you continue to fish?".
The answer was almost
unanimously no, that really, the modern fisherman doesn't even really
like to eat trout and certainly does not want the burden of having to
prepare, carry out, clean and cook their catch.

Pose the queswtion again--in an NG (i.e., ROFF) with a bit more traffic than
this dried up **** hole. I don't kill, purposely, because I fish for 6 to 8
hours at a time and if I caught legal trout, in many cases, they would be
spoiled by the time I got them home to cook--even though I don't care for
trout all that much.

I find this supremely
ironic and I would love for the sportsmen to have the streams and lakes
back on the premis that, if an angler can not see the Courbet in his
actions, than he should not be allowed astream.

And people in hell want ice water, but guess what?

Your pal,

Hardly!

Op

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

The modern catch and release angler really
seems to have lost his sense about these things.

One man's perspective, I gather?

The trout, in a wet
golf game, becomes just a click, a detente, a 'trophy', if you will.

So you have surveyed most flyfishermen/women?

Yet, there it is, clearly, starkly, in Jeff's picture and Gustav's
painting, the trout knows it is dying, regardless of our intentions.

Now you comune with the trout?

And we pat ourselves on the back when, after hooking and hauling the
trout, we grant it it's life in some moral delusion that this is
somehow 'good'.

Not necessarily for the "good." I release so that there will be trout to
fish for in the future.

A question posed here years back, "if you had to kill every legal fish
you caught would you continue to fish?".
The answer was almost
unanimously no, that really, the modern fisherman doesn't even really
like to eat trout and certainly does not want the burden of having to
prepare, carry out, clean and cook their catch.

Pose the queswtion again--in an NG (i.e., ROFF) with a bit more traffic than
this dried up **** hole. I don't kill, purposely, because I fish for 6 to 8
hours at a time and if I caught legal trout, in many cases, they would be
spoiled by the time I got them home to cook--even though I don't care for
trout all that much.

I find this supremely
ironic and I would love for the sportsmen to have the streams and lakes
back on the premis that, if an angler can not see the Courbet in his
actions, than he should not be allowed astream.

And people in hell want ice water, but guess what?

Your pal,

Hardly!

Op

Hey Op,

Perhaps one man;s opinion, but, in a "wet-golf game" the people are, by
definition, inclined as described. It really can't be any other way
and, since I made that term up, by golly that's what it means. There is
clearly something going on. I'm not sure why, to be honest, pure catch
and release fishing is any different than paint ball hunting deer. If
someone has a thought why this is the case, I'd like to hear it.It has
struck me so odd over the years to hear anglers that say they flat
don't like to eat fish and/or simply don't want to be bothered by the
inherent responsibility to not wasting game. This is a fundamental
tenet that hunters and fishermen learn the first day they go out with a
father or an uncle.

Further, Op, you could fish less and/or quit when you had enough to eat
1-2. You'd have less impact on the fishery (compared to the
unrestricted pure catch and release and expected random mortality) as
well as be contributing to a better experience for the guy that comes
along later who finds the hole empty. You'd certainly have to agree
with this.

Also, if it's OK with you, I like fishing this '**** hole' just fine
thankee.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.

wrote in message
ps.com...

Hey Op,

Perhaps one man;s opinion, but, in a "wet-golf game" the people are, by
definition, inclined as described. It really can't be any other way
and, since I made that term up, by golly that's what it means.

If you are so inclined to make-up silly phrases to describe catch and
release flyfishing, have at it.

There is
clearly something going on. I'm not sure why, to be honest, pure catch
and release fishing is any different than paint ball hunting deer.

So what? Maybe one day paint ball hunting will be in vogue?

If
someone has a thought why this is the case, I'd like to hear it.It has
struck me so odd over the years to hear anglers that say they flat
don't like to eat fish and/or simply don't want to be bothered by the
inherent responsibility to not wasting game. This is a fundamental
tenet that hunters and fishermen learn the first day they go out with a
father or an uncle.

Maybe people like toeat deer more than they do fish, or maybe it's because
you don't find a great deal of deer meat in the supermarket, yet the fish is
plentiful?


Further, Op, you could fish less and/or quit when you had enough to eat
1-2. You'd have less impact on the fishery (compared to the
unrestricted pure catch and release and expected random mortality) as
well as be contributing to a better experience for the guy that comes
along later who finds the hole empty.

What's there to enjoy finding a fishin' hole devoid of trout? Because that
is what you are advocating. If there was no catch and release in this part
of the country, there'd be no trout to fish for.

You'd certainly have to agree
with this.

You are grossly misstaken!

Also, if it's OK with you, I like fishing this '**** hole' just fine
thankee.

Well that's great. However, it's gonna be a lonely place, once I leave.

Op

Your pal,

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

Hey Op,

Perhaps one man;s opinion, but, in a "wet-golf game" the people are, by
definition, inclined as described. It really can't be any other way
and, since I made that term up, by golly that's what it means.

If you are so inclined to make-up silly phrases to describe catch and
release flyfishing, have at it.

There is
clearly something going on. I'm not sure why, to be honest, pure catch
and release fishing is any different than paint ball hunting deer.

So what? Maybe one day paint ball hunting will be in vogue?

If
someone has a thought why this is the case, I'd like to hear it.It has
struck me so odd over the years to hear anglers that say they flat
don't like to eat fish and/or simply don't want to be bothered by the
inherent responsibility to not wasting game. This is a fundamental
tenet that hunters and fishermen learn the first day they go out with a
father or an uncle.

Maybe people like toeat deer more than they do fish, or maybe it's because
you don't find a great deal of deer meat in the supermarket, yet the fish is
plentiful?


Further, Op, you could fish less and/or quit when you had enough to eat
1-2. You'd have less impact on the fishery (compared to the
unrestricted pure catch and release and expected random mortality) as
well as be contributing to a better experience for the guy that comes
along later who finds the hole empty.

What's there to enjoy finding a fishin' hole devoid of trout? Because that
is what you are advocating. If there was no catch and release in this part
of the country, there'd be no trout to fish for.

You'd certainly have to agree
with this.

You are grossly misstaken!

Also, if it's OK with you, I like fishing this '**** hole' just fine
thankee.

Well that's great. However, it's gonna be a lonely place, once I leave.

Op

Your pal,

Op,

Where do you live (in what state)? I want to review the regulations.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Op,

Where do you live (in what state)? I want to review the regulations.

Your pal,

http://www.ncwildlife.org/fs_index_02_regulations.htm

Op

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Op,

Where do you live (in what state)? I want to review the regulations.

Your pal,

http://www.ncwildlife.org/fs_index_02_regulations.htm

Op

Op,

I'm confused. A few posts back you said "if there was no catch and
release in this part
of the country, there'd be no trout to fish for." yet, in the
regulations, even those in special regulated wild trout waters, the
daily creel limit is 4. While there are some places where it is pure
C&R, they seem the exception. As a management paradigm this is wholly
and provable unnecessary and a mandatory kill and quit for all trout
over, say, 16" would be at least, if not more, effective. I'd wager a
bet that the wildlife commission, if asked, would say the exact same
thing. Do you want me to ask them or will you?

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Op,

Where do you live (in what state)? I want to review the regulations.

Your pal,

http://www.ncwildlife.org/fs_index_02_regulations.htm

Op

Op,

I'm confused. A few posts back you said "if there was no catch and
release in this part
of the country, there'd be no trout to fish for." yet, in the
regulations, even those in special regulated wild trout waters, the
daily creel limit is 4. While there are some places where it is pure
C&R, they seem the exception. As a management paradigm this is wholly
and provable unnecessary and a mandatory kill and quit for all trout
over, say, 16" would be at least, if not more, effective. I'd wager a
bet that the wildlife commission, if asked, would say the exact same
thing.

It's your ball, play with it anyway you please!

Op

Do you want me to ask them or will you?

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.