Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by TROUTsniffer, Sep 15, 2012.
Yes. This exactly.
"Ignorant" is an adjective that refers to someone or something (often written) that shows a lack of knowledge (ignorance) of a subject. I think your opinions posted on this thread qualify. It does take an extra step to infer ignorance on the part of the writer. The writer may be intentionally stirring up the pot, or being sarcastic, etc., and not really ignorant of the subject. That's certainly not unheard of on this forum. Somehow, I don't think that is the case here.
If you took a poll of the members of this board you will find that we overwelmingly are against gillnets. Except me of course 'cause I am an old Puget Sound gillnetter. The point of most post in this thread is not support for gillnets and netting rivers but against those that whine about things they have little to no knowledge of and insult those who attempt to point this out. As you do in your post.
Nevermind, I am likely wasting keyboard time here. See previous post on ignorance.
i think if you start at the beginning of the thread and watch it develop, you'll notice no one really got after him until he posted this:
"i'm sorry but the privileges given to the native americans are ridiculous and everyone says "we took there land, that's how they used to do it, etc..." first off they aren't the only group of people that have ever been taken over, we just evolved quicker and won that war. I don't remember christopher columbus pulling up to tulalip casino either. if they want the "special rules" do it the native way. Hand make your nets, build your canoes, tow it there by horse, row out and set/retrieve your nets AND THEN eat/trade your fish NOT sell it for money (while you collect your casino royalties mind you)"
an unquestionably useless, meaningless, and inflammatory pile of words which makes no real argument for anything except the poster's ignorance of both the issues involved and spelling/grammatical matters. [btw, i never capitalize so don't bother going there, i'm too lazy and i don't care]
I disagree it is that simple. We humans claim to evolve and learn from our mistakes. If true gillnetting should be an illegal method for anyone to use against our rivers.
Gillnets are horrible thing to do to our mother earth.
This is true. But don't forget, this isn't a good thing for nature either:
I'm not a fan of gillnetting. But I can't claim that what I do when I go fishing is "good" for the river.
I read it. Thanks for trying to explain it to me but I think alot of people don't like to debate how horrid the practice of gillnetting rivers is and find any excuse to change the subjuct. Again thanks for trying help me understand.
Evan you can choose to release protected fish alive in most cases. Evan have you ever killed a seal? Sea lion? Beaver? Otter? Mink? Ducks? or dog with your hook? Some say gillnets have. If true. Killing that indiscriminate it's WRONG.
Comparing a hook to gillnet? That's like comparing a rifle to poison gas.
I don't know guys, I see both sides. It's hard to see the gillnetts. Though it's a sad state of affairs what has been done to the Native Americans. In fact, they were doing a pretty good job of taking care of the land and rivers before settlers came and figured out how they could make a buck.
Just trying to think big picture here...
that's not what i took away from evan's post. the value judgement on gillnetting a river is simple, as you say. but the issues and interests and many stakeholders involved surrounding that very fine philosophical point are anything but simple. there are a lot of moral choices you can surgically isolate from their context, call them black and white, and then back into the idea of simplifying the whole context along with them. the problem is someone on the other side of the issue has done the same thing with another moral choice within the wider issue, and feels just as strongly as you do. both choices look black and white when they stand alone, but when they are in conflict and both demand a decision, black and white departs the discussion. that's real life man.
so, to me, i can acknowledge that gill-netting a river is always bad. but if you want that black and white premise to rule this entire issue, you'll have to to surrender the equally valid premise that breaking a treaty and trampling the rights of other human beings is also always bad.
Agreed on all points. The problem with arguing, however, is that neither side comes to the table to be convinced. Everyone in the conflict just wants to win the argument. So we're just going to keep spinning our tires.
I gillnetted for years and I only ever caught a handfull of greebes in all those years , oh and enough salmon to pay for my house, never caught a beaver ,otter, mink or a dog except the salmon kind .Seals just tore holes in my net as they pulled fish out of it. The size of the mesh determins what size fish you catch which is highly regulated so you don't target unwanted spieces. That said, if you are against native american tribal netting stay out of thier casinos
Really - gillnetting is always wrong? That's kind of an interesting proposition. One would think that at best, the answer should be "it depends." I'm not saying we're there on a consistent basis, but if the co-managers can figure out through sound scientific modeling how many fish can be caught by treaty fishermen and still meet conservation goals, who are we to tell the natives how they should take their share? Seems kind of paternalistic. Have we, a community that generally exhibits no moral wobbliness about the killing of all manner of mammals and fowl to provide materials for our flies, decided that all fish everywhere are somehow so sacred that it is morally repugnant to catch them using gill nets? I personally don't think I'm in any position to make that sort of moral value judgment. One thing for sure is that when the persons setting the nets are native, you can guaranty a much higher level of venom than if they are non-natives. (Yes, there are plenty of non-native commercial fisheries up and down the US and Canadian coast that use gill nets.) Hmmm . . . I wonder why that is?
your spelling is improving
Oh my kiss and bennybuddy if you go back a re-read my posts they state on a regular basis I am talking about gillnetting in rivers. If you don't want to find it I will tell you right now I am talking about the use of gillnets in rivers. I am happy that under less dire circumstances you made some money but under the conditions today gillnetting rivers is wrong.
As far as your race baiting I have never mentioned anyone in this debate just the tactic of indiscriminate killing you seem to endorse. So save your pathetic rhetoric for the political forums this is about saving the enviroment. Did you know every river in Puget Sound was closed down this spring due to the dire state of the fishery? Sound like the good ole days to you guys?