I beg to differ, Marlin, on your observation but would rather leave it to your judgement. I simply say it out of my stomach and not try to hide behind all niceties.
What I hv put forward is to suggest there is a counter view on conservation in relation to CnR, and that there is not definitive right or wrong either way. I was not prepare to prolong the arguments by putting forward more points as all the arguments are well documented.
However, for the sake of discussion, I merely suggest that as we think we are right we should not wrong others just because he/she has a different view. I have never said CnR is wrong or not practical neither do I suggest you agree with me.
What happened here is CnR guys are telling, “hey you guys shouild do this and not that, what you are doing is wrong”.
CnR fishos are being portray as good and the nons are the bad guys!
Since you asked, as I mentioned earlier that CnR is no less important in relation to conservation efforts, is a general statement and not really proven, it is at best a perception. If we look at the wholistic perspective of conserving the fisheries, CnR would look very insignificant because the major factors would be conserving its habitat and environment first and foremost. I was told in the early 20 century, the main riverines of Klang valley were teaming with Kelahs. Still I will not deny that the efforts of CnR is a positive one. For me this is not enough reason to say the opponents of CnR are depleting our fisheries. It is hardly substantiable, so we do not wrong them! Also, the actions of non CnR fishos may not necessary stand on this view alone, they may have other views which may not even have any relation to conservation! For them, the arguments henceforth is CnR as an action, the depletion/conservation of fisheries, is consequential to that action.
We have been going around with the myopic view on the “benefits” of CnR to the extend we do not see the demerits of it as an action. I would suggest we look at both the positive and negative expects of this action to at least understand what is behind the arguments.
As to conserving for future generation, I consider the proponents are pessimistic about the future. I am just a little more optismistic in this regard. I am not overly worry about depletion of fisheries as the result of rod and line action rather the conservation of its habitats. Future is not ours to tell, who would imagine mankind can fly? Similarly I would not dismiss the possibilities of renewed riverines teaming with fishes including kelahs in the Klang valley, say 200 years down the road. You never know what science and technology can do to your future!
To the suggestion of some that non CnR guys do it because of the need to cover costs, feed the family etc, are we also suggesting that some practice CnR because there is no need to cover costs and feed the family? If that is so, then conservation is just a an inccidental benefit, hardly the intended purpose!
Just for your info, I dont subsribe to both ideas. Good or bad I use my own judgement. I can have one outing and take back all 20 fishes and on another release the only one I caught. My actions are not guided by “benefits” of CnR or other wise. There are other factors to consider.
quote:
Originally posted by Marlin
Jassmen and Major Chew, the main thrust of your postings centres around ridiculing some of the individuals posting here and ridiculing the process of discussion. You appear to want to attack the messengers rather than the message.
You mention counter arguments and opposing viewpoints, but don’t really go beyond making that statement to explain what they are. I’m actually very interested to hear. Please do expand. I think readers are smart enough to make up their own minds when presented with a well reasoned argument?
warlord
