Smarter Fish (inspired by FFing Humane?)

In light of noy hijacking a previous thread, I have this question. Maybe some biologists can chime in here. Do you think that fish can really get smarter? Do they learn from previous experiences? I've heard a lot of people (including myself) say that bigger older fish are harder to catch because they are smarter and have "seen more than those little youngsters." If they don't have the capacity of memory that we do, how could a 5 year old fish remember "Oh I know that fly, it landed me in a heap of trouble once when I was a young buck. I'm leaving it alone!"

OR

Are they sometimes harder to catch because they have more body to feed and use more energy and so become more selective of the food they eat? Crap, even that term "selective" implies thinking through the possible outcomes of a decision. All right, its lunch time....I'm thinking WAY too much.

But, what do you guys think? :?

Oooohh,

Or are they really not harder to catch, but just less of them out there (in terms of volume) so we think we they are harder to catch. But really, there just aren't a lot of them out there....

yes fish can learn without remebering specifics.

Would you touch pot cooking on the stove? Of course not - you have learned long time ago that it would burn ant that burns hurt.

NOW: Can you remember all the times you got burned in order to learn this?

Of curse not.

It is similiar with the fish. Even if they do not remember specifics they just "know" that some things are dangerous.

I have a number of theories no answers

a lot of those little fish just came from a place where people threw food to them, they arn't conditioned to be afraid of people waveing sticks or anything else

according to an orvis book on reading water, fish use a pecking order with the bigger fish geting the best spots, thus they can me more picky about what they eat beceause they have the most to choose from, the little ones have to take whats left.

the most careful fish will last the longest and grow the biggest. aka survival of the most fit. We once had a family of chipmunks living outside our cabin on the Oregon coast, the first eaten by an owl was the one that was the least careful. The one that stayed out longest and sat in the highest trees.


I know that I have caught the same fish on the same fly with in an hour, I know he didn' t learn.

Eric

What I don't understand is how they can be so picky with flies, and then take a spinner which doesn't look like anything in the water.

edit..Spinner being the lure type. Not the fly.

Here is an intersting article that I found from UK newpaper:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... xhome.html

I guess this kind of blows my thoughts of the water...

I shouldn't have read that.

Quote:

---

What I don't understand is how they can be so picky with flies, and then take a spinner which doesn't look like anything in the water.

edit..Spinner being the lure type. Not the fly.

---

What's worse is watching a fish repeatedly take a certain type of bug, matching that bug perfectly, having the fish refuse your bug. Giving up and tying something on that doesn't hatch for 4 weeks and having the fish take on the first drift :? :lol:

I think they've got a descent short term memory, but I doubt they have much of a long term memory

Smart fish is a myth perpetuated by fisherman that want to feel better about their abilities and catches; or to use as an excuse for getting skunked. :wink:

Intelligence and an organism?s ability to cognitively learn are very subjective terms as opposed to instinct or simple learned behavior. The mere fact you have to catch a fish to determine its place on the IQ scale doesn?t really help its chances for inclusion in the Mensa Society.

If you can?t catch a particular fish, is it because he is smart?

?or you are ineffective??

I have had virtual Einstein fish of all of 4? stymie my efforts at catching them all day until I either gave up or they finally succumbed; possibly to mock me. These fish were mere babies with parr marks and Pampers who were way too young to be versed in the ways of a wily trout?

?unless of course they were the elusive Pennsylvania Piscatorial Pygmy species???????

I have also caught the same moronic 20? trout TWICE on the same day with one hand tied behind my back; while slightly inebriated and feinting from heat exhaustion from smoking a cigar in 95 degree heat.

?maybe this fish just was unhappy with his life and wanted to end it all but didn?t have the fingers to pull the trigger on his gun so decided to get caught and eaten. His bad luck was to run into a C&R fisherman; TWICE!

Possibly the question should really be:

Are there smart fish and stupid fish?

OR

Are there smart fisherman and stupid fisherman?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramps

I shouldn't have read that.

---

Sorry Gramps. :oops: Just don't let this article be the reason you stop fishing....

Just remember all those times before when you felt so close to nature and so "at peace" on the water. Maybe you'll feel better... :wink:

This is a great thread, and thank you for that article. I've often wondered about this. I'm in the "smarter than we give them credit" category. Let me give you an example using the Letort, a stream near me. There is a noticeable difference in fish behavior when you approach the stream with or without a fly rod. Locals contend that the fish know you are there to catch them...I'm pretty sure they just think humans with sticks are bad news.

Its not an acknowledgement (which would necessitate reason and reflection), but there is some collective knowledge. To ask if fish are smart is ridiculous. Intelligence doesn't actually exist....humans created that concept and figured out how to quantifiy it. You can say someone is smart, but all you are really saying is that they are "smarter" than a portion of the population. I'm not saying that Einstein wasn't a genius, I'm just saying that he wouldn't have been one if there wasn't someone else there to tell him.

Here's another one. We essentially do the same thing with language. Do fish have language...well if you don't relegate language to the ability to speak...then yeah, they might. Example. They have these eels in NZ. The eels "know" when fish are caught because the fish release pheromones into the water to warn others about predators (i.e. the eel). Its clearly some form of communication (albeit slightly ironic since the pheromone to warn the eels has begun to attract them).

What gramps said.

I think I'm going to start drinking again. I can't handle this one.

Bob Bolton

I hope fish are really, really smart. I know they don't have much in the way of pain receptors in their nervous systems. And I know their brain capacity is crude and small. But I sure hope they learn from experience.

On the other hand, the law of natural selection predicates that we catch mostly the dumber ones and that the smartest survive the longest and eat the best...thus get biggest. It is actually far more likely that the "smart old fish" that haunts your favorite hole has never been caught than it is that he has learned from being caught.

But I like my quarry to be worthy and provide me with a challenge. The smarter the better. Doesn't bother me in the least. But I will say this...

Fish are smart enough not to sit around agonizing about how they treat their food and if they're being "fair" to all the other little aquatic critters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverMallard

I hope fish are really, really smart. I know they don't have much in the way of pain receptors in their nervous systems. And I know their brain capacity is crude and small. But I sure hope they learn from experience.

On the other hand, the law of natural selection predicates that we catch mostly the dumber ones and that the smartest survive the longest and eat the best...thus get biggest. It is actually far more likely that the "smart old fish" that haunts your favorite hole has never been caught than it is that he has learned from being caught.

But I like my quarry to be worthy and provide me with a challenge. The smarter the better. Doesn't bother me in the least. But I will say this...

Fish are smart enough not to sit around agonizing about how they treat their food and if they're being "fair" to all the other little aquatic critters.

---

Why don't you give them a real chance? Catch them with your hands.

That's two posts on this subject that you insulted some members of this forum. Is that your style?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverMallard

I hope fish are really, really smart. I know they don't have much in the way of pain receptors in their nervous systems. And I know their brain capacity is crude and small. But I sure hope they learn from experience.

On the other hand, the law of natural selection predicates that we catch mostly the dumber ones and that the smartest survive the longest and eat the best...thus get biggest. It is actually far more likely that the "smart old fish" that haunts your favorite hole has never been caught than it is that he has learned from being caught.

But I like my quarry to be worthy and provide me with a challenge. The smarter the better. Doesn't bother me in the least. But I will say this...

Fish are smart enough not to sit around agonizing about how they treat their food and if they're being "fair" to all the other little aquatic critters.

---

Why don't you give them a real chance? Catch them with your hands.

That's two posts on this subject that you insulted some members of this forum. Is that your style?

---

Actually, I've done that. It's challenging, alright. But too messy.

There is only one person whom I addressed specifically and nothing insulting was said in any of my posts except for that single "dumb question." The fact that I find it silly and even arrogant that we question the "ethics" of our predatory nature need not insult you...or anyone else. It's merely a different perspective from the way you view the universe and man's role in it. You see, I believe man is an animal...the most highly adapted and sophisticated of all animals, but an animal. I believe that man was created to be a predator and...as such...need make no apology for predatory behaviors. To ME, to question the "correctness" of this fundamental reality is arrogance against nature/the Creator...thinking more of ourselves than we have a right to. A lion doesn't feel sorry for the gazelle...either the ones he kills, or the ones he harasses and lets get away. Neither does he feel uncomfortable with is role in the universe. He's a lion.

It's like the old story about the farmer and the snake. The farmer finds this baby snake and makes it a "pet." Years later, the snake bites the farmer. The farmer says to the snake, "I took you in, raised you, fed you, kept you safe all of your life. And this is the thanks I get? I'm going to die!" To which the snake replies...

"What did you expect? I'm a SNAKE!"

Only overly-civilized people think like y'all do on these two threads. The vast majority of the people of planet Earth would find this discussion silly, too. Be glad that you are among the pampered minority...as am I. But I will not apologize for finding soul-searching about the "ethics" of hunting/fishing (in the abstract) silly. There are all sorts of "ethics" WITHIN the scope of hunting/fishing we can talk about intelligently. But to entertain the notion that hunting/fishing are somehow INHERENTLY unethical is...to ME...the height of arrogance. If that offends you...tough.

SilverMallard,
Your eloquence is surpassed ONLY by your logic . Or is it the other way around?? Nevertheless...................


Mark

I think (uh-oh), the longer one stands in the sun, the dummer they get. Add to this the amount of beer one consumes to alleviate dehydration, and walla. Everything even a rock, let alone a fish, gets smarter by the minute.

Now for those that do catch fish, let's see what they have to say.

Logically speaking (yikes!) we might be educating individual fish, but we are returning the dummies to the gene pool when we release them. If you want a bunch of really smart fish, keep the dummies and let only the smart ones survive and breed. But don't blame me if their kids knock your kids out of the better schools. <groan> 8)


Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverMallard

There is only one person whom I addressed specifically and nothing insulting was said in any of my posts except for that single "dumb question." The fact that I find it silly and even arrogant that we question the "ethics" of our predatory nature need not insult you...or anyone else. It's merely a different perspective from the way you view the universe and man's role in it. You see, I believe man is an animal...the most highly adapted and sophisticated of all animals, but an animal. I believe that man was created to be a predator and...as such...need make no apology for predatory behaviors. To ME, to question the "correctness" of this fundamental reality is arrogance against nature/the Creator...thinking more of ourselves than we have a right to. A lion doesn't feel sorry for the gazelle...either the ones he kills, or the ones he harasses and lets get away. Neither does he feel uncomfortable with is role in the universe. He's a lion.

It's like the old story about the farmer and the snake. The farmer finds this baby snake and makes it a "pet." Years later, the snake bites the farmer. The farmer says to the snake, "I took you in, raised you, fed you, kept you safe all of your life. And this is the thanks I get? I'm going to die!" To which the snake replies...

"What did you expect? I'm a SNAKE!"

---

As a preface, you have said: a different perspective. I find no offense here, neither should you.

I understand the logical flow of thought here, but disagree with it on the whole.

Man certainly is the most advanced creature on the earth. I do not feel, though, that man was created to be a predator. If this was man's purpose, then why have the ability to question our own actions? Why would we adapt the ability to know right from wrong, to reason and make decisions? If man was created to be a predator, then we would not be anything more than a funny lookings, scrawny bear (or whatever animal you like). Your logic speaks this as well.

The fact that we possess the capacity to question or own nature/purpose, logically, says that we should (should being an ethical word here of course). There is a difference between the lion, snake, fish and man--clearly. The difference is that they lack the capacity to question the correctness of their choices. They do not comprehend right from wrong, thus cannot be expected to live accordingly to what is universally, or locally deemed right and wrong by the higher species. On the other hand, we do comprehend this and to deny the fact that we should and could question this is not logical and in essence denies what makes us the more advanced species. Using an example of a "lesser" animal to justify our actions is not logical thinking.

Of course the snake will bite the farmer. As the story says, "what did you expect?" That snake doesn't have the mental capacity to realize, "if this nice old man had not taken me in, I'd be dead. I shouldn't bite him." We cannot expect anything more from that snake, but we can expect more from ourselves and the fact that we can expect anything is evidence enough of this.

Bottom line, while I disagree with some of what you said I will continue to fish. I'll continue to release most of my fish without a feeling of guilt and harvest some without a feeling of guilt. As I posted in the other thread, my decisions are based on my feelings. I rely solely on what makes me the higher species: my conscience and my ability to reason. I do not know how smart fish get or if they get smarter. If I see one cry or have one tell me that they cannot believe one could be so cruel then I'll stop fishing. Until then...FISH ON!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverMallard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverMallard

I hope fish are really, really smart. I know they don't have much in the way of pain receptors in their nervous systems. And I know their brain capacity is crude and small. But I sure hope they learn from experience.

On the other hand, the law of natural selection predicates that we catch mostly the dumber ones and that the smartest survive the longest and eat the best...thus get biggest. It is actually far more likely that the "smart old fish" that haunts your favorite hole has never been caught than it is that he has learned from being caught.

But I like my quarry to be worthy and provide me with a challenge. The smarter the better. Doesn't bother me in the least. But I will say this...

Fish are smart enough not to sit around agonizing about how they treat their food and if they're being "fair" to all the other little aquatic critters.

---

Why don't you give them a real chance? Catch them with your hands.

That's two posts on this subject that you insulted some members of this forum. Is that your style?

---

Actually, I've done that. It's challenging, alright. But too messy.

There is only one person whom I addressed specifically and nothing insulting was said in any of my posts except for that single "dumb question." The fact that I find it silly and even arrogant that we question the "ethics" of our predatory nature need not insult you...or anyone else. It's merely a different perspective from the way you view the universe and man's role in it. You see, I believe man is an animal...the most highly adapted and sophisticated of all animals, but an animal. I believe that man was created to be a predator and...as such...need make no apology for predatory behaviors. To ME, to question the "correctness" of this fundamental reality is arrogance against nature/the Creator...thinking more of ourselves than we have a right to. A lion doesn't feel sorry for the gazelle...either the ones he kills, or the ones he harasses and lets get away. Neither does he feel uncomfortable with is role in the universe. He's a lion.

It's like the old story about the farmer and the snake. The farmer finds this baby snake and makes it a "pet." Years later, the snake bites the farmer. The farmer says to the snake, "I took you in, raised you, fed you, kept you safe all of your life. And this is the thanks I get? I'm going to die!" To which the snake replies...

"What did you expect? I'm a SNAKE!"

Only overly-civilized people think like y'all do on these two threads. The vast majority of the people of planet Earth would find this discussion silly, too. Be glad that you are among the pampered minority...as am I. But I will not apologize for finding soul-searching about the "ethics" of hunting/fishing (in the abstract) silly. There are all sorts of "ethics" WITHIN the scope of hunting/fishing we can talk about intelligently. But to entertain the notion that hunting/fishing are somehow INHERENTLY unethical is...to ME...the height of arrogance. If that offends you...tough.

---

You're off on the killing fish for food instead of using C&R. I've said many many times I have no problem with catching fish for food. So, what does being a predator have to do with C&R? Why do we go fishing if we're not going to eat the fish? There's no other reason than for our own personal pleasure. The balance of nature or any other reason has nothing to do with it. It's fun, and man likes to have fun. Me included.

That's why when the Rabbi asked if anybody feels guilty to C&R. I said yes I do. Guilty enough to stop? I guess not, but I bend over backwards to make sure the fish lives. I guess that makes me feel a little better, but it doesn't take away the guilt.

I don't push my values onto anybody else, but when i'm asked about them. I give them, and I don't need to call someone stupid for not agreeing with me.

Neither did I. I...once...said I thought "Is fly fishing humane" was a dumb question. Smart people can ask dumb questions. I know I have. And I consider myself of above average intellect.

Furthermore, I have addressed C&R. Let me try to be a bit more clear...and concise. We practice C&R fishing because fishing is fun. Why is it fun? Because we possess both reason (including the ability to discern right from wrong) AND a predatory nature. And we feel a need to express and hone/maintain some semblance of our predatory skills/nature. But our intellect leads us to do so with restraint and to challenge ourselves by making it more difficult (sport). Finally, we practice C&R for two reasons: we are lazy and don't want to clean and prepare as many fish as we want to catch (which I believe is the MAIN reason most who do it do so) and we know that if every fisherman in today's modern world keeps every fish they catch, no one will be fishing for very much longer...and we want to continue our fun into the future (including future generations).

Hope that clears things up for you.

Wild One,

See my explanation of C&R in the above reply to Gramps for a "reader's digest condensed version" of how I view the dichotomy of the higher intellect of man AND man's predatory nature...and how they work together. I do not deny either. I have reconciled them for myself. Also, my other post from this morning on the "humane" thread speaks to a lot of this.

It is not illogical to draw examples from nature about nature. That would only be illogical to someone who separates man from nature. My baser instincts can be explained and illuminated in terms of comparisons to baser creatures and their behaviors and instincts. Over-civilization makes modern men and women forget these truths. But we need only look to the vast majority of the human population for many, many examples of the predatory instincts and mandates...whether it be life and death struggles, human-on-human bloodsports ranging from sport to crime to war, or the civilized behavior of men and women in business and politics.

To deny the predatory nature of man is the height of denial. Thus, completely illogical...because about 98% of the entire body of evidence provided by the known universe tells us man is a predator. But we also know that man is by far the most highly intellectually developed creature on Earth. Yes, we possess the ability to reason and to discern abstract concepts like good/evil. Yes, that should constrain us logically. For me, it's all about balance, not denying one for the sake of the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverMallard

Neither did I. I...once...said I thought "Is fly fishing humane" was a dumb question. Smart people can ask dumb questions. I know I have. And I consider myself of above average intellect.

Furthermore, I have addressed C&R. Let me try to be a bit more clear...and concise. We practice C&R fishing because fishing is fun. Why is it fun? Because we possess both reason (including the ability to discern right from wrong) AND a predatory nature. And we feel a need to express and hone/maintain some semblance of our predatory skills/nature. But our intellect leads us to do so with restraint and to challenge ourselves by making it more difficult (sport). Finally, we practice C&R for two reasons: we are lazy and don't want to clean and prepare as many fish as we want to catch (which I believe is the MAIN reason most who do it do so) and we know that if every fisherman in today's modern world keeps every fish they catch, no one will be fishing for very much longer...and we want to continue our fun into the future (including future generations).

Hope that clears things up for you.

---

Not really. you said this a couple of times, but i'm too lazy to find it. This is your quote:

"Fish are smart enough not to sit around agonizing about how they treat their food and if they're being "fair" to all the other little aquatic critters."

What are you really saying here. Fish are smart enough to not do what we're doing. Isn't that calling those who are doing this stupider than fish?

I see. So you're taking personal offense to me poking a bit of fun at the entire topic in an abstract sort of way.

Well, I'm sorry you are doing that. But I don't feel responsible for your angst. You see, I don't have guilt issues.

(that is a pretty good example of the difference between empathy, sympathy, and guilt. you see, i empathize with your plight - meaning i can understand/appreciate it. but i don't sympathize with it - meaning i am not compelled to alleviate your suffering. and that's because i don't feel guilty for it - meaning i have no personal responsibility for YOUR internal conflicts)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverMallard

I see. So you're taking personal offense to me poking a bit of fun at the entire topic in an abstract sort of way.

Well, I'm sorry you are doing that. But I don't feel responsible for your angst. You see, I don't have guilt issues.

(that is a pretty good example of the difference between empathy, sympathy, and guilt. you see, i empathize with your plight - meaning i can understand/appreciate it. but i don't sympathize with it - meaning i am not compelled to alleviate your suffering. and that's because i don't feel guilty for it - meaning i have no personal responsibility for YOUR internal conflicts)

---

I never asked you for sympathy, and frankly wouldn't want it. I was asked a question from Rabbi, and was honest enough to answer it.

You came along with your opinions, and in the process called some dumb. Even if it was in a round about way. I saw no fooling around in your posts, so I doubt you were poking fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverMallard

I see. So you're taking personal offense to me poking a bit of fun at the entire topic in an abstract sort of way.

Well, I'm sorry you are doing that. But I don't feel responsible for your angst. You see, I don't have guilt issues.

(that is a pretty good example of the difference between empathy, sympathy, and guilt. you see, i empathize with your plight - meaning i can understand/appreciate it. but i don't sympathize with it - meaning i am not compelled to alleviate your suffering. and that's because i don't feel guilty for it - meaning i have no personal responsibility for YOUR internal conflicts)

---

I never asked you for sympathy, and frankly wouldn't want it. I was asked a question from Rabbi, and was honest enough to answer it.

You came along with your opinions, and in the process called some dumb. Even if it was in a round about way. I saw no fooling around in your posts, so I doubt you were poking fun.

---

And I was simply honest enough to answer it from MY perspective and to say that I found some of the other replies humorous. It was when I said some folks replies were "cracking me up" that you first took issue with my posts. I have no quarrel with you or your right to hold your own opinions on the matters. I never addressed you directly and you made assumptions about the intention and targets of my posts...even going so far as to try and call my character into question. If you want something to channel all that guilt towards...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverMallard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverMallard

I see. So you're taking personal offense to me poking a bit of fun at the entire topic in an abstract sort of way.

Well, I'm sorry you are doing that. But I don't feel responsible for your angst. You see, I don't have guilt issues.

(that is a pretty good example of the difference between empathy, sympathy, and guilt. you see, i empathize with your plight - meaning i can understand/appreciate it. but i don't sympathize with it - meaning i am not compelled to alleviate your suffering. and that's because i don't feel guilty for it - meaning i have no personal responsibility for YOUR internal conflicts)

---

I never asked you for sympathy, and frankly wouldn't want it. I was asked a question from Rabbi, and was honest enough to answer it.

You came along with your opinions, and in the process called some dumb. Even if it was in a round about way. I saw no fooling around in your posts, so I doubt you were poking fun.

---

And I was simply honest enough to answer it from MY perspective and to say that I found some of the other replies humorous. It was when I said some folks replies were "cracking me up" that you first took issue with my posts. I have no quarrel with you or your right to hold your own opinions on the matters. I never addressed you directly and you made assumptions about the intention and targets of my posts...even going so far as to try and call my character into question. If you want something to channel all that guilt towards...

---

Cracking you up as in laughing at us?


I didn't address you until you addressed me by talking to the members who were felling guilt. Which I obviously was one of them. You don't need to use my name to be talking to me.

Ethics have nothing to do with my feelings. I'm just a compassionate person towards living things. I used to hunt until it got to the point I couldn't do it anymore. I hope that doesn't happen with fly fishing to me, because I enjoy too much about it besides the actual catching of fish.

Pete,

I don't believe you DO hunt or fish, if you want to know the truth. I'm beginning to suspect you're a PETA-type troll...an animal rights activist who thinks a fish is as valuable as a person. You've been trying to pick a fight for the past 24 hours now...and trying to stake out some sort of esoteric moral high ground because you feel "guilty" about fishing.

Now I've had enough of this nonsense. You have every right to think fish are as important as people. And I have every right to think people who believe that sort of foolishness are delusional and irrelevant (at best) or dangerous (at worst).

If you truly feel guilty about fishing and continue to do it anyway, I have no respect for you. You have no integrity. If you're just trying to make others question the rightness of the enjoyment of fishing and hunting, then you are a manipulative, deceitful adversary and you have no business here.

I suggest you get off this personal conflict tangent right away. It will not end well for you if you pursue it.

Putting words in my mouth? Please quote me when I said fish were as important as people?

It's you who are looking for a fight. I merely expressed my own personal feelings. I never pushed them on others. It's you who can't handle others not accepting your views.

I'm waiting for the quote.


I don't fish? That doesn't even deserve an answer. You're getting disparate now.

Wonder why I just bought these flies?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7.../Picture-1.jpg

Unfortunately, this thread no longer suits my taste and so will leave a last post here (unless of course I just can't keep my mouth shut :lol: )

SM, I see your points and can honestly without guilt (pun-intended) or betrayal to myself say that I also strive for balance. I enjoy debating different view points because I know I'll learn from them, which I have here.

I suppose that I do seperate man from nature to a certain extent because I believe that man is the best. It gets no better on this planet. There is something special about man. That may sound arrogant and conceded, but I can accept that because it is true.

I do agree that over-civilization is to blame for this type of thinking; however, I disagree with the term "over-civilization." This is the natural order of man's thinking. Naturally, man placed in a situation will organize and continue organizing until he (as a species or group not an individual) has become "civilized."

Life-death struggles, bloodsport and typical business practices may be fueled by a predatory nature, but I believe them to be fueled by somethings man has termed pride and selfishness (which of course are linked). Depending on your point of view these terms could be synonomous. Yes, this is the natural instinct of man. Label it predatory or prideful.

I agree that balance is key here. Along with being the most advanced creature, man is also the most complicated, which really makes sense. We have a nature of pride and selfishness or predation yet we also have a gift of compassion. We posess the ability to reason, which drives us to recognize the difference between the two and we have these feelings that help us choose whether we cast here or there, kill this or that, or say this or say that, etc. Thus proving that you have nailed the clincher: BALANCE. Unfortunately, balance for me may not be the same balance for you or for Pete (Gramps). Let me rephrase that. FORTUNATELY, the balance is different for us. Which of course inspires further balance. Some would call this balance civilization.

Thanks for the exchange, I've gained something from it. Hopefully Gramps and yourself can mend your issues on this, because you'll never agree. You're both splitting hairs and picking words. Again, I'll do mine, you do yours. If the balance is different, then its different. Celebrate that, its what makes us what we are. In the words of Rick Z "Hope you can get out on the water," because I'll bet that we'll all feel better when we do.

I have no hard feelings. I don't hold grudges, or really get upset over things said on a forum. I'm sure if we were in person the conversation would have been different. Forums are what they are, and misunderstandings are the norm.

With that said.

I'm going fishing.

In northern China the concept of C&R does not translate. They can not comprehend any idea of fishing without keeping the fish.

In some European countries you must keep and kill every fish you catch.

There are some folks with strong thoughts on the different strains of brown trout. One being more willing to surface feed than the other.

A few will argue that hatchery trout that are fed floating food grow up to be better risers than those fed sinking pellets.

Some cultures thank the fish or other game when they are caught.

And other societies apologize to the fish whether kept or released.