Please welcome Eyoyo Underwater Fishing Cameras.https://amzn.to/3siEgXn
PCB Elegant Great Job Thank You
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Went to this web site http://www.fwdailynews.com Found a Grip column call "The Fence Post". A lot like IceShanty.com. Maybe some members could sign up and compete with Mr. Phillips. Use secret code name. Mr. Justice
I sent Mr. Phillips my comments on how bad we are in NY as well for keeping too many perch.
The eruption of venomous indignation that followed the Internet publication of a recent column of mine suggests a short history lesson of the conservation movement is not only appropriate, but sorely needed. The column argued the pejorative phrase “fish hog” could reasonably be applied to a pair of ice fishermen who one day kept upwards of 125 yellow perch and then posted a bragging-rights photo of their catch on the Internet. It is not my purpose to further involve the two anglers. Rather, it is to address their ice-fishing acolytes who found my “opinion” egregiously wrong, as if I had arrived at my conclusion solely by my own thoughts and in total ignorance of the relevant facts. Indeed, one critic concluded I was a “bonehead.” Importantly, many implied they would keep as many fish if the opportunity arose. In reading their comments (posted at www.fwdailynews.com) I was reminded of the Sherlock Holmes case involving the dog that didn’t bark. My critics rarely mentioned “conservation” or “sportsmanship,” the guiding stars of modern angling and fish management. The omission speaks volumes, like the silent dog. The conservation movement began in the 1880s in response to the wholesale plunder of our nation’s vanishing stocks of fish and wildlife. Its goal was to restore and maintain bountiful populations, while allowing for a reasonable harvest for anglers and hunters, in order to preserve fishing and hunting for future generations. The movement quickly developed a prestigious following. Among those who rallied to its cause through the decades, and were of importance to anglers, were Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, John Lacey, Will Dilg, Charles Frederick Holder, Aldo Leopold, Frank Mather, Lee Wulff, Ray Scott and, of course, George O. Shields. Those of us who fish today are the beneficiaries of their legacy. Initially, the movement focused on eliminating commercial fishing and market hunting. Angling-oriented conservationists thought that removing the economic incentive of the marketplace would halt wholesale netting and allow our fisheries to rebuild, especially on inland lakes and streams. Sadly, this was not always the case. Shields, a prominent member of the early conservation movement and publisher of several outdoor-related periodicals, found that while a commercial ban allowed many fish and game animals to avoid an “economic death,” this did not materially increase their chances of survival. Too many hook-and-line fishermen and gun-toting Nimrods failed to exercise restraint. They killed everything possible, eliminating many of the fish and game animals purportedly saved by banning commercial netting and market hunting. This prevented a bountiful recovery. In the early 1900s Shields coined the phrase “game hog” to describe these individuals, a phrase quickly modified to include “fish hogs.” This prompted early conservationists to champion the cause of sportsmanship (a code of individual behavior that urged restraint). They also pressured state legislatures to enact seasons and bag limits. Today, the forward edge of conservation calls for each angler to “limit your kill, not kill your limit.” A minority (principally trout, Atlantic salmon and bass anglers) call for total catch-and-release, the no-kill alternative. For the record, I subscribe to the ideals of the conservation movement. In recent years I have released all Atlantic salmon, brown trout and bass, but the same cannot be said for other species, a few of which I keep each year. My annual take-home total today is less than 25 fish. I further recognize that an indeterminate number of fish die that I release. I therefore make no claim to being a catch-and-release purist. What is troubling about many of my critics is their ignorance of conservation history, especially their expressed belief that if the law imposes no bag limit, as is the case with yellow perch in Indiana, an angler should not be criticized for taking all he wants, no matter how high the total. The conservation movement has been fighting this mind-set since its inception. It is the reason the phrase “fish hog” came into being 100 years ago. My critics further sought to justify the big bag on biological grounds, asserting that perch populations in our local waters are exceedingly abundant. They argue that yellow perch are so prolific that if anglers didn’t take large numbers, our local lakes soon would be over-run with them, resulting in stunted populations. This argument defies scientific credibility. Neil Ledet, the district fisheries biologist for northeastern Indiana, stated that of the 90-plus lakes in our area, only four have what might be considered stunted fish — and these involve bass and bluegills. This suggests local perch populations not only are below optimum, but pose no reproductive threat. It defies logic to suggest that maximizing the kill will somehow restore our suboptimal perch stocks to levels approaching optimal abundance. I could continue to address other matters they raised — if the fish are eaten, it is OK; if you go out nine times and catch few or no fish, pigging out on the 10th outing is OK; if a fish population is in trouble, the local fish and game agency will immediately step in to provide a corrective action, and so on. But discussing these arguments would serve no useful purpose, for they are mere abstractions. The crux of the issue is conservation. Its focus is far greater than the number of perch once taken by two anglers on an Indiana lake. At its heart, it represents our society’s moral commitment to better stewardship of our lands and waters. As Aldo Leopold so eloquently expressed it nearly half a century ago, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” How many fish might be appropriate to take home is a relative matter. Leopold correctly noted that “the ethics of sportsmanship is not a fixed code, but must be formulated and practiced by the individual, with no referee but the Almighty.” (Conservationists might argue the Almighty has done a poor job of refereeing.) But killing all the perch (or any other species) you might desire on a body of water with a suboptimal population, even if legal, will not “preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community” no matter how you try to gloss over it. A history of fish exploitation has proven that. On the other hand, if you want to take home an ultra-heavy stringer of perch, you are free to do so. The law allows it. I only suggest you do yourself a favor. Don’t describe yourself to others as a “conservationist” or “sportsman.” It would offend Roosevelt, Grinnell, Lacey, Dilg, Holder, Leopold, Mather, Wulff and Scott, along with many others, including the notable, phrase-coining George O. Shields.James H. Phillips can be reached at [email protected].
Mr. Phillips has a way with words. If ya catch fish and keep em you ain't a sportsman.....Compared his critics to silent dogs. Good job Mr. Phillips. Looks like the responses left by many on here made Mr. P a little itchy in his own skin. Funny thing is Mr. P never once said that he was wrong for labeling people who he never met in his life. Only thing I read was he was defending his bias article. Takes a big man to omit when he is wrong. Mr. Phillips you will be in my prayers!!