|
|
Posts: 785
| There has been a few interesting discussions on here lately relating to situations for releasing or keeping muskies. I am curious to see what pertcentage of Muskie Firsters practice all catch and release or some selective harvest under certain situations. This is not to be a depate or argument. This does not include what you feel is ok for OTHERS to do. This is strictly what you and you alone feel you will do on the water. By the way this is not taking into account a fish that can't be revived... I feel that is a completely different ball game. This only relates to healthy fish you have a choice to either keep or release. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 229
| shes going back no matter what.....if its a possible world record take some pics and hope people believe you....its not worth the fishes life.
Edited by Ajohnson 1/25/2008 3:49 PM
|
|
| |
|
| all my fish return from where they from dead or alive,big like small. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| For the record the top option basically means no matter what. I put for fish that can be revived to attempt to prevent that becoming an argument on this thread.
Just assume the fish in question could be revived. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I added my option of not keeping any even if it dies because it would be good for the system even if just decomposes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 144
Location: Green Bay, WI | thought about adding "Will keep every legal until there is no more wall space in the Bar I own in Pipe WI." but then people might actually think I'm that guy.... 
Edited by bobski 1/25/2008 4:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| that's ok Bob, I was gonna add "keep long enough to transport it to a place where I KNOW it would be happier, and have a better muskie life, somewhere where I could maybe visit it again, where it can swim around with a bunch of other big muskies and do whatever it is muskies do when they're not eating..."
But then I wouldn't ever do that, and I wouldn't want people to think I'm that guy. |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | I asked myself this and decided I am keeping the world record musky(should I catch it), and any irrevivable musky that I encounter, & I will confiscate their cleithera bones and donate them to the state's DNR for research.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| muskellunged - 1/25/2008 5:29 PM
& I will confiscate their cleithera bones and donate them to the state's DNR for research.
I thought the same thing!
I used to say I was a 99.9% C&R fisherman, but now even the thought of keeping a possible world record makes me uneasy. First, it's the "possible" that's the kicker. I'd hate to be wrong if the world record was what I was shooting for. No prize for 2nd place, IMO. Second, the flak you'd receive catching and killing it (here some people might disagree... but look at the comments flying around Gelb's two monster fish and some of the heavy Mille Lacs fish that have been kept), for me, out weighs the gratitude of seeing my name next to "World Record". I'd take a bunch of pics, document the heck out of it, show it to friends, and let the story end there.
Nonetheless, should someone catch a giant I would not berate them for it. Would you chastise or brow-beat someone for winning the lottery? IMO, that's essentially what we're talking about here, winning the muskie fishing "lottery." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | If and when the day comes a fish dies on me then yes it will be kept as long as its a leagle. I hate seeing dead fish floating and a dead muskie floating is worse than any. I'm sure any who have seen one floating has felt their blood boil a little. Imaging what others will think of us as if they see us release a dead fish. THis sports tough enough to get people educated.
Not all fish will survive the fight and the realease no matter how perfect conditions are.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 101
| I checked off would only keep if I couldn't release it. I doubt I'll ever be fishing on waters that contain the next WR, or hook up with it for that matter. Even so, I think if one were to encounter that, there is enough technology in this world to get ahold of the right people while keeping the fish alive.
I'm not a big fish expert, but last year a friend got one in the boat with me, and we only had that fish out of the water for 10 seconds max. for some photos and it still took a good 5 minutes to release it. It was not overplayed either. Caught in fall so water temps were not high. I would much rather see the fish swim away than flop around in the bottom of my boat.
~Dawg |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Fishing is an individual sport and I think some of you guys have to stop worrying about what other people think about you keeping a fish. I am not advocating keeping fish for no reason but when I hear someone say that they would be afraid to keep a fish that MIGHT not be a world record I wonder if this sport has gotten to eletist. Stop worrying what other people think and do what you think. Within reason of course.
It's funny that everybody get's bent out of shape if someone keeps a musky. Al we hear is that it's not going to be a world record if it's not released. Myquestion for you is do you say the same thing when you see someone shoot a deer? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1290
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Some waters NEED harvest. Let's not eliminate that option. If it means a better fishery, why not? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8
Location: northern Maine | hi guys, I fish in waters that muskie were illeagally introduced 35 years ago . Here muskie are not considered a game fish and has no protection, size, length, or limit. Muskie have destroyed the only wild brook trout fishery east of the mississippi river and are a novelty for area fishermen though the muskie are getting fairly nice in size and length 40 plus inches and 25 plus pounds. |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 1/26/2008 7:23 AM
Some waters NEED harvest. Let's not eliminate that option. If it means a better fishery, why not? oh you tell me!why? where? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1057
Location: Medford, WI | I'll release everything, but I was thinking the same thing as Mr. Ramsell before I saw he had posted it. Some waters may "need" some harvesting to better the fishery.
-Jake |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1451
Location: Kronenwetter, WI | I thought about that world record deal. Hmmmm...what would I do if I really thought I had the WORLD RECORD, would I keep it?....that's a tough one....A wrestling match broke out inside my regretfully low-capacity coco-nut before the referee stepped in and reminded everyone, "That ain't happinin' NO-HOW"...world record musky....as if...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | ron f
Be careful what you ask for, if Larry decides to take the time you will be reading about 100% stocked lakes, lakes that are overpopulated, and more for a month; probably more.
I'll give this example again:
I spent a few hours with the fisheries management folks at Cave Run in Kentucky interviewing them about their take on increased size limits, genetics, and more. When asked about pressures there by some to increase the size limit to increase trophy potential, the biologist stated that the system would not do well under current management practices with a larger limit because:
1) The shad there are cyclical. Muskies stocking on the Cave is pretty impressive in numbers, and that KNOWING and in fact counting on a level of harvest that will interact with the 15% to 30% natural mortality of each year class each year.
2) The Cave is managed as a 'numbers' system as well as for trophy potential. Their data shows that about the number expected to reach upper confidence there do, and a healthy number of up and coming year classes are stocked.
3) Other game fish in the Cave are interacting and competing for forage with the Muskies. I think this is an important portion of the equasion many miss...THERE ARE OTHER ANGLERS LOOKING TO CATCH OTHER SPECIES OF FISH IN THESE WATERS, and the lakes that are mainly put and take (near zero natural reproduction) must be managed for those fish as well. We ain't the only anglers on the water.
OK, so the numbers of fish from the local hatchery (these are fish natural to the area, but when the Cave was created by damming a river habitats were forever altered, and the muskies in the Cave do not reproduce well) are stocked each year.
The biologists there KNOW the shad population can and will crash occasionally.
If harvest was much lower from the year classes across the board as a result of either new ethics or regulation, and there is the inevitable reduction in shad from a cyclical or other issue, the population of muskies overall will crash. Not enough food, and too many fish. Balancing the population and maintaining an incredible fishery like the Cave isn't as simple as us laymen would like.
No stocking, no Muskies. A 40" limit would command a WAY lower number of stocked fish. There is an incredible balance of year classes in the Cave, and the expected number reaching upper limits are there. In short, that management plan is a complete success, and the scientists don't need us off-the-edge extremists who want every single muskie in the world to have a better status than young children mucking it up with our chest thumping.
ADDING to that the fact the fish there have a much shorter lifespan( less than half what the fish in waters by you) and one begins to see the whats and why-fors.
OK, another example, up here in Northern WI. There are lakes here that are fairly sterile with not the best water chemistry to grow muskies. The forage is not fatty like shad or ciscoes, and suckers don't do well there either. A really big fish in these little northwoods gems is in the low 40" class, and the fish are not very heavy. However, the fishing is incredible, with 5 to 10 fish days possible. Little or no natural reproduction occurs, so the lake would have ZERO muskies if not managed for them. These are NUMBERS lakes, and the stocking takes place to hold the numbers at reasonable numbers anticipating harvest at an expected level. In short, these are 'numbers' lakes. Force 100% release or a size limit that means the same thing, and the DNR will no longer manage these waters for muskies for what should be obvious reasons. I LIKE fishing numbers-put-and-take waters and don't want to lose them because someone else doesn't 'get it' why we even have them in the first place.
Manage trophy potential lakes at a limit that means almost no harvest, and the biologists can work to see most of the fish reach their upper confidence limit. ALMOST the same thing as total CPR, and far more socially acceptable.
We are, sometimes, our own worst enemy. Look to the failed attempt to get a 50" limit on a group of trophy potential lakes up here and why is was so soundly defeated. AND...THINK!!!! If the DNR feels we are at 99% to 100% CPR on a body of water, they may adjust the numbers down for stocking or cease altogether if limited NR is available. The lake would progress a fishery with great numbers of fish from 36 to 48" and expected numbers reaching the upper confidence level to a very low density population (less than .3 fish per acre) and emphasis on much lower numbers but a few more making the upper confidence limit. What if the muskies there can't GET to 45" because of water chemistry, forage, and a number of other issues? As a Trophy hunter, no one fishes the lake. As a numbers seeker, no one fishes the lake. Might as well manage it for Largemouth and Bluegills.
I would refer you to this link. This gent is highly respected and is part and parcel of the vey definition of Muskie research, and knows what he's talking about.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/dl_wmv.asp?clip=480
A Caution T o Us All From My Little Soapbox:
SO as I try to explain the realities of managing the varied systems across the range of the Muskie, the above truths emerge. Because I try to present the facts of the matter, some incredibly shallow thinking individuals interpret that as a personal bias toward harvest and call me a hypocrite. Not so, THINK a bit more and spend some of the time currently spent throwing stones at anyone who suggests harvest is part of muskie management in some waters to learn more about why those waters are managed as they are. And if you don't fish those waters anyway, you REALLY need to think before you try to force your personal ethic into management practices there.
That said, I haven't intentionally killed a muskie since the concept of CPR was introduced. And, now with the great reproductions like those Rick Lax offers, I won't...no need to. If I am lucky enough to catch a 60# fish, I suspect I'll shoot some images and let her go. But that's me.
Why do you think there are lakes and rivers in Canada with 36" limits, and.....lakes and rivers with 54" limits? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| Steve,
Outstanding post!! Wish I would of said that, eh? LOL!!
DougP
Edited by fins355 1/26/2008 10:07 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1286
Location: WI | I'll never catch a WR, but if I did I'd keep it... I suppose in the long run it wouldn't be worth it due to all the attention...but it's such a random, magnificent thing and this sport NEEDS a new WR so we can get over all the old controversy.
Basically I have no intention of keep a ski, but if it died I probably would. I would rather have a nice one on my wall than floating dead somewhere feeding the seagulls. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 232
Location: Sun Prairie, WI | This whole subject proves one thing,
"All fishermen are liars, except you and me, and sometimes I wonder about you!"
Edited by ESOXER 1/26/2008 10:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1290
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | ron f:
Mr. Worrall pretty much covered it and I'll only add that here in Wisconsin there is a valid reason for lakes with 28" size limits; to encourage removal of excessive numbers of smaller fish to benefit the fishery. Simple!
As noted before, a new world record would be good for the sport. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | Won't keep one even it dies! That makes no sense to me. You are saying you have a fish in your boat thats legal and dead and you'll throw it back? Thats a hell of waste of a resource. There is always someone that would be happy to fed their family.
Pfeiff |
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Say what you want, but I'll admit it, I kept a musky once. Thing died under unexplainable circumstances, and rather than waste it, and have some other angler see it floating and come on here barking about the dead musky he found, I pickled it. Felt sick about that fish the entire day and some of the next day, but I think it was just "its time." Short fight, sub-50 degree water, netted and unhooked quickly. Can't explain it. Thing was quivering when we netted it and its gills were already pink and fading.
That fish was DEAD dead. To me, "releasing" that one would be pretty unethical. Only fish I know of that died, although I suspect at least a handful of others might not have made it as well.
Anyway.
I like that WI and other places have smaller size limits as a management tool, but to me, if muskies need to be "managed," there were probably too many stocked there in the first place. Me thinks muskies should be managed through stocking, not by keeping.
But again, when needed, I'm glad we have keeping fish as an option, in that event. |
|
| |
|
| At the writing of this post there are 22 people saying they wouldn't keep a fish even if it dies. I am saddened to hear that 22 fish may some day expire to become turtle food. Doesn't this help to perpetuate the perception that we are elitests? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Guest - 1/28/2008 7:38 AM
At the writing of this post there are 22 people saying they wouldn't keep a fish even if it dies. I am saddened to hear that 22 fish may some day expire to become turtle food. Doesn't this help to perpetuate the perception that we are elitests?
Technically, it probably also violates a State's wanton waste rule; I know it would here.
S. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Nevermind, people just don't understand
Edited by MikeHulbert 1/28/2008 10:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
| turtles need food too. but then again so do some peoples egos. |
|
| |
|
| MikeHulbert - 1/28/2008 8:49 AM
If and when a fish dies in my boat...I am not going to keep it or allow it to be kept.
It will be let go for the other creatures to eat.
Not a waste all all in my opinion. It is feeding alot of other animals. If I want food I can go to a grocery store or get a steak at one of the millions available to us humans.
No musky is going to be stuffed into my livewell. EVER, no matter what.
Dang Dude....
A "reputable" guide like your self should look into other options. Either offer the client to take it home for table fair, or even donate to a local taxidermy shop or technical school...Rather than publicly announce that your a firm believer in Wanton Waste..
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | To those who say they wouldn’t keep a fish even if it dies. I would like to ask why? I am serious here I am very curious as to the reasoning. I mean this is not an improbability. I have seen walleye and pike die on the hook set, I am sure it’s only a matter of time before it happens with a musky for me.
I can somewhat understand the turtle food explanation, but there has to be more to it than that, becasue that does seem like waste, and it's more like crawfish food.
Thanks!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | Never mind, people want to act like I break the rules, then fine.
I'M DONE
Edited by MikeHulbert 1/28/2008 10:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Mike, picking up dead deer isn't the same as keeping a fish that accidently died.
I applaud your zest for C&R, but PLEASE do me a favor, if you ever have a legal one that died, call me. I will be happy to serve it up with some garlic mashed potatoes, and a spinach salad with pomegranate salad dressing
Sometimes they die, if it ever happens to me it is going on the grill and I will come on here and tell you all how it tasted. That said I will NEVER keep one that will release.
John |
|
| |
|
| Per the MN regs:
Any fish that is caught and will not be utilized must be immediately returned alive back into the water. A person cannot wantonly waste a fish that is caught by leaving it or any usable portion on the ice, thrown up on the bank, or intentionally killing it and returning it back into the water unless authorized.
A ticket for sure and a poor example to set by a guide to say the least. Plus you would be at your daily limit for muskies and couldn't fish them legally the rest of the day. |
|
| |
|
| If you saw a floating dead musky would you get pick it up and put it in your boat to take home and eat? mount? do not think so. or at least i hope not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| maxey - 1/28/2008 9:57 AM If you saw a floating dead musky would you get pick it up and put it in your boat to take home and eat? mount? do not think so. or at least i hope not. Not even close to the same thing Max. I appreciate the zeal for catch and release, but letting a dead fish float off is not helping anything. Eating/mounting/whatever one that died on you and had no chance of survival does not ruin your track record..nor does it make you any more of a release advocate. Besides, it's against the law |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | People who don't understand, never will
I'm DONE
Edited by MikeHulbert 1/28/2008 10:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| <p>I dont think intention has anything to do with it Mike. Returning dead fish to the water is wanton waste and is illegal...in MN at least.</p><p>In the eyes of the law...releasing a dead fish is no different than tossing a live one up on the bank. </p>
Edited by BALDY 1/28/2008 10:05 AM
|
|
| |
|
| What a waste...look at all that food I could have for my clients....I could throw dead deer in the back of my truck, get it processed and feed all of my clients!!!
lol...you might work on your analogies.
for example, in WI, if you kill a deer with your car it is legal to take it home. it's still fresh and if not too badly torn up can be just fine.
dead and rotting is waste.
dead and supper is useful.
we had a low 40s fish inhale a bucktail this summer in MN and rip it's gills out on the hooks. that fish was d-e-a-d within minutes. we tried a number of different means to revive it for over an hour, but it was a goner.
due to the size limit regulations on the lake, we could not legally keep it and had to "release" it, dead. hopefully it was eaten by eagles or a bear or something and didn't just rot on the shoreline.
honestly, i felt worse about the waste of this fish than i did about it dying. sometimes they die, that's a part of the sport, and that's why the fisheries are managed with regulations. i've never kept a live muskie, and never will, but in retrospect if that same situation happens again i'll break the law and take it home for dinner. if it's not waste for the crawfish to eat it, then it isn't waste for me to eat it either. it's an example of the "gap" between the size limit (law) and the wanton waste issue (law). in those cases you have to make your own decision about what you think is the best/right thing to do.
being inflexible about "rules" (even if they're your own) simply boxes oneself into a corner. it IS possible to advocate 100% catch-photo-release without being unrealistic about potential exceptions.
|
|
| |
|
| Actually per MN Regs you cannot rifle down a dead fish to the bottom of the lake.
Publicly announcing what you beleive in and publicly announcing your breaking the law are two complete different things and doesnt send a good message to the younger crowd of upcoming fisherman..
I will cancel my Musky Hunter subscriptioin if contributing editors are publicly announcing they break the law...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I guess I'll step up here.
One of the issues I have with the idea of releasing a fish which is mortally wounded is that the angler can essentially kill one muskie and continue to fish with the real possibility of killing another fish, or more, the same day.
Minnesota actually discourages the release of a legal fish if it is obvious that the fish is mortally wounded and will most likely die.
If that fish is kept, instead of becoming turtle food and allowing the angler to continue fishing, he would have have filled his limit and legally be required to stop fishing muskies. That would give the fishery a measure of protection by removing that angler at least for that day.
A 100% C&R angler has the real possibility of killing multiple fish in one day by releasing all without discretion
DougP |
|
| |
|
| I have never had to make that choice, at least not yet, but when the time comes, if it does, the fish will sink and stay in the food chain where it belongs, not in my stomach or on my wall. just my opinion. I also believe it states INTENTIONALLY killing the fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | simply don't get it...
Edited by MikeHulbert 1/28/2008 10:22 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2378
| maxey - 1/28/2008 10:10 AM I have never had to make that choice, at least not yet, but when the time comes, if it does, the fish will sink and stay in the food chain where it belongs, not in my stomach or on my wall. just my opinion. I also believe it states INTENTIONALLY killing the fish. A dead fish is a dead fish. It doesnt matter how it got dead...returning it to the water, leaving it on the ice, throwing it on the bank...is wanton waste and is illegal. Do what you want, but that's the way it is.
And, you are part of the food chain Max...
Edited by BALDY 1/28/2008 10:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | A dead floating musky fits Mike H’s road kill analogy much better than a fish that just dies as a result of being caught.
When we hook up a lure with 5/0, 6/0 or even 10/0 hooks we do not have the best interest of the fish in mind. First thought, catch the fish, second thought release the fish alive, but anything can happen.
I still ask why 30 people marked release even if dead? I am really curious what the true benefit of that is. I have a theory but I will save it for later.
By the way roadkill is awesome. I have lots of buddies that are sheriff deputies. Many of them take the meat when they respond to a car/deer strike, or even car/bear strike. Many a Packer tailgate party was supplied with freshly tenderized roadkill. If there is no call and the deer is happened upon by a deputy it is usually marked and later picked up by the county road department and then deposited in the landfill. More similar to the floating musky that is just left for the crawfish, crows and eagles.
In my opinion if it’s fresh there is no reason not to eat it. I would like to know why others don’t feel that way, are the turtles starving?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | I am also glad that you guys act like I do this. I haven't had to "Rifle" one down to the depths. I haven't had a 52 incher die on me to keep...
I am not publically announcing that I break the law. I haven't done this, so no law was broken.
SO please don't put words in my mouth. I am done with this.
Edited by MikeHulbert 1/28/2008 10:17 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| I'm sorry, but none of this makes sense. The regs for "wanton waste" are grey at best leaving lots of room for interpretation, but I am of a mind that if you put back a dead fish it violates this clause. Decide for yourself. For example, here is a section from Indiana's 2007 regulations for "wanton waste": Fish parts, including entrails, must not be discarded into any state waters, but should be disposed of in a sanitary manner that does not pollute the water or become detrimental to public health or comfort." We could all argue semantics and say "Well, the regs say 'fish parts.' Therefore, I'm not violating the clause." Maybe. Maybe not. Put back a legal fish that died and any number of bacteria could grow as a result of the detritus the muskie now becomes, thus likely violating the last part of the aforementioned excerpt: "Should be disposed of in a sanitary manner that DOES NOT POLLUTE THE WATER OR BECOME DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR COMFORT [emphasis added].
Has the muskie now become a GOD? It's a fish... |
|
| |
|
|
Intentionally killing fish without intent of keeping them is wanton waste.
If your intention is to release all fish you catch, and one dies and you let it sink than that would be a gray area left of to a CO to decide whether you've broken the law.
I agree 100% that if you kill one, you're done fishing, whether you keep it or not.
That also should be explained in full to your clients in advance.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| And Musky Addict, you have no clue as to what you are talking about. But I know, you have seen it all, you have been on the water enough to actually understand what you are talking about, you speak from EXPERINCE don't you.
i made this same mistake earlier this year in a different thread.
muskie-addict is a different person than esox addict.
and yes, he's a pretty experienced angler fishing on trophy waters.
please don't let discussion about different ideas sink down to personal attacks.
People who don't understand, never will
I'm DONE
whenever any of us (you, me, anyone!) gets feedback from others that suggests, "hey, your beliefs on this subject are worth re-evaluating" we have a choice to make:
a) think about it with an open mind
b) become indignant and self-righteous
i'm not by any means suggesting that the "tyranny of the majority" is always right, and we often benefit from those brave enough to be a voice of dissension.
being open-minded, listening to others, and even considering what they have to say does not mean you have to agree with them in the end. in fact, i find that listening to others often opens the door for me to be able to change their mind...something which can't happen when you throw your hands in the air. any time any of us refuse to listen to each other is when things are really "done".
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | If you catch a 50+ inch fish and it dies on you and you cant afford to get a mount...then what? Yes, you could eat it, but you can eat carp too....doesnt mean you should have to eat it. So, hypothetically, if I catch a 50+ inch fish, it dies, I cant afford a mount and dont want to eat it....what should I do with it? Take it home and toss it in the garden? Why not just leave it in the lake then? What's the differance? |
|
| |
|
| it must be winter...these threads never seem to get out of hand in the summer...
at some point a fish will die on us, if it's over the legal size limit to keep, you can keep it or not, but does it really matter to anyone other than the angler that had the fish die on them what we do with it? It shouldn't. If it's under the legal size limit and it dies, then off to the turtles it goes...oh well, some die.
We had one die a few falls ago, it was 38" tiger that for whatever reason croaked. We thought the size limit on the lake we were on was 40" so off to the turtles it went...we realized later we were on a 34" size limit lake and it could have made a very pretty mount for a cabin wall....if we had kept it I don't understand how anyone who would never keep one if it died could care or get on us for keeping it. Just like I could care less if you have one die and let it go to the turtles or for the grill or wall for that matter...?
|
|
| |
Catch and Release