|
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | I was talking about this with a few other on another sight and it kind of makes you wonder why it's like this.........Why does the Whitetail hunter who shoots the largest deer in the area get a high fives and pats on the back from all around yet the Muskie fisherman who keeps a fish almost get stoned to death but fellow fishermen? Its all the same ideas about breeding stock and better for the population........So why the difference?
Good Fishin'
Tim
|
|
| |
|
| Don't think for a second that deer hunters don't do the same thing. when the State Record Non typical was shot in Wis, he was accused of poaching it, found it as a road kill, gut shot it, you name it he was accused of it. Of course none of them were correct as it was a legal kill. Jealously shows up in every sport not just Musky fishing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 540
Location: MN | That's a graet question Tim. I think that it's got to be a density thing and that a big buck is big at 4 1/2-5 1/2years. But a big Muskie takes 15-20 years to reach trophy status. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20194
Location: oswego, il | The other difference is you have a choice to release a musky to again grow which you obviosly do not have with the deer. |
|
| |
|
| Maybe we could start shooting deer with stun bullets, snap a few pics and then hull ass outta there . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Here a couple of reasons.
1) To complete the capture to don't have to kill the fish.
2) (Big reason here) It only takes 4 -5 yrs to grow a trophy buck versus 15 - 20 yrs for a muskie. That's a long time to replenish the stock
3) In deer hunting you are only targeting bucks. In muskie fishing you are targeting the females. We could only harvest all males, I thing the fisheries could replenish itself. Then the question is, just how many times can a males mate??? We know deer can often, but I don't think a muskie can but a few times.
I wrote this before viewing the other posts. It looks like I hit most of the same points as they did.
Edited by muskie! nut 10/29/2009 8:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 653
Location: MPLS, MN | People eat deer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Multiple hunters can't shoot the same deer several times a year for 15 years. Well, maybe if they're all really terrible shots... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | One devil's advocate point, even though muskies live far longer, if the system is healthy and good year class distribution is evident, that's not as much a factor as one might think. It would be if for some reason several year classes were missing. I think that's why some lakes will never see size limits that for all intents prohibit harvest...the fisheries folks are actually encouraging some harvest in some waterbodies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Which fisheries folks are encouraging harvest? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | The ones that fish bass tournaments.
Kidding aside, There are some lakes with an overtaxed forage base that could use thinning. |
|
| |
|
| I'm wondering, along the lines of what steve said, if NOT keeping a big muskie or two could be harmful to the long-term population of a given lake. If all muskies are allowed to grow to their maximum potential and are released every time, what happens to the younger fish? Each specific body of water has to have a point of diminished returns based on baitfish (food) present. If all muskies are released (I have never kept one) the only thing that will make room for a smaller fish to get big is a large muskie that has died naturally. Every time I see someone mishandle or keep a muskie I just say it is opening up a place for a smaller one to get big.
John H |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | We need to get to point where we can identify a 38 inch 12 year old male and remove it from the system like a forester does with stunted trees. C'mon science! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Treats,
The ones who wouldn't put a 50" limit on some of the waters you fish. Try for 54", see how it goes ( I'd love to see a 54" limit on Mille Lacs, Vermilion, and Leech, as an example). The ones who won't place a 50" limit state wide in Wisconsin, and I agree with them in some cases. Illinois, Iowa, and Ohio, too. Want to discourage harvest? Put the limit at 54" as the Canadians did on trophy potential waters. Ask the guys who fought for the larger limit on Bay of green Bay why they had so much trouble getting it done.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | In lakes that are maintained via stocking (in MN anyway), the population densities are intentionally low to avoid the population getting to the size where it taxes the forage base. In most of these lakes there is little natural reproduction so the quantity level of fish is pretty well established. I know that many other states other then WI practice their stocking like this too.
Now I do know some bodies of water in WI where there is a great amount of stocking and natural reproduction going on. In those systems I could see harvest as a potential management tool. In those cases you'd probably be better off to keep the smaller fish and leave the large ones to pass their genetics along. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What if one of the small ones had tremendous growth potential?
Not arguing with you, I also like the idea of slot limits where it makes sense, but not too many fisheries folks do when it comes to Muskies. Dave Neuswanger published a short piece on slot limit ideas a while back, I think... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | We didn't go for 50" this last time as there was already a precedent for 48" that was much easier to get. We will be going for a higher limit on many lakes in the up coming years. The reason why the DNR wouldn't jump right away on a 54" is due to sociology, not biology.
I haven't spoken to a MN DNR official that encourages harvest of muskies (they may just be keeping it a secret). The only exception to that is they would like to see the current state record fall. |
|
| |
|
| A lot of fish die every year unintentionally. I don't think harvesting fish should ever be encouraged when there are plenty of fish dieing unintentionally. These numbers will go up every year as more people are starting to musky fish. Guys are becoming better fisherman as well which means more fish that are being caught than ever before. The more times each fish is caught decreases its chance of survival obviously. I think we will start to see a decrease in larger fish on a lot of the heavily fished waters. All it takes is a swallowed lure, a fish pulled from deep water, or a mishandled fish. Some of these fish are caught 10 times or more a year. Chances of it making it to 50" are slim. A lot of the 50"+ fish you are seeing now got there because fishing pressure was not as bad 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago for that matter, compared to now. The fish that are not harassed on a daily basis are the fish that will more than likely grow to large proportions.
Edited by Baby Mallard 10/29/2009 11:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | What good would a slot do when you're already stocking the lake? Just dial the stocking back and voila you're there. The WI DNR stocks too many fish per acre IMOP. If I remember right when proposing Lake Geneva the the plan was for 10,000 fingerlings every year. Where as in Pokegama they were proposing that many over 10 years. Muskies need space to grow plain and simple.
The problem is when you start encouraging harvest that tradition grows. Then we're right back to where we were 20 years ago... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 392
Location: lake x...where the hell is it? | with all the guys just starting and more and more do every season to muskie fish i think we need every big muskie we can get. think of it like this, a guy shoots a deer he is done for the season and goes home happy. that same guy puts a big ski in the net and very soon after that he wants another,bigger one. and he will spend alot more time tryin to get another one then he will spend in a stand looking for a deer. i say the more big fish we have the better off we will be.JM2C. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Baby Mallard,
Bullseye. Been saying that about the MN 'revolution' for about 5 years....
treats,
So, explain how the end result is any different. I didn't say WHY or get into belief structures, I simply stated the obvious that the fisheries folks set limits smaller than would discourage harvest on many trophy potential waters because there simply would not be many legals caught. If a fisheries professional doesn't think it's socially acceptable to place a 50" or 54" limit on a waterbody that kicks out numbers of fish in that range on the top end...why would that be?
And a slot would work where population control is deemed necessary to GET the density down. Are you saying leave it, and harvest of the top end fish in that water would solve the problem if no further stocking is done? Butternut comes to mind. Another would be to take out some of the males. And what's with the 'You' stuff? I'm not encouraging harvest any more than you. I'm simply acknowledging reality. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | I used "you're" as the act of. Obviously you are not stocking fish. #406927
I used "you" as in anyone pushing the message not you in particular. #406927
Neither was meant as an attack or allegation nor intentionally directed at you.
The upper management of the MN DNR doesn't like to make drastic changes. They've been know to abort plans based on just a couple calls. It's more that some key personal often times don't want to deal with people (who may or may not know any of the biology of their decision, or have a personal agenda) in order to do what is the biologically right call/best call for the fishery. We'll see what the new regime is like in the next couple months. We're making strides in this area, but it doesn't happen overnight as you're probably experienced in the past.
As far as the end result being the same I disagree. The original post was about harvesting a trophy buck vs. a muskie. I'm assuming that we're all talking about a trophy fish here in my comments. In order for a fish to get to trophy potential it needs the right ingredients. If you (meaning the stocking entity) initially stock too many fish you won't necessarily have more trophies as there can be too much downward pressure for these fish to get big as well as potential forage restrictions depending on the body of water. I don't want this to degrade into a MN vs. WI thread so I think I'll be done with the thread now.
Edited by Muskie Treats 10/29/2009 12:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I was speaking to the end result of a limit that allows harvest, and therefore encourages said harvest by allowing it as socially acceptable or what the public at large wants or wahtever, or setting it for biological reasons at the same size. If the biology says set it at 55", it should be set there, IMO. Pesky phone calls from reactionaries... knew you were not referring to me, just handing out some stuff. |
|
| |
|
| I am not a hunter, so please forgive a naive response. But, why don't people hunt with a tranquilizer gun? They can shoot, photo, and release. If a hunter tranquilizes a deer and then decides to keep it, they can kill the deer while it is tranquilized. Plus, a tranquilizer eliminates the problem with wounded deer getting away, and may actually improve the "catch rate."
Brian
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Deer aren't stocked and if it weren't for hunting in many areas it could be detrimental to the health of the entire herd. I don't think tranq guns are legal for most of us either. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Muskies don't ruin flower gardens or jump in front of cars. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| Brian, As far as I know traqualizers are not s o quick as to instantly incapacitate a deer or other animal. It take a minute or so to work on the animal. In that minute a deer can go a LONG way and without any blood trail would be just about impossible to follow and find. Even with a blood trail it can be tough to follow a deer sometimes.
Plus the fact that deer just plain need to be harvested or they will overpopulate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 9
| this is like comparing apples to oranges or packers to browns
come on |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | Uhmm ... ahhhh, ... nevermind.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8748
| Brian - 10/29/2009 12:34 PM
I am not a hunter, so please forgive a naive response. But, why don't people hunt with a tranquilizer gun? They can shoot, photo, and release. If a hunter tranquilizes a deer and then decides to keep it, they can kill the deer while it is tranquilized. Plus, a tranquilizer eliminates the problem with wounded deer getting away, and may actually improve the "catch rate."
Brian
Hunting for liberals?  I suppose your idea would work.
I don't hunt either, but it's only because I haven't had the opportunity. But it seems like a lot of work to tranqulize it, wait for it to go down, and then kill it, especially since its not going to be any less dead in the end.
Personally, I'd be pretty leary of eating anything that was taken down by enough chemicals to kill something my size.
I think part of the difference in attitudes lies in the fact that deer populations need to be managed. Since we've basically removed all the natural predators from their habitat, a healthy ecosystem depends on a certain amount of harvest. Such is often not the case with muskies.
I suppose that there are a fair amount of hunters out there who just hunt for sport like we catch muskies for sport, but... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 131
| Have there been any studies to verify that a large muskies DNA can carry on from generation to generation . I know the forage in the body of water has alot to do with it , but in the case of deer you always want the buck with the nice rack to make it thru rut so his genes get carried on . Could that be the case with muskies also ? Might have gotten alittle off topic sorry |
|
| |
|
| hmmm do they make ammunition that doesnt kill a deer?..... |
|
| |
|
| I would expect a 10yr old kid to make the comparison but am I the only one that thinks this thread is totally ridiculous? Muskies cant be compared to deer and deer can not be compared to muskies.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8748
| SVT - 10/29/2009 5:28 PM
hmmm do they make ammunition that doesnt kill a deer?.....
They make some that would require sneaking up right behind it and shooting it behind the ear like you see in mob movies, does that count?
What I want to know is this: If you're going to tranqilize a deer, take a picture of it, and send it on its merry way, why not just take up photography? Save yourself the trouble and just carry a camera. Why, you could probably even download a shutter sound that sounds like a gun going off.
*BANG!!!* "got 'em!"
LOL!!!!!!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1529
| very simple. ever eat a musky. venison,s a lot better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 392
Location: lake x...where the hell is it? | esoxaddict - 10/29/2009 6:05 PM
SVT - 10/29/2009 5:28 PM
hmmm do they make ammunition that doesnt kill a deer?.....
They make some that would require sneaking up right behind it and shooting it behind the ear like you see in mob movies, does that count?
What I want to know is this: If you're going to tranqilize a deer, take a picture of it, and send it on its merry way, why not just take up photography? Save yourself the trouble and just carry a camera. Why, you could probably even download a shutter sound that sounds like a gun going off.
*BANG!!!* "got 'em!"
LOL!
now thats funny.lmao!
Edited by jay lip ripper 10/29/2009 7:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 529
Location: Not Where I Want To Be | I agree Venison is much tastier |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I just finished a venison string spaghetti squash dish. It was good. We went out this evening and cut a pickup load of hardwood for the fireplace when the temps are below zero this winter, and passing by Keith's stand about 100 yards away saw a nice 8 within 10 feet of the truck. It just stood there. Raining, so no hunting today.
The passion is much the same, but the season much shorter. No, we don't 'release' any deer but we do 'pass' quite a few. Deciding when to touch off that arrow or squeeze that trigger and when not to is as intensely personal as any decision to harvest any animal or fish, and some folks are no less vocal with their positions on deer harvest as Muskie anglers are about CPR. I love the hunt, and especially enjoy bow hunting. It's quiet, peaceful, and relaxing, but... when that big boy walks through, the adrenaline rush is wicked, at least for this old man. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 51
| You could always take up roping deer like cattle - that'd be interesting.
On a side note, I'm not completely sure if this applies to muskies but studies on other fish species have shown compensatory mortality when harvest removed. Natural mortality will be lower with fishing mortality present. When the fish are no longer harvested natural mortality increases. It's more of a density dependence interaction, so may not apply so much to muskies. If you think about it though, harvesting some muskies would decrease intraspecific competition and allow growth rates to be at a higher level. I'm not saying I advocate or would keep a muskie, but as stated before it could be a good tool for managing some water bodies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Uhm, I really can't buy into the compensatory mortality thing.
Compensatory mortality would be represented in the human population as, "When wars are ended, compensatory mortality will increase."
Yes, more cancer deaths, drunk driving, old age, heart attacks, etc. etc.
You can't do any of those if you are already dead. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| oddball - 10/29/2009 5:27 PM
Have there been any studies to verify that a large muskies DNA can carry on from generation to generation . I know the forage in the body of water has alot to do with it , but in the case of deer you always want the buck with the nice rack to make it thru rut so his genes get carried on . Could that be the case with muskies also ? Might have gotten alittle off topic sorry
I think the science verifying that repeated selection of the larger specimens in fishery stock can end up with a decreased average size, pretty well proves this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 51
| I'm not asking you to buy it, but it happens. Not many population dynamic models apply to humans so that comparison is inappropriate. I'm not sure what you mean by "You can't do any of those if you are already dead". Maybe you don't understand the concept. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 582
| There is no releasing a trophy buck. that's the difference. Not only that, but even if deer hunting became catch and release (i know, funny) they would starve to death or get hit by cars. Deer hunting has alot to do with population control. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 367
Location: Chicago | Muskie Treats - 10/29/2009 10:50 AM
Which fisheries folks are encouraging harvest?
Butternut lake, north of park Falls has a suggested slot harvest with the reasons why at the public launch. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
You're comparing a high density animal that reproduces very well with a low density fish that can't reproduce fast enough on most lakes to keep up with keeping fish for the wall.
That's about as apples to oranges of a comparison as you can have.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Oswego, IL | When you hunt Muskie, you dont hunt to kill.
When you hunt Whitetail, you dont hunt to release.
Unless you keep everything you do to yourself, there will always be a "Guest" to tell you your wrong. |
|
| |
|
| This discussion was had last year of the year before. I understand the tradition of deer hunting. I used to hunt myself and enjoyed it thoroughly. I hunted for the meat, but the trophy aspect was a bonus. What rubs me is people saying it is two completely different things....apples to oranges. I guess I don't see it that way.
My point is that while deer populations are high, the population of the large (150"+) bucks is comparatively low. The "trophy" muskies and "trophy" whitetails are similarly hard to come by. I don't think the argument is based on the whole deer population, but instead on the "trophy" population.
If you are going to kill a deer for table fare, why not kill a doe or a young buck? From my experience these are far better for the crock pot than the 5 1/2 year old buck.
It is now possible to reproduce the rack on Brewtus the 150"+ just as it is possible to reproduce Bertha the 50"+ fish hanging over your fireplace. Why not take a picture of Brewtus and let him walk? Kill a doe and feed the family.
The argument that you hear for C&R is to maintain the genetics of that specific fish. I understand that the large fish are usually females. I also realize that in deer the male only contributes to roughly 20% of the genetic make-up of the off-spring, but he does still contribute does he not? Would you rather he breed that doe with the good genes or twinkle toes the basket rack buck?
It seems the argument always comes back to tradition and this is what feeds the family and this is the way we have always done it. Well......that was the tradition with trophy fish as well.
I am here for discussion more than anything....I really don't care if people shoot deer or not. It just seems the two are closer than some people make them out to be.
Here is an example that may fit better than muskies. I enjoy chasing Smallmouth Bass when I can't get to a muskie lake. In our lake here, we have a high population of Smallies. I do it for pleasure, but we will eat one every now and then. Which fish do you suppose I take home? The 2lber or the 4lber?
Edited by muskydeceiver 10/30/2009 3:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | Ummm..isn't the young buck where the eventual 150+ comes from? Not sure what you're getting at there |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
You can manage trophy deer herds very easily while still being able to kill as many as you need for the table.
Not so with muskies.
It isn't about the trophy genetics, the difference is one animal is prolific and does not need protection to survive.
If muskies weren't protected in many areas they would be virtually extinct.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If deer weren't protected and hunted only by number of tags determined to be safe for the carrying capacity of the area, deer would be nearly extinct in many areas. In fact, until management was assigned to the State in Wisconsin, in many areas there were nearly none because of harvest. Same deal, over harvest of a resource corrected by limits and regulations that protect it.
For a very long time 'as many as I needed' was one buck a year. That's all I could shoot, and it was a good regulation at the time. The difference of late is habitat improvement for deer coincides with rural development, agriculture, and destruction of the old growth forests...pretty much a blueprint of Wisconsin and Minnesota over the last 50 years; coupled with few killing winters in the last 15 years. Darned things do really well in rural areas, and REALLY well in farming communities, especially if the winters don't kill 'em.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8748
| sworrall - 10/30/2009 6:15 PM
[...]
The difference of late is habitat improvement for deer coincides with rural development, agriculture, and destruction of the old growth forests...pretty much a blueprint of Wisconsin and Minnesota over the last 50 years; coupled with few killing winters in the last 15 years...
Sounds like exactlly the opposite of what would be conducive to good populations of muskies. |
|
| |
|
| Hunt and photograph. Hunt and shoot.
Catch and release. Catch and keep (the really big ones).
So long as everyone stays within the law, it is up to them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't know about that addict, if shoreline/pollution/etc conservation/protection is good, with people comes taxes and water use, with water use and taxes comes management, and the folks in Minnesota and Wisconsin enjoy some pretty cool muskie fisheries where there were none before. If the all that stuff isn't good enough and NR isn't in the cards, stocking where NR doesn't happen still makes for some pretty good fishing.
Ultimately, Cast is right. |
|
| |
|
| Dirt Esox - 10/30/2009 3:19 PM
Ummm..isn't the young buck where the eventual 150+ comes from? Not sure what you're getting at there
Do you know which Button Buck is going to grow up to be the 150"+? Not every buck has the gentetics to get that big. Some grow a basket and that is it. Shoot him and let the guy with the serious horns do the breeding. That is what I am getting at. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3829
| Shoot the deer with a paintball gun. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Illegal in many states as a form of harassing a game animal, Ranger. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3829
| Dangnation!
Ok, how about being satisfied with using a white marble in a wrist rocket slingshot. The shooter gets to see the hit just before the buck rakes him down and then kicks him a bunch. Any CO would consider that a fair fight and ticket only the winner. Which means no ticket because the marble shooter is groaning on the ground and the buck is already in the next county.
Glad I can help resolve these difficult issues. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Ranger, my friend, as always, thank you. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | muskydeceiver - 10/31/2009 12:09 PM
Dirt Esox - 10/30/2009 3:19 PM
Ummm..isn't the young buck where the eventual 150+ comes from? Not sure what you're getting at there
Do you know which Button Buck is going to grow up to be the 150"+? Not every buck has the gentetics to get that big. Some grow a basket and that is it. Shoot him and let the guy with the serious horns do the breeding. That is what I am getting at.
It's been proven that a buck first year growth means nothing in trying to interpolate future antler size, whether a first year 8 pt or spike buck. Let them all go and shoot the 160+'s that will make everybody's future better. There's a reason why there is a lack of large bucks in some areas, it's people(especially shotgun party hunters here in Iowa)who wack every 1-2.5 year old they see, especially citing the excuse, "it has bad genetics and wouldn't amount to anything"....WRONG. Shoot does and 3.5 year old bucks, let the little ones at least try to reach potential. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | Genetics is NOT the limiting factor in antler growth most of the time, it's usually lack of the correct nutrition. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | The original thoughts behind this when I posted it was of a some what more serious note. You here all the talk with genetics from both groups but like Dirt Esox says its not the only factor in growth......in either species. Genetics, nutrition, population, climate are all determining factors along with management. I'm a firm believer in some kind of regulated harvest when it comes to muskies under certain conditions. My lake is a prime example. It was from harvesting but from a VHS die off killed a huge % of our adult fish population a few years back. A lot of guys were bumed and their egos bruised when they couldn't go out anymore and turn 12, 14 or 18 fish in a day. in all reality is was probably one of the best thing that could have happened to our lake as far as the quality of the fishing goes. this past three months we've had the lake length record broken with a 56 1/8" fish and the weight record broken twice with a 44 1/2lb fish and a couple days ago a 48 1/2lb fish. This is on a lake were most of the muskie world figured any thing over 30lbs was rare.
I wasn't trying to stat any thing with this post like a couple of PM's have suggested but just rather get a look at thing from both sides. Even though Muskie and deer are very different they have a lot of the same factors governing what is called a "trophy" but also have very different outlooks on what needs to be done to mange it.
Good Fishin'
Tim
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32836
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | A couple PMs accused you of 'starting something'??
I think this has been a great discussion. Keep 'em coming.
By the way, if anyone get's a really nasty PM form ANYONE...please notify me immediately. |
|
| |
Interesting Thought.....double standards