What do you think about people who practice their survival fishing skills by catching and eating species of fish that have sensitive, threatened, or endangered status? I know it is one thing to be starving in a real survival situation and to have nothing but what is at hand, but for practice? I think that survivalism carries with it a certain degree of ethical stewardship for the land and its creatures, and I think most people agree with me on this. That is to say that I find it hard to believe that the majority of survival-minded individuals would knowingly condone, contribute to, or cause species decline, in a practice situation, when the species in question has sensitive, threatened, or endangered staus. I am presently arguing with a well-known survivalist, to my disconcertion, concerning this question, and I seek insight into what the other (the well-known survivalist's) viewpoint must be. Any thoughts will be helpful.

Well I'm not well known, but I have an opinion and I would tend to agree with you.

In a real survival situation, any game is fair game, but while practicing one's survival skills, when one's life isn't at stake, there seems to me to be no sense in killing a threatened species at all.

And seriously, I can't imagine an area of the world in which one would train that is populated only by endangered species and no other food source. If there is such a place, and seeing how animals are animals and some tend to act like others the world over, it seems to me one could just practice in another locale. I could be wrong, though.

Now I could see instances where killing an endangered species while practicing survival skills might be accidental, especially in passive forms of hunting such as snaring and trapping and in passive forms of fishing such as gill netting and running trot lines, but still one can do their best to avoid the possibility.

There's a survival school I read about that, during practice and/or training exercises, uses catch and release methods. The trainees after a successful catch are allotted a certain amount of calories in the form of food that is brought along on the exercise. Similarly, when being taught more active forms of hunting they use targets and allotted food for "hits"

While training, if one is alone, the above may not be possible due to extra weight, but still I imagine there would be a way or two around the killing of endangered species for the sake of training.

To me, killing an endangered species while training because it is "realistic", strikes me as similar to a police officer practicing his marksmanship on real people instead of silhouettes because it's "realistic". Of course I'm making an assumption that this whole thing is based somehow in placing one's self in as realistic a situation as possible. I could be way off base on the person's motivations here.

That's just my take. As always, I could be wrong.

I'm not even going to ask who the person in question is though... Even if such mysteries make me nutz... <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[censored] in your panties. We are native Californians and only left because dorks like you have overwhelmed the good people in the state. As the former sole source trainer for the CA DF&G I am very aware of the negative effect your kind has on real conservation efforts in the state.

When you learn the facts you can begin to think about approaching subjects like this with your betters. In the meantime learn some manners and PLEASE stay away from Idaho. We don't like your kind here.

Ron Hood
an Ex-Californian and proud of it.

And my following email:
Ron,

I must admit that I had no intention of forcing you to resort to name-calling and other substandard forms of communication, but since I have, I will think of you as someone who is very sensitive by nature and not willing to embrace the value of criticism and admonishment for what it truly is. You are probably right that you are older than me, for whatever that is worth, but I am certainly mature enough not to think that anybody is "better" than anybody else, not even age will grant "betterness", and of course to not resort to disgusting forms of slang and tough-guy talk.

By the way, that site that you referred me to has this heading:

WILD TROUT & CATCH-AND-RELEASE WATERS

The emphasis is of course on catch and release, since as we both know by now that CA Golden Trout are a threatened species, not even old tough guys are allowed to keep them after a catch.

Catch-and-Release means just that, though at this point in my realization of just what it is that I have attempted to admonish, I think that may be quite irrelevant to you, since your emotions have gotten in the way of your being able to communicate intelligently, that is to say, in the least, without cussing, name-calling, and ego-tripping.

I hope you find "better" language to use, especially considering all the wisdom you must have with regards to how old you are, and I also hope that you can find a way to "better" manage your anger. We are all learning, and as long as we are alive, regardless of our age and who is to blame for our discontentment, we will continue to learn.

For what it is worth, as a native Californian to a native Californian, I'm glad you have found what you were looking for in Idaho, since the "dorks" in CA such as myself have made life less than pleasant for you here. I hope that more people who don't like "dorks" like me, can one day escape from their own private hells and find paradise, such as you have. But, not all of us desire to simply up and leave. We love CA, much as you might have once. We even love our humble native CA Golden Trout, and that is why we don't eat them, and why principle says catch and release only. They are a threatened species. Let's not allow our ego's to further endanger them.

I have spent a considerable amount of time in Idaho. I love Idaho. It is one of the most beautiful places on the Earth, and the trout that I have caught and eaten there were amazing, but they were not a sensitive species or a threatened species. But despite these things, considering that we all have emotional hang-ups now and again, and as it seems that you are a very angry and hostile person, as a personal favor to you, the next time I am in Idaho, I will be sure to stay well away from your neck of the woods. I hope that knowing that I am sensitive to your logistical needs helps to ease your frustrations, if only just a little.

Thanks for your response. I always appreciate an honest and deliberate response. I now know where you are coming from and what kind of mind-set you presently have. I always do a little "testing the waters", so to speak, before I consign myself to learning from someone about the all-important topic of survival, or about anything at all, for that matter. I think you know where I am going with this, but in case you don't, I will explain by simply stating that I was done with potty-talk, name-calling, and ego-wars in about the fifth grade, and so naturally I am not generally inclined to prefer that "bygone" method of learning, and since you lack the patience and forbearance to handle appropriate criticisms, you are in no position to be considered as an instructor of any socially acceptable merit, at least not to a "dork" like me. So, I have decided not to come to your survival school. Perhaps at another time, but then again, after reading what only your psychologist should hear, I think not. Nonetheless, I hope, may God find you in His heart.

Better days to you, always,

Troy

If the facts are accurate, as you present them, then I don't believe this person's position is defensible. You've suggested circumstances other than an unintentional or one-time occurrence, but merely "practice" situations.

At best, doing as you describe demonstrates poor judgment, and at worst, is violating the law. Honestly, I'm hard pressed to believe someone "well known" (which suggests to me well-respected) would do as you described. I hate to split hairs, but the term "survivalist" can mean a lot of different things too.

I would be interested to know what you classify as "sensitive." I trust you're not including a rainbow trout, a squirrel, or some such, in that category.

Dan

Edit: I see you just posted more info that addresses some of my questions.

Edit #2 This is about to get interesting.

Well after reading how this went down I can say that once again, my assumptions were wrong. You know what they say about what it is to assume... LOL

This person may not have known the status of the Golden Trout prior to his trip (or even until you brought it up) and could have felt a little put upon or threatened by your email. I don't know what the case is of course, I'm only speculating. I can tell you that once I ate a fish out of season, and didn’t know this until after the fact... Years after the fact...

In any case, if you want an honest opinion, your initial email could have been contained within the bounds of FYI and probably shouldn't have wandered into the territory of assumption, accusation and derision. It seems to me to be perfectly acceptable to question his knowledge of the plight of the Golden Trout, but when you assume he has no fishing license, call him a poacher and then finish by questioning his love of nature, you probably crossed a line and should have expected such a response.

While “ignorance of the law is no defense” as the saying goes, people still make mistakes. Sure, technically, if he caught and ate a Golden Trout it seems as though he is a poacher, but his intent probably wasn’t to go on a weekend poaching excursion or to take part in the decimation of a species. This could have been a mistake, and he may very well have said so if the need to go into a defensive posturing had not been triggered. Of course it doesn’t help his case to defend himself with a page subtitled “WILD TROUT & CATCH-AND-RELEASE WATERS”, but he’s probably not in the mood to apologize or own up to the mistake after your email.

Anyway, if you intend any more follow up emails, you might want to start off with an apology for the accusations. Then again, you may not feel the need to do so after his reply, which was a horrible way to respond. Needless to say, I’m not defending his position. It appears that he is in the wrong, but I thought it might be important to let you know where I think it all went bad.

If you do respond to him once more, you might find a comrade in the cause for the Golden Trout. Who knows?

On a side note: I keep referring this person in the masculine due to email signature, but it seems to me that the person who caught and ate the trout was a female. I’m not even going to try and clear that up. I should be in bed. LOL

It sounds like each of you made some incorrect assumptions about the other. A person who unknowingly breaks a fishing regulation is not necessarily a poacher, and may resent being labeled as such. At least I would. But his reply to you was unprofessional in the extreme. I have heard of Ron Hood although I don't know much about him. But I would hesitate to take any survival course from him if I thought that was his usual way of treating people he disagreed with. Maybe he was having a bad day, or maybe yours was not the only self-righteous email he had received on the subject. I believe Karen is his wife, so maybe he took your email as an attack on her. I'd like to hear from him as to the reason he replied that way.

This thread has the potential of a flame war. Near as the subject is to my own interests I will delete or lock it if civility becomes threatened or endangered. It's a curious irony, but many in the 'primative movement' or survivalism, and many outdoor recreations are very cavalier about the very resource they profess to 'love.' I cannot 'name names' but the attitudes I've encountered are at best sad. This curious 'industry' has a very small pie with lots of people clamoring for a slice. The best way to save something is to consider your own consumerism. Any 'expert' who fails to fill a few advanced warrior path weekend vision quests will either get the message, or spend more time out of his electrician's workvan. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Again people, be discrete and courteous with this thread.

Not wanting to cause more of a problem. The quote that Ron meant for you to read was this

"Located in the Golden Trout Wilderness Area, the regulations include 5 trout limit with artificial lures w/barbless hooks."

which is located in the article that he sent to you. It clearly states that there is a [color:"red"]five fish limit [/color]. I am biased, as I am a student of Ron, and you can find me on his site. I do not mean this to be negative so please don't take it that way. Maybe you should have checked you facts before you posted here and e-mailed his wife.

Again this is not meant to be offensive, just an outside observer.

Junky

Well...it would suprise me if the Idaho loving Hoods have California fishing licenses. Just my observation.

This question has been raised by myself with friends on several occasions..but I think the real issue in this particular situation is that they intentionally put themselves in the position to need to live off the land...when the reality of it is that they could have brought a meal.

I know I can kill a deer, pig, squirrel, duck with a weapon or catch a fish..I've done it before and practice regularly during the appropriate OK hunting season..therefore I have no doubt that I could handle the situation if I were hopelessly lost...and in danger of dying from lack of food..I don't feel the need to place myself in that situation....I bring beanne weenies and rest peacfully in the knowledge that the small rodent that chirrped noisly at me while on my excursion...could in an emergency become dinner.

For us in Oklahoma..there really is no official trapping season for squirrels and it's really not listed as legal means of taking...but in a TRUE survival situation..not some made up pretend adventure...I doubt there is a Game Ranger out there who would ticket an individual for surviving without a license on any particular fish.

Just my opinion. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Before we continue slandering people on this posting maybe people should read what has been said.

"All our fishing is down with barbless flies as per regulations and with a fishing license in hand."

If you would like to continue to put people down that #1 you don't know and #2 aren't here defend theirselves I think is very sad. Ron and Karen care alot about the world we live in and should be respected for what they have givin the community.

Chris I hope that you would take a look at putting a stop to this.