----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:28 PM
Subject: RE: [VFB] My first legal Halibut....maybe
> Chris wrote:
>
> Nicely done. under your definition
> your hook + fish's mouth = "catch"
> this fish wouldn't have been caught.....
>
> I know I'm being a big ninny about this, and I'm just trying to stir
> things up a bit. I do not think that this can be a complete
equation...the definition of
> catch doesn't implicitly or explicitly say that something is only caught
if
> it is siezed or captured according to the original intent (i.e. having the
> fish take my fly in it's mouth). By definition 1a...the fish was still
> caught. So there!!!
>
> What about a fish that is landed because it ate the fish that had
originally
> taken the fly....I've heard of it happening (this may be a sub-urban
> legend....)? And what about the guy that caught the boot and there was a
fish inside? well?
> And what about the guy what caught a shark and there was a big fish
inside? Huh?
> And what about the guy who caught his buddy's creel on the back-cast? Eh?
> If you reeled it in, you caught it. That's what I say! Who's with me???
>
> Can anyone else refute this? I don't want to hear it!
>
> Chris
Chris,
New Formulas:
1. Your hook & fish's butt or other anatomy besides mouth = foul hooked,
but still caught and dinner on the table.
2. Your hook & the fish's mouth = fair hook-up, but 'legality' still is not
completely established.
3. Your hook, stringer, and snap-thru-the gills halibut = lucky catch, no
record, dinner on the table-maybe, story on vfb,
legal in the eyes of G&F IF of legal status/season/ etc. Philosophy
unestablished.
DonO
