« Back In The Saddle | Main | Erratum »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"Maybe something is happening along the shorlines. I don't know. On the whole the numbers seem to me less than before but who knows why?"

Hmm... what species lives on those shorelines? Can't think of it right now...


Dude - I've actually been to Fleggaard's. I have a cousin in Germany who lives near the Danish border; on our way back from watching birds (pun intended) at a Danish nature preserve, we stopped at Fleggaard's to pick up some cases of mineral water, apple juice, and beer. I think being on the border enables them to avoid charging/paying certain taxes (that was my impression, anyway).

What really floors me about American prudishness (or, more specifically, the FCC's prudishness) is that it allows extreme violence to be splattered all over our TV screens, while censoring the most inoffensive exhibitions of the human form. Shows like NCIS and Criminal Minds abound with mutilated corpses, demented serial killers, and bloodshed ... yet watch a late-night broadcast of an artsy-fartsy movie on PBS, long after the kids are in bed, and they'll pixalate-out a woman's backside when she peacefully wades into a willow-lined stream to skinny-dip. I mean, we're not even talking frontal nudity here - no nipples, no genitals; just buttocks. They can't even give us that.

What the hell is the point? Really, which degrades women more - showing a rape victim's corpse lying in a puddle of blood (from an episode of Law & Order), or showing the backside of a woman wading into a stream? I should point out here that the skinny-dipper was an actual character, with a full-fledged personality, and the actress portraying her wasn't surgically enhanced; the rape victim, on the other hand, was never portrayed as much more than a corpse.

Talk about twisted cultural mores - we almost might as well be fundamentalist Muslim extremists. Well ... maybe not quite "almost" - but you get my point: both cultures seem to criminalize art, while glorifying violence. At least our culture allows us the freedom to do otherwise - just not, apparently, on television.

Scott P

The US FCC definitely is spurious and random in how they enforce 'decency' laws. Of course, I remember reading somewhere that their sole criteria on whether or not to check and see if something was violating their 'regulations' was, if you can possibly believe it, the 'number of complaints a program receives.'

With borderline militant nazi-esque organizations out there patrolling our airwaves for the merest hint of revealed human flesh (you can read AFF into that if you like, and I'm sure they aren't the only one, perhaps just the loudest whiners) and organizing campaigns to have their members (many who may have never even SEEN the images in question) complain en-masse (sic? too lazy to check just now) then rational people who actually LIKE having the option to use the clicker are denied our right to CHOOSE for ourselves what we see. Some things are pretty obvious, I mean, it would kind of destroy the innocence of childhood to suddenly have hardcore sex videos pop up in the middle of the episode of Barney they were watching, but are boobs really that bad? Seems like for babies, boobies are the altar at which they worship for the earliest part of their life.

To go off on a tangent, wouldn't you say that one of the (sadly in modern society we don't have many left) rights of passage in progressing from childhood to adolescence is the first illicit glimpse of an adult movie or finding the older kids stash of adult magazines?

And Finesmell, there is no question about it. It's not so much that we 'might as well' be Muslim extremists, but that we definitely already ARE... just with different views of the world. Now, people like Falwell, Robertson, and Beck... with the exception that they can't call jihad on anyone, their viewpoints are just as, if not more, extreme than the most extreme Islamic believer.

And in a total change of subject, but back to the discussion of Fish, could it be possible that the lower catch statitics of certain species is indicative that we are actually selecting them through angling for intelligence (at least in regards to taking hook and line)? I read a report the other day that the average size of mature fish of a given species has actually decreased since records began to be kept, not simply because there are fewer of them, but that by selecting out the larger fish for 'keepers' we are actively breeding fish for smaller size... just an added factor on natural selection in fish species.

Food for though, and in case you didn't notice, the original blog posting was once again simply fascinating. Gives a lot to think about!


I have pondered my response, after reading the learned opinion of Ron. I have nothing but respect for my elders who have given me great insight into the pursuit of gamefish, even though at the time I tended to dismiss their words as the rambling of old men. There really are none today that can replace them. I realize now that those old men have forgotten more about fishing than I can ever hope to learn, and that I should have paid more attention to them.

But I do not believe that all of my initial impressions were neccessarily untrue. There is truth, and there is perception. Memory can be selective, abundance can be localized, migration patterns can be changed. I am not saying that Ron's assertion is false, indeed after hearing it, I am prepared to accept that R. toxotes abundance may well be lower than in his childhood days. Environmental conditions change, and with it fish populations/compositions. I have known longtime fishermen that were commercials at some point. What I used to think was bullshit, as I grew older came to accept as possible fact. I just don't believe immediately without evidence what I hear, only what I see which I understand is limited by the powers of my perception and comprehension. Although I'd kill to see Rons log.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Sea Forager Tours

Contact Me:

  • Sea Forager
    For seafood or foraging tours go to Seaforager.com

  • E-mail: fish@seaforager.com

Monkeyface Movies: