Читать книгу Backlash II: More Tales Told by Hunters, Fishermen and Other Damned Liars - Galen Winter - Страница 14

Catch and Release

People in the media, as well as many other people who don’t know anything about us, like to pass fishermen off on the unsuspecting public as contemplative, laid back, pipe smoking, gentle creatures, loathe to make critical comment about their fellow man and, in general, all-around good guys.

I suspect trout fishermen, in particular, stand in good report and are well recommended because of the prevalence of the “catch-and-release” policy adopted by many of them. Catch and release is, indeed, an admirable activity. Those who practice it understand you can’t catch the fish again if you permanently take it out of the water.

In any event, the media considers the fisherman to be one of the most admirable of the sub-classes of the genus Homo sapiens. There are many who believe the media, for once, is accurately reporting the facts. So widespread is the positive public image of the fisherman that it is politically incorrect to suggest he is anything except a paragon of all of the known human virtues.

You can, therefore, imagine the consternation which developed when a contrary opinion was recently expressed. Brad Avery contends fishermen are scoundrels, destroyers of public morality and improper role models for our young. He claims trout fishermen, in particular, are an unwholesome and scurrilous lot, capable of exhibiting a depravity not experienced by civilized man since the attacks on the Roman Empire by the hordes of Attila the Hun.

Being personally addicted to the pursuit of trout, I found Brad’s characterization of those who fish to be mildly disagreeable, but it got me to thinking. I had to take a bunch of aspirins to relieve the headache. Still, the frightening possibility that Brad might somehow be correct persisted. Sleep escaped me and it became clear. I had to do something about the matter.

Luckily, we live in a marvelous age where the answers to all important, earth-shattering questions can be determined by the results of polls. Newspapers carry them every day. Should all Congressmen be convicted and sent to prison? Take a poll. Is broccoli good to eat? Take a poll. Is it ecologically responsible to extend the deer hunting season for another week? Take a poll. Obviously, the question of whether or not trout fishermen are fine fellows can be determined by taking a poll.

I went to work on it and came up with a carefully worded inquiry. It posed a single question, to wit: After all is said and done, don’t you really believe those fine people who fish are worthy and commendable? The person polled had the choice of checking the box marked “YES” or the box marked “POSSIBLY”.

In order to satisfy myself that the poll was free from any and all bias, the proposed wording was submitted to the people who take the polls for both the Democrat and Republican National Committees. Their comments and suggestions were requested. To a man, those professionals agreed the wording of the submitted question was well calculated to receive a fair and unbiased response. Moreover, to insure an unprejudiced and impartial sampling of opinion, they recommended the questionnaire be sent only to those males who bought fishing licenses during the previous year.

And so it came to pass. The questionnaires were mailed out, and soon the attached, self addressed, stamped postcards poured in. The results were quickly tabulated. You will be amazed and, surely, confounded by them.

Thirty Four percent of those polled answered: “Ha, Ha, Ha”. Seventeen percent responded: “Don’t be ridiculous”.

Forty two percent of the returned cards carried the penned notations: “No”, “No, No”, or “No, No, No.” Sometimes those words were underlined and most of them were followed by three or four exclamation marks. The other Seven percent of the postcards contained dreadful obscenities and were disregarded.