mastertangler wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2013 at 11:03am:


Ditto, But there's a "parachute cord" that needs to be pulled out of that top fat piece too.

ahh! it appears  i missed out on so much

@MT, you said use thick pieces, im not really a fan, gotta be thin and crispy! im pretty OCD about my breading/fish ratios

@ the discussion about killing for fun, i was under the understanding, not sure where it came about, probably from MANY hours of watching animal planet, that mink, people and snakehead fish killed for fun

I will agree with you that there is a genetic component which is intrinsic in (dare I say it) the Creation. But I contend that animals have lots of basic emotions that scientists would say is "instinct" or "programming".

There are far to many examples of animal behavior to suggest other wise. No one can convince me after having spent years, hundreds of nights and thousands of hours with my dog that he didn't enjoy his profession. In fact I would dare say he was as specialized in his art as these fellows 
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

And if I find out (after we can talk to our dogs) that the crapping in the house was just for giggles, well lets just say trouble is coming.

Oh goodness, we have strayed far and wide from pike filets have we knot? 

   

Quote:


I did a pretty thorough Google search and the answers came in two different perspectives.

I couldn't find one single scientist/report that said mink or any animal kills for "fun", which is a human "trait".

There were plenty of anecdotal posts by people who had observed what they consider mink/animals doing killing for "fun" but posts replying to their claims by actual scientist's explained that the "fun" was actually the animal re-acting to stimuli as nature programmed it too.


So while your coon dog in your eye's was having "fun" in his eyes, it was just doing what thousands of years and human help had bred him to do.

PBS Nova did a show about how they are working on way for humans to "talk" to dogs/animals?

Maybe then we'll know if there having fun chasing coons, chewing your slippers or crapping in the walkway.

I'm guessing the crapping part is just for giggles.

solotripper wrote on Sep 25^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:


But how do you know? I used to run coon hounds. My dog enjoyed going so much that he would blow the house down from his pen every evening so we could get going. When I showed up to load him he would be all wiggles and whines.......obviously delighting in the prospect of pursuing raccoons.

He was the best kill dog that anyone that I hunted with had ever seen. One night, late in the season and very late at night (the frost was heavy on the ground) I unleashed him in a cut corn field. Moments later was the most awful ruckus coming from him that I had ever heard (he was a big dog and very loud).........I thought he had gotten tangled up in an electric fence and went running towards him as fast as I could.

I came upon quite a standoff in my headlight beam........the biggest racoon that I had ever seen and Duffy were faced off amongst the cut corn stalks. The coon seen me and bolted and duffy grabbed hold. They tumbled round and round with the coon putting out the punishment in heavy doses as my dog howled with pain. The broke apart again and my dog was splayed out, tail in the air wagging wildly and face barking his adversary as another standoff ensued.......he was obviously enjoying himself tremendously. He liked nothing better than to grab a coon by the throat and pin it to the ground until it stopped moving.

After seeing what is obviously pure unadulterated pleasure in pursuing and killing no one can convince me that carnivores don't take some delight in doing their thing. But that's just my opinion and I could be wrong 

Quote:


I'm pretty sure only man kills for the "fun" of it.
Fun is something that you need a human level of intelligence to seek.

Mink kill by biting the necks of their prey.
Sever the neck artery, your going to get a lot of blood.
Animals that we say are having "fun" are just responding to outside stimuli that trigger biological responses on their part.
You take a cat/ mink/ weasel etc and put them in cage with multiple prey animals darting about, they'll attack everything that moves because it's a natural response for them.

Same with wolfs / caribou.  The wolves are just maximizing their chances for a meal by attacking as many as they can, not knowing if the animal will drop or just be wounded and escape. It's obviously a inexact "science" and that's why they sometimes kill more than they can eat. But like you said, everything needs to eat and maybe that's Natures way to make sure every predator/scavenger in that food chain has a chance to survive.

That's why animal experts say never to turn and run when facing a dangerous animal. It just triggers even more aggressive behavior.

What we humans might see as just killing for "fun" has a instinct driven reason that we might not understand but they do.

Joe_Schmeaux wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 8:12pm:

What time of year? I'm still not seeing the gulls I use to. Way more eagles though.

Eagles are scavengers too. It's a service I appreciate. FWIW - It's a good idea to cut the heads off the carcasses. Otherwise, if they get challenged they tend to fly off with more than they can carry and sometimes drop stuff in shallow water that's a bit deeper than gulls can reach.

This year on Nan I picked up a hungry gull. He was swimming and flying in front of my canoe for quite a while as I looked for a portage to Camel. He sat in front of the camp I took on Camel as I lounged and ate and was in front of the canoe for my evening paddle until it got too dark for him.

The next morning I cleaned two walleyes on the rocks in front of the campsite. The eagle that must live behind the site got to them as I reached the campsite. A half hour later the gull shows up. You snooze you lose! Sorry bud. He still hung around for a while hoping. I felt bad for him.

Next morning I caught and cleaned one more for him before I left the lake. I didn't really want to portage a fish but I felt sorry for him as it was one of the two gulls I saw on my entire 11 days. I saw more eagles than gulls.

Joe_Schmeaux wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 8:12pm:


On Basswood in Backbay I popped a healthy Pike off a point on a topwater ( a memorable fish).......we pulled onto a long grassy point to clean the fish and eat it. By the time we were done we had not one but two eagles fussing and picking at the pike which was apparently a bit to big to fly off with. It was quite a treat to see them so close and on the ground.......they seem so much bigger on the ground.

Another time I was on Argo and picked up a laker. I cleaned it and was in the process of frying it up when a gull showed up soon followed by an eagle. Both assumed positions in the treetops waiting for my departure. I wonder who won that battle?

I see no adverse effect from leaving cleaned fish behind. The animal kingdom is rife with such examples. From the wolves running herds of caribou and clipping the back tendons and leaving far more than they could ever eat...... to mink who kill for the fun of it and leave a bloody trail of dead things every where they go. Everything has to eat and very little actually goes to waste.

If we could get the seagulls to start posting on QJ, we could set up a "PCRD" (Paddlers Cleaning Rock Database). I'm sure they know all the standard spots.

[/size] Quote:


Ever notice that even if you can't see or hear a seagull for hours/miles of paddling, the minute you stop to clean your catch, they show up.