1. You are correct.
2. I never said such a thing. You are blowing it way out of proportion; the wildlife authorities could have gone searching for the fish. I never said they would immediately be upon it, nor did I say it would be an easy task. Again, you must have not read my post about the data that could have been drawn from simply observing the fish. Exactly what biology do you teach? I would assume that if you have any sort of biology degree, you would be able to at least see the benefits of observing such an old animal. As I stated earlier, it could possibly help people know more about sturgeon care, allowing people to raise sturgeon that live longer and therefore produce more caviar. Your ice cream analogy is completely inane.
Again, as I stated in my first post here, I understand what he did was legal and within his rights. The thing is that while he's admiring the fish's dead corpse somewhere, keeping it alive had the potential of providing educational opportunities for many other people. Not to mention, simply letting such a great creature continue living.
I don't think you understand what a strawman is. Your situation is only superficially similar to this one. You are missing a few key points. For example, some sturgeon are farm raised. Letting this animal live and studying it could have helped people learn about raising sturgeon to a larger size, and older age. Considering bears aren't cared for and raised in the same manner for butchery, your analogy is irrelevant.
Also I'd like to apologize to you guys for my lack of knowledge about fish spearing. Apparently, one stab would have ended this fish's life.
No, I lacked the knowledge about the spearing techniques used to kill sturgeons. You are the one lacking common sense, considering the man had the option of not killing the sturgeon in the first place. Why is that such a hard concept for some people to grasp?
