Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Fishing Talk
thepugs:
--- Quote from: Inlander on 13 Jan 2008, 14:24 ---I've heard this argument before. I find it highly doubtful and incredibly convenient. I know it's been studied, but not being an ichthyologist I don't know the extent of the study; however, I do know that feeling pain or experiencing trauma are real and vital biological processes. From an evolutionary standpoint it makes absolutely no sense to me to suppose that a fish can't feel pain.
--- End quote ---
While I'm not arguing for the validity of the "fish can't feel pain" point, there are certainly spots on the human body that have very little feeling. Perhaps fish lips aren't very sensitive.
Gills probably are, though. I caught a rainbow trout on a mountain in upstate NY (near Keene) by hooking it through the gills. My dad said if I caught anything we could take it home, but didn't have a bucket 'cause he assumed I wouldn't catch anything.
Darn fish probably bled to death. Didn't get to eat it or anything.
Lines:
The part I have difficulty with most is that as soon as they are taken out of the water, they are suffocating. And if you don't throw them back or put them in a bucket soon enough, they die. Fishing when you don't plan on keeping what you catch to eat it is pretty much cruel. Anytime I went, we brought a bucket and my g-pa had a cage permanently fixed to the dock on his pond/lake, because he went fishing several times a week, so that if he forgot a bucket, he could get one and then come back.
Orbert:
--- Quote from: Inlander on 13 Jan 2008, 06:52 ---Humans are the only predators on the planet that, when faced with a situation in which one of their prey animals is becoming increasingly depopulated and difficult to catch, will continue hunting for that animal regardless, rather than switching to another animal and giving the first one a chance to get its numbers up again.
--- End quote ---
You're kidding, right? You think that a hungry wolf will see a rabbit and think "I better let that one go. Rabbits are getting pretty scare around here. Maybe I'll hold out for a raccoon or something."?
Animals, especially hungry ones, function on instinct alone. Hungry + food = eat. That's it. There is no fucking way that a predator other than man ever thinks about passing up a meal because its numbers are getting low. There are at least some humans out there who do.
Verergoca:
Good point Orbert, altough you happen to be conveniently forgetting the entirety of the Lotka-Volterra model/equations, which neatly explains the relationship between predators (and their population) and their prey (and their population).
Basically, if a predator finds low amounts of prey, they will reproduce less offspring (what with beeing to busy to get preggers and all), and the amount of predators in a certain area, will go down as well, untill it reaches a certain point at which the predation-pressure on the prey-population is low enough to allow it to recover back to its pre-bad-times place. A short delay after this, the population of the predators will also rise again, and the whole cycle starts over again.
Problem ofcourse with humans, is that our population has been on the rise for the last, oh, i dunno, millenium?
Aaaanyway, you can return back to the fishies now >.>
p.s. This is what you get for having a dutchie on the forum who had to study this at school. I actually bet im not the only one... Ohwell :D
calenlass:
Yes but scarce prey implies hard-to-find. If they can't find it, they can't eat it. That's why, using the wolf example, when the lemmings in Alaska go through population lulls the wolf population shrinks for a few years, too.
Edit: Fuck you, Vergo. Quit stealing my thundah.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version