Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Fishing Talk
SonofZ3:
--- Quote from: a pack of wolves on 14 Jan 2008, 12:39 ---
--- Quote from: Linds on 14 Jan 2008, 09:56 ---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.
--- End quote ---
I'm unsure why it's seen as less cruel if you eat them afterwards, a view that seems to have come up a few times in this thread. Genuinely, I don't get the difference, they're both just doing it for fun basically. It's not like anybody needs to be eating fish. What am I missing here?
--- End quote ---
To understand this you have to understand the evolution of the arguments non-fishers use to accuse fisherpersons of cruelty. First they said we kept too many fish and the barbs on hooks hurt the fish, this (along with the trend of increasingly environmentally- conscious sportspersons) gave rise to catch and release fishing with barbless flies. Then they said we wore their protective slime off when we brought the fish to hand and suffocated them so we invented tools like the ketchum release (which I use) so the fish never even have to leave the water, and are never touched. Now, faced with fishermen who never touch the fish, never take it from the water, use barbless hooks which are usually smaller than 1/2in long and 1/8in between the barb and shank, they tell us that fishing at all, unless we kill the fish, is cruel. The only option we're left with is to say "fuck you", or stop fishing, since we don't want to kill any fish. To be fair, I am referring to fly fisherpersons here, but the same trends of barbless hooks and catch and release fishing is taking hold in bait and lure fishers as well.
Boro_Bandito:
I do both and you know what? When I catch and release I used the same hooks I use when I catch them to kill, and I handle them roughly, and maybe I'm cruel. Oh well. Fuck sportsmanship, they should be feeling lucky to be alive after I'm done with them.
a pack of wolves:
--- Quote from: SonofZ3 on 14 Jan 2008, 15:47 ---To understand this you have to understand the evolution of the arguments non-fishers use to accuse fisherpersons of cruelty. First they said we kept too many fish and the barbs on hooks hurt the fish, this (along with the trend of increasingly environmentally- conscious sportspersons) gave rise to catch and release fishing with barbless flies. Then they said we wore their protective slime off when we brought the fish to hand and suffocated them so we invented tools like the ketchum release (which I use) so the fish never even have to leave the water, and are never touched. Now, faced with fishermen who never touch the fish, never take it from the water, use barbless hooks which are usually smaller than 1/2in long and 1/8in between the barb and shank, they tell us that fishing at all, unless we kill the fish, is cruel. The only option we're left with is to say "fuck you", or stop fishing, since we don't want to kill any fish. To be fair, I am referring to fly fisherpersons here, but the same trends of barbless hooks and catch and release fishing is taking hold in bait and lure fishers as well.
--- End quote ---
Thanks, I was completely unaware of any of that and it cleared it up nicely. I still don't agree with the standpoint of the people who say you're being cruel unless you kill the fish but I guess they're coming from that utilitarian justification position which I don't buy into but I do understand.
SonofZ3:
I don't buy it either. I think what really bugs me about it is that a lot of sportsmen, be it hunters or fishers, feel as though they truly care about the welfare of the animal they pursue. A lot of the critics of hunting and fishing have only a vague idea of what a trout or salmon (or bass or white-tailed deer ect) is, but are more than happy to rail against individuals that choose to spend a lot of their free time around those animals.
a pack of wolves:
Well, spending time around animals doesn't always mean much. Somebody who works in a battery farm spends more time around chickens than I do and probably has a much greater knowledge of them than me. And then there's stuff like fox hunting with dogs, that really was a nasty practice but again I bet those guys knew more about foxes than me. Greater knowledge and a closer relationship with something is great, but it doesn't always mean you've got the best perspective. Damn, that looks a bit like I'm comparing people that fish to fox hunters, very much not my intention.
I never really got spending a lot of time campaigning about fishing though (as in the pastime, not commercial fishing), I wouldn't do it myself so I steer clear and that's about it. There are much nastier things to get worried about where animal welfare's concerned.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version