Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Fishing Talk
Lines:
--- 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 ---
We were talking about whether or not the fish felt pain. The suffocating issue is how I felt about the fish feeling pain. What I meant was as that if you're going to take a fish out of water, which I believe causes it pain, you'd better have a good reason to do so, which to me means eating it. I don't think fishing in itself is cruel, as I said earlier, I've done it. But the only time we took fish out of the water was to put it immediately in a bucket to move it from one lake to another or to kill it.
And actually, if you are not a vegan/vegetarian, you should eat fish, because it's good for you. And some of them are actually quite delicious.
Inlander:
--- Quote from: Orbert on 14 Jan 2008, 15:46 ---The implication (which has since been thrashed to death, but I never got a chance to respond) was that the predators in the wild were somehow choosing to pursue different prey, or at least that's how I read it. It struck me as a pretty bizarre thing to say, so I rebuked it.
--- End quote ---
Well, I mangled the syntax a bit because I was trying to talk about humans and other animals in the same sentence. However the fact remains that most predators prey on a number of species, and though usually the predators will have one or two prey animals that they prefer to target for whatever biological reason, when one of those prey animals falls below a certain threshold it's not going to be targeted as much. This is not to do with conscious decision-making, but with simple numbers: if in a given area of land there are 100 possums and only 5 rabbits, it's the possums that are going to feel the brunt of the predation simply because they're easier for the predator to catch. After a prolonged period of heavy predation, possum numbers will drop but the rabbit population will have had a chance to build back up to healthy numbers, and the predation pattern will reverse. The point I was trying to make was that humans are the only multi-prey predators that will continue pursuing a species to the point of extinction, no matter how difficult or time-consuming or energy-sapping it becomes to catch that species.
thepugs:
What can I say, man? Dodo were fucking delicious.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version