My rant about fishing

[runesmithie]

Just one thing I might throw out there.. I was recently talking to a European friend who was absolutely appalled at the idea of people hunting deer. What I'm wondering is are deer as big of a problem in Europe as they can be out here? (At this time of the year it's not uncommon to see 5-6 deer crossing the road at night here.)

[indy500fan]

Just one thing I might throw out there.. I was recently talking to a European friend who was absolutely appalled at the idea of people hunting deer. What I'm wondering is are deer as big of a problem in Europe as they can be out here? (At this time of the year it's not uncommon to see 5-6 deer crossing the road at night here.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I helped my dad "gut" a deer the other night. After you kill it, you put it on its back, cut the belly open down to the crotch, and yank all the guts out. It usually smells pretty bad, and he accidentally cut the bowel tract so there was half processed crap smell, and it stank bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I told this story to some people around here, and they just wanted to know how big the deer was. They don't find it too disgusting, it is just something that happens around here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Years ago there were so many deer around here that they took away the limit that you were allowed to get. Too many deer = too many crossing roads = car accidents, sometimes followed by death of the passangers.

[assassin_696]

I've been mackerel fishing off a boat a few times now, sometimes we eat the fish sometimes we throw them back. If the fish is too small, we probably wouldn't eat it anyway so we may as well just let it be chucked back and at least stand half a chance. Even if their injured surely it's better off than dead? Often we wouldn't eat the fish, so they'd just get wasted. I'd rather they became food for a bigger fish that would eat them.

[knives669]

I completely agree with you. Every time I go fishing, I eat what I catch (though I rarely catch anything in the first place). It's pointless and wasteful to catch the fish and let it go.

[Anesthesia]

Even if their injured surely it's better off than dead?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That isn't really a valid argument for it considering that they wouldn't be injured had you not been sport fishing in the first place. What you were doing was inevitable. You were fishing for food but they were inadequate - it is the intention that sets it aside.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One couldn't go out sport fishing then claim they were better off alive than dead though, since they wouldn't be in that position had the sport fisher not caught them with no intention of eating them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I was fishing I wouldn't throw small fish back; I'd use them as bait.

[assassin_696]

 

Even if their injured surely it's better off than dead?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That isn't really a valid argument for it considering that they wouldn't be injured had you not been sport fishing in the first place. What you were doing was inevitable. You were fishing for food but they were inadequate - it is the intention that sets it aside.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One couldn't go out sport fishing then claim they were better off alive than dead though, since they wouldn't be in that position had the sport fisher not caught them with no intention of eating them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I was fishing I wouldn't throw small fish back; I'd use them as bait.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, my argument should have been more along the lines of: they're too small for me to want to eat, I intended to catch and eat bigger fish, so I think it's better they go to feed a bigger fish down there that wouldn't waste them like I would, since they're not worth gutting.

[caligula101]

I go fishing alot when I go on holiday because it's fun, I never kill the fish. I simply take the hook out and throw it back into the ocean, it swims off and is fine. I compete with my brother to see who can catch the most fish and we have alot of fun doing it, we don't torture or harm the fish (didn't matter if we did as fish can't feel pain). The only thing that runs through a fishes mind is to feed and of course to avoid danger. Who cares if we catch it? It's a fish it has no feelings of dispair or loss, the only reason it flaps about like that is because it can't breathe and almost always it is thrown back in the ocean.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides catching a fish and eating it could be classed as morally wrong, afterall all you need do is go to a supermarket and buy yourself an already pre caught fish. Basically the bottom line is human beings have a right to protect creatures of this earth, and if they have a bit of fun who cares? The fish certainly don't, they get their bait and no doubt forget the entire incident after about 10 seconds so it's no big deal.

[baby_koopa]

Yeah but some people like to fish for fun not just to eat have u ever thught of that?

[Anesthesia]

Yeah but some people like to fish for fun not just to eat have u ever thught of that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My god, I never thought of that. Thread over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In case there's any mod who's having an off-day and misinterprets that as my being serious: it's sarcasm.

[Abyssalwhip]

well dont fish 24\7 if you have other food at home thats also waisting fish but i somewhat agree

[Adam007]

I don't know, I see both sides of the point. But if I were a fish and were caught by someone, I'd much rather be thrown back in to live with an injury that would eventually heal than just eaten. But that's as weird an argument as it gets. :P

 

 

 

Yes, I recognize that you're saying the guy who throws the fish back shouldn't even be fishing in the first place, but they do it anyway - I'm just saying given the circumstance, I find it more humane to throw it back. Humane might be the key word though. Since fish don't really think, it's probably better for them to have a quick death than suffer. Humans on the other hand have consciousness which is much more valuable, and would suffer to keep it and stay alive.

[VOV]

We've got a nice cottage on the lake we visit each summer. The lake is full of Bass.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My father and I go out fishing every other night. As long as the fish we catch is of a reasonable size we'll keep it and eat it. We don't fish for sport; if we get a fish it'll be tomorrow night's dinner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately there are times when we catch fish that are simply too small and we have to release them. Yes, there is a chance that they will die due to stress or injuries but it is fairly low.

[indy500fan]

Since I was already on the topic of gutting animals, I have to ask, has anyone ever killed a fish?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After you catch a fish, and plan on eating it, the first thing you do is stick a rope with a [bleep]e on the end through the fish's mouth out through the gills. Then you stick the [bleep]e in the ground, and throw the fish back in the water till you are done fishing. So the fish is basically on a leash, except the leash isn't around the neck, but inside the fish's mouth and out the gill. Once you are done fishing and have all the fish you want to eat on the line, you take them out of the water and start butchering them. The first part of that is putting them on the cutting board, and hitting their heads with a blunt object to knock them unconscious. Usually just hold on to the blade (carefully) of the knife you are going to use, and hit the fish with the handle. Once the fish is unconscious, you cut of it's head. Yep, you cut of the head while the fish is still alive. Of course after the head is cut of it is not alive anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you were a fish, who would you hate more. The one that fishes for sport, or the one who fishes for a meal?

[Anesthesia]

Don't know about others, but that's not how I have killed fish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As soon as we got them out of the water we whacked them over the head very hard - either with something we had to hand, or by holding the tail and smacking it on a railing. It then got stuck in a bucket. Out cold whilst it suffocated. Either that or we cut their heads off immediately.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you are describing is totally unnecessary; it's not as though they would spoil in that time.

[knives669]

I just take it out of the water and chop its head off. Yes, I bring a knife along for the sole purpose of chopping its head off, then I throw it in a cooler. We used to bring the heads along as well to feed to the cats we used to have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I want to go fishing again.

[BlueLancer]

I love fishing. It's great. What I hate is morons who do what you said, catch a fish, pose with it and throw it back in the water. What the heck is the point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're going to catch it, you may just as well eat it. Otherwise you just tortured it for no reason, not even killing it for the nutrition value, but decapitating it just for your little boasting picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

issy2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's easy to speak like that when you have a home, internet access, a PC and a fridge full of food.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Live starved in poor conditions and think again if it's "morally right" to kill animals. There are virtually no vegetarians in poor countries, and they constitute about 30-50% of the world's population.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They will eat any food they have, be it rice, chicken, meat, anything. When you haven't eaten good for a couple of days, you wont really care if it's "morally right" to eat that animal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your fathers, forefathers, and their ancestors killed for meat. It is natural, otherwise they would not have survived. You would not be alive today if it weren't in your genes to like meat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is nothing wrong with killing an animal for food, just like there is nothing morally wrong with a lion tearing you to pieces if you're dumb enough to go close and take a picture of it or grab it's hair. It's natural.

[VOV]

Since I was already on the topic of gutting animals, I have to ask, has anyone ever killed a fish?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have a small assortment of tools we use. First it gets whacked in the head with a small mallet, then it's held down and scaled with a tool that looks like a potato-peeler. Next we cut off the head and slit it along the belly. The internals are pulled out and the ribs/spine are cleaned with a special pick. After this we cut off the tail, the upper and lower fins, wash it, and wrap it to be frozen.

[Militaris]

I am a keen fisherman, and I sometimes keep a odd fish for a feed, especially if it was badly hooked. The majority of fish I catch would be released. People who kill every fish they catch simply sickens me. Fishing is a sport, maybe a blood sport, I do not consider it in any way to be a means of gathering a meal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why release fish? Because it helps to conserve the population, and that fish can be caught another day. Handle correctly the fish would experience minimal discomfort. To me, seeing a fish swim away after a long fight is a big part of the total experience. Much preferable then watching it lay dead on the bank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After you catch a fish, and plan on eating it, the first thing you do is stick a rope with a [bleep]e on the end through the fish's mouth out through the gills.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is just putting undue suffering onto the fish. The first thing which should be done is a blow or iki to the head. Kill it instantly!. Followed by bleeding and chilling if desired.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely no need to pro-long the suffering. Actually most fish typically taste better after a quick death. Doing what you suggested would allow for a large build up of acid and stress characteristics in the fish.

[deloriagod]

Since I was already on the topic of gutting animals, I have to ask, has anyone ever killed a fish?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep. In fact, I've killed a lot of different animals (not all on purpose).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I love to fish, but I'm not a big fish eater. I enjoy eating fish once in a while but I'm too lazy to clean and cook the fish I catch so I throw them back. I fish for fun and if I want to eat fish I'll visit the nearest seafood restaurant. Though if I catch a big enough fish, I'd eat it. But I'm not going to eat a million little rock bass or whatever else I pull up from edge of the river.

[____]

I stop fishing /crabbing when I got all we're going to eat over the weekend. What nerks me more than sport fishing are people who take undersize or female fish / crabs despite knowing that it's illegal.

[warri0r45]

What really grinds my gears is people who catch fish which is good to eat but then throw it back, injured and having been suffocated for a couple of minutes. It is a waste and it is cruel. It is cruel simply because there is no decent reason for doing it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i see your point clearly, but its considered sport.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

im no expert or anything.. but fish dont have the greatest memories either do they? although im aware that the fact wouldnt excuse the cruelty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It all comes down to whether you consider it cruel or not.

[indy500fan]

Wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is just putting undue suffering onto the fish. The first thing which should be done is a blow or iki to the head. Kill it instantly!. Followed by bleeding and chilling if desired.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely no need to pro-long the suffering. Actually most fish typically taste better after a quick death. Doing what you suggested would allow for a large build up of acid and stress characteristics in the fish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can you blatantly say it is wrong? They make those fishing lines for a reason, because people use them. Sure, you can disagree with whether or not it is cruel/necessary, but just plain saying "wrong" is stupid.

[Militaris]

 

Wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is just putting undue suffering onto the fish. The first thing which should be done is a blow or iki to the head. Kill it instantly!. Followed by bleeding and chilling if desired.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely no need to pro-long the suffering. Actually most fish typically taste better after a quick death. Doing what you suggested would allow for a large build up of acid and stress characteristics in the fish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can you blatantly say it is wrong? They make those fishing lines for a reason, because people use them. Sure, you can disagree with whether or not it is cruel/necessary, but just plain saying "wrong" is stupid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Using one is Stupid. Anyone who use one really deserves to have it shoved down their throat and through their lungs. I wonder how much they would enjoy it. Completely unnecessary cruelty towards the fish with zero positive advantages and several clear negative ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also if you read what I wrote I did not only say 'wrong', I justified it.

[megadedhed]

Ah, fishing... I must admit ive never fished for sport... but I have fished when I was Just plain hungry (It was at a summer camp), and yes, I have killed one before. but not in the whole "[bleep]e on a stick", I knocked out, then cut off the head, then scaled it, then gut it. Honestly, I wanna know where you got that information from.

[caligula101]

 

 

Wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is just putting undue suffering onto the fish. The first thing which should be done is a blow or iki to the head. Kill it instantly!. Followed by bleeding and chilling if desired.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely no need to pro-long the suffering. Actually most fish typically taste better after a quick death. Doing what you suggested would allow for a large build up of acid and stress characteristics in the fish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can you blatantly say it is wrong? They make those fishing lines for a reason, because people use them. Sure, you can disagree with whether or not it is cruel/necessary, but just plain saying "wrong" is stupid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Using one is Stupid. Anyone who use one really deserves to have it shoved down their throat and through their lungs. I wonder how much they would enjoy it. Completely unnecessary cruelty towards the fish with zero positive advantages and several clear negative ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also if you read what I wrote I did not only say 'wrong', I justified it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually fish don't even feel pain nor do they have a memory, basically you could "torture" a fish for as much as you like then throw it in the water and watch it swim away. It won't care as it will have no memory of the incident nor will it feel any pain.