My rant about fishing

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source for this claim? Or personal experience of being a fish?

[runesmithie]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source for this claim? Or personal experience of being a fish?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/10/1044725683181.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But then, this later report says they do feel pain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm

[BlueTear]

So... If I hunt or fish something, and then kill it, and eat it, what I'm doing is not only defendable, but it's morally right. (I'm pressuming that by extension, if I were to kill it, and then feed my cat with it, that would also be moreally right?). Even though, strictly speaking, I don't really need to go fishing or hunting in order to provide myself with nutrition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, if I were to be catching fish or hunting something, and - in the case of fish - not killing it, but letting it back in, I'm a cruel human being torturing animals. I still don't need the fish for nutrition, nor do I kill the fish, but good grief, I'm so evil!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... if the two cases we're comparing is between sport and starvation, I'd buy it. But it isn't. I sincerely doubt any of you who's sitting behind computer with internet access - most in western nations - go fishing because you need the fish for nutrition value. Just like any fisher-for-sport you do it because of the experience, and for the fun of it. Patting yourself on the back because your being oh-so-natural eating what you've killed for fun is ridicolous.

[Mercifull]

I used to like fishing but i havnt done it for a number of years. I used to find it quite fun trying to catch a fish. I never used barbed hooks and I always put the fish into a bucket of water so it wasnt out in the air. I never took pictures and stuff of anyhitng that I caught.

[____]

On the issue of fishing.

 

 

 

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/stor ... public_rss

[Faux]

Tried fishing, never caught one.

[Anesthesia]

Even though, strictly speaking, I don't really need to go fishing or hunting in order to provide myself with nutrition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I go fishing for food then I save the money which I would have otherwise spent on that food. That is then money I can spend on other food. Strictly speaking you don't really need to do anything other than work for a living, but doing other things can help your situation. They are an alternative and not just a supplement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fishing can also be for fish that aren't available in shops.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Catching fish to eat can be fun, but there is no wastage. Everyone wants a better quality of life, however when that quality of life involves needlessly harming animals it is selfish. Catching a fish to eat isn't needless because you get sustenance out of it. It provides you with a nice meal and it doesn't have to continue with an injury, it is dead and it can't care. Catching a fish, harming it, then releasing it is wastage because that fish now has a hole in its mouth for nothing more than your entertainment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you agree with snaring a rabbit, piercing its face, then letting it go?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, if I were to be catching fish or hunting something, and - in the case of fish - not killing it, but letting it back in, I'm a cruel human being torturing animals. I still don't need the fish for nutrition, nor do I kill the fish, but good grief, I'm so evil!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you trying to make it sound like you're benevolent for injuring it and deciding to let it live? It would have been better off if you just hadn't caught it in the first place. That argument only works if you are against fishing and hunting full stop, in which case I guess you must agree with me about sport fishing being bad.

[BlueTear]

If I go fishing for food then I save the money which I would have otherwise spent on that food. That is then money I can spend on other food.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you - most likely - don't go fishing for food. You go fishing because you want to experience the fishing bit. Catching a fish, harming it and then releasing - for your enjoyment - is more morally reprehensible than catching a fish - for your enjoyment - killing it and then eating it according to the way some of the arguments presented in this thread goes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really people? If I used a staple gun on your face - a random location with various degrees of handicapping injury - for entertainment, which one would you chose? A) I staple you, I let you live, but the staple hurts like [cabbage] B) I staple you, I kill you - not that I really need the nutrition - and then go on to talk about how I spared you the possibly handicapping injury of being stapled in the face and the pain of the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Survival is a deeply rooted instinct in most animals. For that reason, we're going to presume that most animals would go for the option meaning survival (we're ignoring evolutionary factors that means survival of the individual isn't always beneficial to the species). So which option favours survival?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(And quite frankly, depending on the fish your catching, I sincerely doubt you can do it cheaper per kg than a professional fisherman equipped with either trawler, a fish farm, or both. In fact, I'm fairly sure most people who fish ends up paying more than buying the same or similar fish would have costed, in a western nation where the fishing industry is just that; Industrialized.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In essence; If you're catching a fish primarily for nutrition purposes you've got your moral bases covered (grossly simplified) IMHO. If you catch a fish primarily for fun but gain nutrition from it as a sort of side effect by killing it, you look mighty silly throwing rocks after the people who catch fish for fun but let the fish live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Snaring a rabbit for fun, stapling it in the face, and letting it live, is more morally reprehinsible than snaring the rabbit for fun, stapling it in the face, and then killing it and eating it if you don't need the nutrition. I have no qualms with snaring the rabbit for scientific purposes and stapling it in the face with a GPS device. But if you're doing the same action for fun, then saying that killing it and eating it is not as bad as hurting it and letting it live is just... Out of whack.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you trying to make it sound like you're benevolent for injuring it and deciding to let it live? It would have been better off if you just hadn't caught it in the first place. That argument only works if you are against fishing and hunting full stop, in which case I guess you must agree with me about sport fishing being bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I fail to see how killing it and eating it makes my fun at the expense of another being more justified than hurting the being and letting it live, for fun. So yes, I agree with sport fishing being bad, but when I define sport fishing, I include any fishing that isn't neccesary for nutrition.

[indy500fan]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does anyone who uses it deserve to have it used on them? We are talking about fish here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One clear advantage is it keeps all your fish together until you are done fishing. Then after you are done, they are all on a line and can easily be transported from one place to another.

[Anesthesia]

One clear advantage is it keeps all your fish together until you are done fishing. Then after you are done, they are all on a line and can easily be transported from one place to another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bucket.

[indy500fan]

 

One clear advantage is it keeps all your fish together until you are done fishing. Then after you are done, they are all on a line and can easily be transported from one place to another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bucket.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A line is a lot easier to take with you. Fits in the tackle box. And you don't have to worry about putting water in the bucket.

[Anesthesia]

Why would you need to put water in the bucket? The fish would be dead.

[indy500fan]

Why would you need to put water in the bucket? The fish would be dead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, forgot about that.

[assassin_696]

Sorry, I don't mean to bang home the same point, but my question still stands. What's morally or environmentally wrong with letting a fish go (even if it's injured) so that it can feed another fish when you would just waste it and not eat it if you brought it home. Surely looking at it on the scale of an ecosystem, there's always a bigger fish to feed out there.

[Anesthesia]

It doesn't work like that though, assassin_696. That argument doesn't work when the people set out to catch them then release them - since it would have been better had they just not caught them in the first place.

[assassin_696]

It doesn't work like that though, assassin_696. That argument doesn't work when the people set out to catch them then release them - since it would have been better had they just not caught them in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I agree with that aspect, people who fish purely to have their picture taken and then throw the fish are wasteful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was simply defending me going mackerel fishing, catching and eating 5 or so good size ones and throwing back a couple which are too small to do anything with. Because I think that [whatever eats mackerel] would appreciate them more than me.

[runesmithie]

Mercifull reminded me of an essay I read a while back... the main bit was that if you are going to fish for sport and toss them back, *don't* use a barbed hook. Hell, don't use a barbed hook at all, since it's really not as much of a requirement as it was before and it makes it that much more challenging to use a straight hook.

[Pandaman115]

Could someone tell me what you eat on a fish?

[jackalope14]

I went fishing in South Dakota and we caught tons of fish.

 

 

 

We ate them all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do remember going fishing just for fun when I was really young. We would catch little sunfish and let them go, and being a little kid, it was awesome just to catch the fish. I didn't really think about it being in pain at the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also used to be pretty mean to some of the minnows. :shame:

[Militaris]

Do not give me any rubbish that ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åfish do not feel painÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Militaris]

 

 

One clear advantage is it keeps all your fish together until you are done fishing. Then after you are done, they are all on a line and can easily be transported from one place to another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bucket.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A line is a lot easier to take with you. Fits in the tackle box. And you don't have to worry about putting water in the bucket.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is fine to use a line once the fish is dead, I often do a similar thing. My issue was using the line when the fish is still living. There is simply no

 

 

 

advantage to it.

[caligula101]

I think we are all forgetting a crucial part to this debate and that is we are talking about fish. They have no intelligence or memory, is it really that big a deal to throw back a fish knowing that it is more thankful to be alive than dead. If anything the fish will be greatful for being allowed back into the ocean. It's not like it's wounds won't heal over a short period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also using a barbed hook is pretty essential if you actually want to catch a fish it also decreases the chance of the fish swallowing the hook which is obviosuly a good thing. Without a barb you are unable to snag a fish and it will just take your bait. It depends what fish you are after but if you're after something relatively big you need a barb.

[Anesthesia]

They have no intelligence or memory, is it really that big a deal to throw back a fish knowing that it is more thankful to be alive than dead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If they have no long term memory then how would they be grateful? How would they know what had happened to them (that is, aside from the gaping hole in their face).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By your rationale it would be just fine to beat up people with anterograde amnesia, because they wouldn't remember it afterwards.

[runesmithie]

I think we are all forgetting a crucial part to this debate and that is we are talking about fish. They have no intelligence or memory, is it really that big a deal to throw back a fish knowing that it is more thankful to be alive than dead. If anything the fish will be greatful for being allowed back into the ocean. It's not like it's wounds won't heal over a short period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also using a barbed hook is pretty essential if you actually want to catch a fish it also decreases the chance of the fish swallowing the hook which is obviosuly a good thing. Without a barb you are unable to snag a fish and it will just take your bait. It depends what fish you are after but if you're after something relatively big you need a barb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're looking for a fish big enough to make a meal for 1-2 people then a straight hook is definitely good enough.

[caligula101]

I've never caught anything good with a straight hook and Anesthesia, fish are not people.