Is Fishing Cruel? [Archive]

nomme

12-11-2003, 21:24

Originally posted by max
Got to agree with t020 on this one. Fishing for pleasure is a bit pointless, sad and unnecessary.

I could equally claim the same for Formula 1 racing for example. Each to their own.

No - I don't fish for pleasure regularly, but I have done and would do again, and I can understand why it is the most popular sport in Britain.
I agree with what Phan' said on the other thread about a sliding scale of perceived sentience. Fish rate very low on my scale. Hmm. At the risk of raising people’s ire even more I’ll even admit I’ve done experiments with them.

So ‘no’ I don’t think it’s cruel.

Nomme

Lindseyw

12-11-2003, 21:31

Originally posted by nommedenet
I could equally claim the same for Formula 1 racing for example. Each to their own.

No - I don't fish for pleasure regularly, but I have done and would do again, and I can understand why it is the most popular sport in Britain.
I agree with what Phan' said on the other thread about a sliding scale of perceived sentience. Fish rate very low on my scale. Hmm. At the risk of raising people’s ire even more I’ll even admit I’ve done experiments with them.

So ‘no’ I don’t think it’s cruel.

Nomme

I have to agree with you - not about the Formula 1 tho ;)

t020

12-11-2003, 21:36

Originally posted by nommedenet
I could equally claim the same for Formula 1 racing for example. Each to their own.

No - I don't fish for pleasure regularly, but I have done and would do again, and I can understand why it is the most popular sport in Britain.
I agree with what Phan' said on the other thread about a sliding scale of perceived sentience. Fish rate very low on my scale. Hmm. At the risk of raising people’s ire even more I’ll even admit I’ve done experiments with them.

So ‘no’ I don’t think it’s cruel.

Nomme

Again, Formula 1 doesn't harm other living beings, other than those who VOLUNTARILY take part. What say did the fish have in becoming someones idea of entertainment for the day?

PaulTansley

12-11-2003, 22:30

Its the fishermans licence fee's that go toward the upkeep of these lovely riversides you walk along side on a summers evening instead of walking along a grassy bank looking into a polluted waterway.
Fisherman actually do good for the enviroment unlike car drivers driving the porsches to the local shops.
;)
Mispelt posh car noted.

Lickszz

12-11-2003, 22:37

So, it's ok if your eating it? So, do you support every angler taking whatever they catch home for supper?

Fishing is fishing, IMO if you eat fish your supporting it.

Like I said previously, For pleaure the fish lives and for food it dies.

t020

12-11-2003, 22:42

Originally posted by Lickszz
So, it's ok if your eating it? So, do you support every angler taking whatever they catch home for supper?

Fishing is fishing, IMO if you eat fish your supporting it.

Like I said previously, For pleaure the fish lives and for food it dies.

For pleasure it is totally unnecessary. For food it is part of a balanced diet.

Lickszz

12-11-2003, 22:48

Originally posted by t020
For pleasure it is totally unnecessary. For food it is part of a balanced diet.

So, what about my question. Do you support every angler taking his/her catch home for supper instead of putting it back?

t020

12-11-2003, 23:05

Originally posted by Lickszz
So, what about my question. Do you support every angler taking his/her catch home for supper instead of putting it back?

No. Leave it to the professionals.

Phanerothyme

13-11-2003, 07:44

Screw the fish. It's an evolution thing. All higher carnivorous mammals hunt for pleasure and satisfaction as well as food. There are some very big fish and I leave them well alone out of respect for my own safety. Trout on the other hand have got it coming and have the added disadvantage of tasting delicious.

To claim fishing for pleasure being amongst other things cruel, and then gobbling down chunks of Tuna, Cod, Haddock in the same sentence goes through hypocrisy and right out the other side.

Leave it to the professionals you say. These would be the same professionals who throw back tons of dead fish with every catch, fished up from the sea for no reason whatsoever not even sport, but just because they happen to have been swimming with herring.

At least freshwater fish in this country are restocked and managed, unlike the sea fisheries where fishermen have driven thinkgs like cod to the brink of extinction.

robh

13-11-2003, 14:13

I agree with what Phan' said on the other thread about a sliding scale of perceived sentience. Fish rate very low on my scale. Yeah, should we give other living things an IQ test before we kill them? Let's ban antibiotics, for all we know we could be causing distress to the bacteria!

Sidla

13-11-2003, 16:01

I guess it depends if fish feel pain. But to be honest, even if they don't they would still be distressed by being hoisted out of the canal/river/lake they were in which wouldn't be good for their health.

Having said this, I'm more concerned by the harm we do to fish with pollution. I would have thought all the sewerage and chemicals we pump into the sea would do more harm to fish than the humble fisherman.

Belle

13-11-2003, 16:03

I would like it much better if those who are so worried about fish and their pain, could concentrate similar efforts and concern to worrying about victims of domestic violence and victims of child neglect and victims of bullying.

Three groups we know for sure feel pain and who need protecting.

Sidla

13-11-2003, 16:08

You can't be concerned about everything all the time. Well you could be, but you'd be a pretty depressive person.

Phanerothyme

13-11-2003, 16:09

max

14-11-2003, 08:58

Belle

14-11-2003, 09:12

Ah Max

I was very careful to say that I wished people could have equal empathy and compassion for animals and for humans

You do, clearly.

I didnt suggest one should be valued above the other, just that both should be valued

nomme

14-11-2003, 09:18

max

14-11-2003, 09:39

Originally posted by nommedenet
When you are fencing what would you say is 'the object of the exercise'? Just curious to know how you rationalise that with the statement above.

Nomme
For the pedants among us I should add 'where there isn't a level playing field'.

robh

14-11-2003, 13:13

Originally posted by Belle
I would like it much better if those who are so worried about fish and their pain, could concentrate similar efforts and concern to worrying about victims of domestic violence and victims of child neglect and victims of bullying.

Three groups we know for sure feel pain and who need protecting. I nearly agree but I'm not too happy about "...similar efforts..." I feel an awful lot more compassion for any individual from the three groups you list (amongst a long list of others) than for a sardine. The trouble is it's a lot harder to make a ban on domestic violence effective. There is a danger that by creating softer targets, resources that would be better employed tackling violence are dissipated. I have no difficulty whatsoever in prioritising the needs of kids above those of fish.
Once someone has demonstrated that they have policies and procedures that lead to a significant reduction in the level of child sexual abuse (for example) I may be willing to discuss whether any action is appropriate in respect of fish.

I went fishing for the first time this summer and was surprised to find that the hook usually just pierced some transparently thin skin below around the mouth. Easy to remove and no blood. Given that bigger fish eat (possibly spikey) things like insects and smaller fish I wouldn't be surprised if these are areas prone to natural injuries and so able to cope with the damage.
I had previously thought that the hook would lodge somewhere deep in the throat which I could imagine to be more damaging. But maybe it depends on species of fish, type of fishing tackle etc.
Having tried it I'd not be bothered to take it up as a regular passtime but would have no concern about using it as a way of acquiring food - however Tesco's provide a choice I find preferable - boneless, skinless, headless, ready-gutted fish without the need to hang around on the riverbank for hours.

t020

14-11-2003, 21:14

Originally posted by max
For the pedants among us I should add 'where there isn't a level playing field'.

Or indeed voluntary involvement.....

What option do foxes/fish have on the other hand?

nomme

14-11-2003, 23:30

Originally posted by max
I disagree with any form of 'entertainment' which involves inflicting pain on another creature whether that is a child victim, a battered wife, a fox or a fish.

Originally posted by nommedenet
When you are fencing what would you say is 'the object of the exercise'? Just curious to know how you rationalise that with the statement above.

Nomme

Originally posted by max

For the pedants among us I should add 'where there isn't a level playing field'.

Originally posted by t020

Or indeed voluntary involvement.....

... so I can safely assume neither of you have any problem with boxing then?

Nomme

t020

14-11-2003, 23:48

Originally posted by nommedenet
... so I can safely assume neither of you have any problem with boxing then?

Nomme

Again, participants are volunteers. They have a say in being there. A boxer chooses whether or not to be a boxer and whether or not to fight. Again, what say does a fish/fox have?

max

15-11-2003, 11:44

What's this thread got to do with boxing? When did you ever hear of a carp getting in the ring for 15 rounds?

Using comparisons with sports to justify fishing is not really a very good debating method, now is it?

Lickszz

15-11-2003, 13:11

Originally posted by max
What's this thread got to do with boxing? When did you ever hear of a carp getting in the ring for 15 rounds?

Hey Max, you are starting to show your age....15 rounders ended a long time ago....:D :P

nomme

15-11-2003, 13:21

Originally posted by max
What's this thread got to do with boxing? When did you ever hear of a carp getting in the ring for 15 rounds?

Boxing is a “form of 'entertainment' which involves inflicting pain on another creature” where “there *IS* a level playing field.” From *your* statements then I can infer that you agree with boxing. I know from what you’ve said on other threads that you don’t. Please explain your hypocrisy.

Using comparisons with sports to justify fishing is not really a very good debating method, now is it?

Why? Don’t you consider fishing a sport? I guess not, but I think you’ll find the majority of people do. Why is comparing one controversial ‘sport’ with another in an attempt to get you to justify your argument poor debating technique. Waving your hands in the air resorting to ad homonim argument is poor debating technique.

Nomme

mikey

15-11-2003, 13:47

In my book fishing is not a sport, its a game.
It involves strategy and deception.

Sport in my book involves physical exertion. Boxing and Fishing can not be compared as one involves a competative match of two humans with the same objective, the other involves a human trying to outwit a lower form of life into taking the bait.

IMHO Fishing is boring, tried it a couple of times.

:thumbsup:

Moonolt

15-11-2003, 14:03

Yeah, it's a bit cruel. However, as long as you throw the fish back, there's nothing wrong in my book. Sorry, but cutting a fish's mouth and distressing it will not affect the fish in the long-term. Bear in mind that the long-term is about seven seconds after the fish is set free...

max

15-11-2003, 16:02

Originally posted by nommedenet
Boxing is a “form of 'entertainment' which involves inflicting pain on another creature” where “there *IS* a level playing field.” From *your* statements then I can infer that you agree with boxing. I know from what you’ve said on other threads that you don’t. Please explain your hypocrisy.

Infer away, you're wrong about fishing being a sport so you may as well infer anything you want from what I write. I asked you why you were bringing boxing into the argument, no-one cares about boxing in this thread except you. Please don't call me a hypocrite.

Lickszz

15-11-2003, 17:14

Originally posted by mikey
In my book fishing is not a sport, its a game.
It involves strategy and deception.

Sport in my book involves physical exertion. Boxing and Fishing can not be compared as one involves a competative match of two humans with the same objective, the other involves a human trying to outwit a lower form of life into taking the bait.

IMHO Fishing is boring, tried it a couple of times.

:thumbsup:

Match Fishing isn't the same style of competition as boxing but it can be competition all the same.

Fishing involves alot more skill than people realise. Many different methods to catch fish and many different fish to aim for. During a match you do compete with other humans over a set time limit, the winner been the one with the most weight.

Do you class horse racing as a sport?

nomme

15-11-2003, 21:05

Originally posted by max
Infer away, you're wrong about fishing being a sport so you may as well infer anything you want from what I write.

You brought up the irrelevant argument of whether fishing is a sport or not - not me. I have only used YOUR words i.e 'any form of entertainment'. Whether you class it as sport or not is another argument for another day. I don't think you can deny that many people get a great deal of pleasure and entertainment from fishing.

I asked you why you were bringing boxing into the argument, no-one cares about boxing in this thread except you.

I was simply using it as another example of 'a form of entertainment.' (your words)
I ORIGINALLY asked you :

“When you are fencing what would you say is 'the object of the exercise'? Just curious to know how you rationalise that with the statement above.”

Your original statement was :
“I disagree with any form of 'entertainment' which involves inflicting pain on another creature whether that is a child victim, a battered wife, a fox or a fish.”

But after I asked you about fencing you later added:
“where there isn't a level playing field”

So are you saying fencing (where I assume the object of the exercise is to attempt to kill or mame – I don’t know you never answered my question) is OK because ‘it is done on a level playing field?’ I guess so since you run a fencing club. I must also assume that fencing is a totally safe form of entertainment where no one ever gets hurt.

In this thread you say you are pro banning boxing:
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3304&highlight=boxing

So all I’m asking is how do you get from :

“I disagree with any form of 'entertainment' which involves inflicting pain on another creature .... where there isn't a level playing field”

to:
Fencing is OK but I’d ban boxing.

Nomme

t020

15-11-2003, 21:35

Phanerothyme

15-11-2003, 22:30

Originally posted by t020
Nomme, what you seem to be missing is that, although boxing involves inflicting pain on another living creature, this other living creature is a voluntary participant, fighting in a match by choice. On the other hand, all forms of hunting (which fishing surely is), and all other forms of 'entertainment' which causes unnecessary harm and distress to a creature, only have one voluntary party - the human. The fish doesn't get a choice.
I think it's fair to say, ultimately, that fishing is cruel. But there is a continuum at work here.

It is 'cruel' to force yeast (a microbe) to die in a vat of its own excrement (alcohol) for our entertainment.

It is 'cruel' for a mother to stub cigarettes out on the belly of her three month old child.

This is effectively what Belle said. (sorry about my flip remark to that B)

Fishing lies somewhere between the two, but nearer the yeast end than the 3 month old kid. Of course where you place fishing on that continuum is entirely up to the individual - but we are omnivores, and the sport of fishing, like fencing, has come from a root of actually victor and vanquished, to a stylised display match.

I fish to eat, not because I have to, but because I do enjoy it. And I don't do it very often. Although I must admit to fly fishing on stocked ponds mostly, but getting the individual fish that you want is a question of judgement and luck. Hooking it and then playing it enters the fish into a fight for its own survival. Mostly the fish win to fight another day. It's natural selection at work, we predate them.

fuzzy

15-11-2003, 23:56

I used to fish as a kid, my uncle had a pond and we used to get taken down there for days in the summer. I loved it, was better than hanging around waiting for something else to be happening. I always caught more than my brother and he now wins fishing matches.
It is considered sport as is shooting.
It is something that man has always done as a way of surviving. And as to wether it hurts the fish they soon forget when u kill them to eat them. And much more pleasure to catch your own than buy in shop.

t020

16-11-2003, 01:27

Originally posted by fuzzy purple
I used to fish as a kid, my uncle had a pond and we used to get taken down there for days in the summer. I loved it, was better than hanging around waiting for something else to be happening. I always caught more than my brother and he now wins fishing matches.
It is considered sport as is shooting.
It is something that man has always done as a way of surviving. And as to wether it hurts the fish they soon forget when u kill them to eat them. And much more pleasure to catch your own than buy in shop.

To be fair, if I beat you up you would also forget about it if I killed you afterwards. Surely this is a weak justification of cruelty?

PS. My criticism of fishing is with those who don't do it for food, but do it purely for entertainment and so causing a fish harm and distress for no obvious gain other than self satisfaction.

saxon51

16-11-2003, 11:52

Boxers enter the ring voluntarily, 100%. If they get hurt its their choice, 100%.
Fish enter the ring unaware of the outcome.
Fish deserve our sympathy, boxers deserve what they get.

That's my opinion anyway.

Funke88

16-11-2003, 15:15

We're having fish for dinner tonight. Freshly caught from the sea by my hubby this morning. We eat more fish than meat. It saves us so much money that he calls the Gulf our very own supermarket. Spoilt? absolutely!. He keeps only what we can eat and we give away the rest. We never freeze it. Excellent source of omega 3 oils.
It has been proved that fish do not feel pain: Already discussed in previous threads.
I am not a vegetarian and enjoy meat, fish and chicken. Fishing for sport is only cruel if the fish is not thrown back immediately. Remove the hooks carefully so's not to damage the inside of its mouth. So if you aint cooking it, throw it back so it can grow up. :thumbsup:

PaulTansley

17-11-2003, 06:01

Originally posted by mikey
In my book fishing is not a sport, its a game.
It involves strategy and deception.

Sport in my book involves physical exertion. Boxing and Fishing can not be compared as one involves a competative match of two humans with the same objective, the other involves a human trying to outwit a lower form of life into taking the bait.

IMHO Fishing is boring, tried it a couple of times.

:thumbsup: Fishing does'nt involve physical exertion, have you ever tried to reel in a 20lb Carp or hawled in a large sea fish, that requires great physical exertion and as a cyclist who knows what physical pain is, i find bringing in the big ones can be a real handfull.

mikey

17-11-2003, 07:44

Originally posted by The Cycleracer
have you ever tried to reel in a 20lb Carp or hawled in a large sea fish, that requires great physical exertion and as a cyclist who knows what physical pain is, i find bringing in the big ones can be a real handfull.

I find fishermen tend to exagerate a bit.:thumbsup:

saxon51

23-11-2003, 15:11

I may be wrong here, but isn't a sport an activity whereby one entrant can influence the outcome of the other entrants' results?
EG. football, snooker, rugby, basketball, boxing, squash, fencing etc.

If the most useless angler in the world competed against any other angler (world champion OR the bloke next door) he'd get the same results.
This would also apply to golf, archery, darts, shot-putt to mention a few.

This is just my theory of course, but aren't these latter more like games?

I'm probably wrong here, I usually am, but its just a thought.

Lickszz

23-11-2003, 19:13

Originally posted by markham
I may be wrong here, but isn't a sport an activity whereby one entrant can influence the outcome of the other entrants' results?
EG. football, snooker, rugby, basketball, boxing, squash, fencing etc.

If the most useless angler in the world competed against any other angler (world champion OR the bloke next door) he'd get the same results.
This would also apply to golf, archery, darts, shot-putt to mention a few.

I don't think so. It comes down to presentation of the bait and the type of bait used etc. For example you attract a shoal of fish and then you keep them in your swim and away from others.

Jamie

23-11-2003, 20:21

I can remember when I was 22 ...

hehe

I went on a sight seeing trip on a boat in cornwall ...

... and all of a sudden they whipped out fishing lines for us all ... and before I knew it ... everyone (but me) was reeling in fish and chucking them in a bucket in the middle of the boat ...

A bucket full of fish all gasping for air (ok ... water) ... and I just got distressed when I saw them ... so I threw one back and everyone looked at me funny !! ...

anyway ... when the boat came back ... just to prove a point to myself ... i went and have fish and chips ... !!

Craig7777

16-05-2006, 19:03

No it isn't cruel as long as you put em back:)

fuzzy

16-05-2006, 22:23

I don't think anyone that eats fish can consider it to be cruel or they wouldn't eat it.

It is a form of hunting but it has been for all the time man has been around. It is much more pleasurable to catch your own fish than let sea fisherman do it and kill many thousands of fish unnecessarily everytime they go out, wasting dwindling resources.

It can also done as a sport, the fish are still treated well if you are a good fisherman and careful with them, and put them back after. What is the point in mistreating them putting them back and them dying, you'd have nowt to catch next time.

redrobbo

16-05-2006, 22:43

sufc_tom

16-05-2006, 22:56

DOn't fish have a memory of about 6 seconds or is that just an urban myth?

DC33

29-06-2006, 20:34

Noticed the poll is worthless as it all leans towards the Anti Angling Brigade:loopy:

How are you going to pay for the upkeep of rivers,lakes,canals ect if you got your way and fishing was banned for being cruel? :huh: (which it isn't)

Fishing is a sport and is recognised as such all over the world,this sport brings in Billions:o.......how are you going to replace it and who is going to look after the welfare of the fish?

Is it just your opinions that fishing is cruel or do you have scientific evidence to back it up?

Anglers care more about the welfare of fish than anyone else and that includes the Anti Angling Brigade!

wibbles

30-06-2006, 07:55

Got to agree with t020 on this one. Fishing for pleasure is a bit pointless, sad and unnecessary.
ah well...what ya gonna do??..it exists and probably always will. There are lots of things in life that are a bit pointless, sad and unnecessary (watching Sheffield Utd for one)...maybe fishing is the latest bandwagon for people to hop and gripe about on until they get bored.

Tony

30-06-2006, 08:19

Well it seems to go like this;

First you ban bear baiting
Then you ban hunting
Then you ban fur
Then you ban fishing
Then you ban horse racing
Then you ban...

See a picture developing?

Halibut

30-06-2006, 08:36

I regard fishing for 'sport' as intrinsically cruel. I eat fish, and have no objections to fish being caught for food. I just don't understand how anglers seemingly obtain enjoyment from catching fish only to throw them back in the water again! What is the point? :huh:

The fish suffer from being hooked, and from being held out of water, and probably from being weighed, measured and photographed. After being confined to a keep net, they are then released.... only for the whole process to start all over again on another occasion. Fishing for 'sport' just seems so daft to me, and cruel for the fish concerned.
The point, red, is in the quiet contemplation at the waterside; the anticipation, the thrill of seeing that float dither and then dissapear, the strike, feeling that sudden tugging life - the flash of silvery sides underwater.
For me the best bit is having the fish in my hand - have you ever seen a living freshawater fish close up? They are extraordinarily beautiful creatures.
I have my little moment of victory, admire the creature I've captured and gently return him to his element.

NEKRO138

30-06-2006, 08:39

It is cruel to kill another animal. Whether it is for food or fun. If you are on this thread complaining about fishing but have bought anything that is leather or have had a burger, you are a hypocrite. I have lots of leather and eat meat. But I'm not complaining about fishing. Yeah, it's cruel, but they taste so good. :-)

AND...why is it now socially acceptable to wear leather but not furs?

Hecate

30-06-2006, 08:40

Halibut

30-06-2006, 08:41

We could also look at this from a 'greater good' perspective perhaps.
If we accept (as I do) that fishing causes some brief distress to the fish being caught, then lets imagine what would happen if it were banned.

Our waterways would go into a massive decline; without the pressure from angling to keep our waters clean and fit for life - and the huge amounts of revenue anglers generate for the upkeep of our rivers and lakes a hell of a lot more fish would suffer as their habitats became untenable through pollution and lack of management.

To those on the thread who feel that fishing is cruel, simple answer.
Don't go fishing.

Halibut

30-06-2006, 08:45

You conjure up a lovely image, Halibut, and I agree that fish in their environment are beautiful creatures. That beauty is marred a little though, when you return the fish to his watery home with a gaping wound in his mouth where the hook has been.

Gaping wound is overstretching the point a little Hecate; think ear piercing (or lip piercing to be more accurate) and you've a fairly reasonable model to work from. Brief pain. Very neat small hole.

I don't know all the ins and outs of fishes brains compared to yours and mine, but I'd put money on a fishes perception of pain being more primitive and less sentient.

Jabberwocky

30-06-2006, 08:48

And arent the mouthparts of a fish free of nerves? They simply dont feel pain when that area is pierced.
I`m on the side of the fisherman here so I wont mention the occasional time when the fish swallows the hook entirely and it embeds itself into its gut.
Damn.

Hecate

30-06-2006, 08:53

...To those on the thread who feel that fishing is cruel, simple answer.
Don't go fishing.
It's a simple answer, yes, but not an effective one. Are you suggesting that a blind eye should be turned to something that might be seen as cruel, because the individual isn't perpetrating the act of cruelty him/herself?

Hecate

30-06-2006, 09:02

Gaping wound is overstretching the point a little Hecate; think ear piercing (or lip piercing to be more accurate) and you've a fairly reasonable model to work from. Brief pain. Very neat small hole.
Well yes, but we don't often attach fishing line to our piercings and have our body weight suspended from them.
I don't know all the ins and outs of fishes brains compared to yours and mine, but I'd put money on a fishes perception of pain being more primitive and less sentient.
Knowledge about pain perception and experience in fish is still fragmentary, but there is evidence to suggest that fish do feel pain (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm).

Halibut

30-06-2006, 09:15

Well yes, but we don't often attach fishing line to our piercings and have our body weight suspended from them.

Knowledge about pain perception and experience in fish is still fragmentary, but there is evidence to suggest that fish do feel pain (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm).

I'm quite happy to accept the premise that fish feel pain; I guess my position is that I believe it's a brief episode of pain and does no lasting harm.
Ultimately I think from a selfish point of view here - I'm putting my pleasure before the fish's trauma.
But - without the angling lobby our waterways would resemble open sewers, and my conscience is clear. If one was being pedantic (see Phan's earlier postings) one could argue that almost any product involving use of animals involves a degree of cruelty - like beer or bacon or wool.

Jabberwocky

30-06-2006, 09:23

I know several fishermen, and they told me in the past that its not unusual for anglers to catch the same fish over and over again, because the fish knows itll get a free feed, and has learned that if it sees a shadow on the surface then theres a feed in the offing and actively searches for the bait.
Correct me if I`m wrong, but isnt pain a response to warn the organism of danger? If fish are so simple then surely they would react to the warning and avoid the bait?
Surely it cant be that painful for them if theyre willing to get a morsel of food.

Hecate

30-06-2006, 09:24

...If one was being pedantic (see Phan's earlier postings) one could argue that almost any product involving use of animals involves a degree of cruelty - like beer or bacon or wool.
You're right. There is a touch of hypocrisy in anyone who uses animal products arguing against perceived animal cruelty. The distinction between a recreational activty (such as angling), and a commerical activty (such as wool production), perhaps compounds the hypocricy to a certain extent too.

Craig7777

30-06-2006, 09:35

I think its alright aslong as you don't bash the fish over the head with a big stick then throw it over a tree:thumbsup:

Jabberwocky

30-06-2006, 09:38

I think its alright aslong as you don't bash the fish over the head with a big stick then throw it over a tree:thumbsup:
Thats the best part of fishing! Along with holding the fish down, taking a magnifying glass, getting the suns beam JUST right and aiming for its eye and--

*Jabberwocky runs for the exit*

wibbles

30-06-2006, 10:20

Well it seems to go like this;

First you ban bear baiting
Then you ban hunting
Then you ban fur
Then you ban fishing
Then you ban horse racing
Then you ban...

See a picture developing?
Good point about horse racing. Horses die from a recreactional sport created by humans to entertain humans..bit pointless, sad and unnecessary??
Personally I'm confident fishing will not be banned in my lifetime and as a result I will continue to fish.
Next someone will be telling us that fishing not only is cruel to fish but the poor maggots that I impale with a hook should be considered

Jabberwocky

30-06-2006, 10:35

I remember watching some cretins on TV a few years ago, swimming along canals with snorkels on and ruining the fishing by grabbing the lines and scaring away the fish.
I have a pond and in that pond are several fish, and when I have any problems with them I simply ask one of my friends who is a keen fisherman, and he helps me out. He`s saved dozens of my fish by being able to spot erratic movements in their behaviour and swimming.
He loves fish, I dont think hes ever intentionally killed one, he and his fishing club go out each year to various lakes, rivers and canals to clear them of litter (That non-fishermen have dropped) and overgrown weeds and plants.
Personally I dont like fishing, I tried it and hated it, but if everyone else hated it too the canals and rivers and lakes and dams would be overgrown messes in weeks.

pitsmoorlad

30-06-2006, 13:46

Knowledge about pain perception and experience in fish is still fragmentary, but there is evidence to suggest that fish do feel pain (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm).

The experiments conducted on the fish in this case were stupid beyond belief. They injected bee venom into a fishes head to see if there was a reaction????? And the amount they injected was the equivalent to injecting a cupfull of venom into a human. Of course there was a reaction, bloody hell I reckon you'd get a reaction from a plant if you did that. Hooking a fish doesn't inject anything at all into it so why didn't they just stick a needle in and pull it out, then see if the fish rubbed its mouth or shook its head. They didn't do that because they wouldn't have got a reaction. If a fish is handled carefully with wet hands and returned immediately by placing it in the water, not throwing it, then its distress is minimal. I'm not niaive enough to think that the fish isn't distressed at all but when it's handled and returned properly it will swim away at a normal speed, if it was distressed dramatically it would swim away as fast as it could.
And to reiterate what someone else has said, who is it that has successfully sued polluters for millions over the past 15 years? Who is it that's responsible for Britain's water ways being oil and chemical free so that otters, mink, kingfishers, herons and the like can live there? I'll tell you who it isn't. It isn't the anti-angling brigade. It's the ACA, Anglers Co-operative Association, who have taken more polluters to court than any other organisation in the country.

t020

01-07-2006, 00:25

Well it seems to go like this;

First you ban bear baiting
Then you ban hunting
Then you ban fur
Then you ban fishing
Then you ban horse racing
Then you ban...

See a picture developing?

Yes - a progressively, increasingly civilised society in which animals aren't treated as play things for human beings.

fuzzy

02-07-2006, 21:51

pitsmoorlad

03-07-2006, 09:29

We went trout fishing a few weekends ago, 1st time fly fishing. Didn't catch anything but my bother did, we came home with 4 lovely trout, in the freezer within an hour. Had a couple of them on the bbq last night. They tasted fantastic.

That is the point in fishing.

I have to disagree with you, I don't think that killing and eating them is the point, although each to his own. For me the point is being out in the middle of the natural world, in peace and quiet, sampling the best that nature has to offer.
Those that haven't sat by a lake at dawn, watching the sun slowly come up, feeling the temperature increase by the minute, seen the first swallows flying low over the water as the mists disappear, while listening to the early morning birdsong, just haven't lived. And I haven't got round to the fishing bit.
I like to see, and appreciate my fish, but I like even more to see them swim away physically unharmed, and believe me if I thought that I was causing them physical damage or pain I wouldn't fish.

happyhippy

05-07-2006, 02:50

Yes - a progressively, increasingly civilised society in which animals aren't treated as play things for human beings.

Agreed. Any "sport" in which the point is to trap a creature by means of a hooked spike and the suspend it by its weight to have a look at it while it is in an environment in which it cannot support itself is barbaric.

At least if you aren't vegetarian and will eat the creature it gives some credence to the action, but that's a whole different topic .......

As for horse racing, there are races under Rules (albeit for apprentice riders) on the Flat which are 'Hands and Heels'. This means that the use of the whip is outlawed. All races should be as such. I don't have a problem with people riding horses (that in itself doesn't seem to bother horses, and if it does, they'll damn well let you know.), but being allowed to hit a creature without its explicit consent in the name of sport is wrong. In boxing for example, both fighters know precisely what could happen.

happyhippy

05-07-2006, 02:51

I have to disagree with you, I don't think that killing and eating them is the point, although each to his own. For me the point is being out in the middle of the natural world, in peace and quiet, sampling the best that nature has to offer.
Those that haven't sat by a lake at dawn, watching the sun slowly come up, feeling the temperature increase by the minute, seen the first swallows flying low over the water as the mists disappear, while listening to the early morning birdsong, just haven't lived. And I haven't got round to the fishing bit.
I like to see, and appreciate my fish, but I like even more to see them swim away physically unharmed, and believe me if I thought that I was causing them physical damage or pain I wouldn't fish.

So do that, enjoy the morning and ensure you don't cause pain or suffering by not fishing.

Simple.

A.B.Yaffle

05-07-2006, 03:00

Well it seems to go like this;

First you ban bear baiting
Then you ban hunting
Then you ban fur
Then you ban fishing
Then you ban horse racing
Then you ban...

See a picture developing?

But is it a bad picture developing, Tony? Are you really in favour of bear baiting and badger baiting? How about a spot of dog fighting? ;)

A.B.Yaffle

05-07-2006, 03:06

I don't think that killing and eating them is the point, although each to his own. For me the point is being out in the middle of the natural world, in peace and quiet, sampling the best that nature has to offer.
Those that haven't sat by a lake at dawn, watching the sun slowly come up, feeling the temperature increase by the minute, seen the first swallows flying low over the water as the mists disappear, while listening to the early morning birdsong, just haven't lived. And I haven't got round to the fishing bit.
I like to see, and appreciate my fish, but I like even more to see them swim away physically unharmed, and believe me if I thought that I was causing them physical damage or pain I wouldn't fish.

I agree with most of your post, Pitsmoorlad. I love to go to the woods and watch squirrels and other animals. I don't injure them though, as I also don't like causing physical damage or pain. Why can't you go and watch the fish swim without putting a hook through them first?

pitsmoorlad

05-07-2006, 07:42

I agree with most of your post, Pitsmoorlad. I love to go to the woods and watch squirrels and other animals. I don't injure them though, as I also don't like causing physical damage or pain. Why can't you go and watch the fish swim without putting a hook through them first?

I get back to my often stated point that I honestly don't think that I cause fish pain. I don't think that fish experience pain in the way that we do, I don't think that the fishes' mouths have any pain sensing nerves in them. Fish use their mouths to pick up their food ansd in doing so pick up and swallow thinks like stones, twigs, broken mussel and snail shells, many of which would cause pain to us, but don't affect the fish. The fishes' lips are continually growing and being worn away by all the rubbing this would surely be painfull if there were pain sensing nerves there. There's always a tendency to do 2 things here, one is to over exaggerate the horror and gore as in "hooked spike" and "lacerated lips". This is usually put forward by people who have never actually been fishing and so form their own phrases to justify their actions. The other is to "humanise" fish with " how would you like it if I stuck a hook in you". Once again this is a pointless statement as a fish isn't a human. It's a proven fact that the same fish are often caught again and again. This could prove that:
1 Their memory is so short that they can't remember what happens.
2 They're so stupid that although it's painful they just keep going back for more.
3 Their brain and body are primarily designed for eating, mating, fleeing, with pain being way down the list in their metabolism.
Unless I'm missing something.

wibbles

05-07-2006, 07:46

But we can fish..and there's nothing you can do about it. :hihi:

Tony

05-07-2006, 07:54

But is it a bad picture developing, Tony? Are you really in favour of bear baiting and badger baiting? How about a spot of dog fighting? ;)
I do enjoy a bit of frog fettling before breakfast, but the wife won't let me go to France on my own any more. ;)

Seriously, the point that I was suggesting is not that all these things are acceptable, but that once the real cruel sports are banned the politicians move on to those that aren't cruel.

Governments are made up of lawyers these days and they have Parliamentary time to fill. It's why people are taken to court for selling a bag of 6 apples described in pounds instead of kilos.

A.B.Yaffle

05-07-2006, 12:51

Seriously, the point that I was suggesting is not that all these things are acceptable, but that once the real cruel sports are banned the politicians move on to those that aren't cruel.

I disagree. It has taken the politicians many years to ban fox-hunting even AFTER the majority of the public (who they are supposed to be representing) consistently said it was cruel and should be banned. I don't think they would attempt to ban fishing unless there was a substantial change in public opinion in favour of a ban.

I strongly believe angling to be cruel but, much as I would like it to be banned, I can't see it being made illegal until people become more educated about fish being capable of feeling pain.

Zaytsev

05-07-2006, 17:44

What say did the fish have in becoming someones idea of entertainment for the day?

They had no say because they cannot speak. They have tiny little brains probably why the antis have so much in common with them. Like I have stated in other threads Disney has a lot to answer for. Finding Nemo was not a documentary by the way. :hihi:

Zaytsev

05-07-2006, 17:47

No. Leave it to the professionals.

You mean the huge factory ships that have stripped our seas of fish. Yes great idea. :loopy:

Zaytsev

05-07-2006, 17:53

Sport in my book involves physical exertion. Boxing and Fishing can not be compared as one involves a competative match of two humans with the same objective, the other involves a human trying to outwit a lower form of life into taking the bait.

Probably the motive of the original poster. :hihi:

Zaytsev

05-07-2006, 18:10

Can we merge these threads:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=91820&highlight=fishing+cruel

DC33

08-07-2006, 20:50

They had no say because they cannot speak. They have tiny little brains probably why the antis have so much in common with them. Like I have stated in other threads Disney has a lot to answer for. Finding Nemo was not a documentary by the way. :hihi:

LMFAO :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :thumbsup:

DC33

08-07-2006, 21:05

I disagree. It has taken the politicians many years to ban fox-hunting even AFTER the majority of the public (who they are supposed to be representing) consistently said it was cruel and should be banned. I don't think they would attempt to ban fishing unless there was a substantial change in public opinion in favour of a ban.

I strongly believe angling to be cruel but, much as I would like it to be banned, I can't see it being made illegal until people become more educated about fish being capable of feeling pain.

Why do you strongly believe Angling to be cruel?:huh: What proof do you have to back up this statement? or are you just going on your own feelings about it?

Think before you make statements like that,then get your scientific evidence to prove what you have to say and then say it!!! Nuff said!:D

brooksy

09-07-2006, 11:35

I fish on a regular basis and find it relaxing and a good time to spend with my kids.We always put the fish straight back and from what ive read on the subject it doesthe fish no harm.Match fishing involves netting fish obviously to check weight but other than that i see nothing wrong with a bit of course fishing.Just to note when people go sea fishing the usually use bait caught in the sea, people fish fer pike with dead bait ete.Why is it when people find something relaxing and a sport which in my experiance does no harm have to condem it and pull it down.Anyone in sheffield will remember the state of the sheffield canal and river don in the 60s and 70s when there was know fish there and the water was totally polluted.People attitudes changed and the licence for fishing helped financially improve conditions on both streches of water.Maybe i should take my kids shooting, rabbiting or fox hunting, forgot tho i dont live in the country do i where this is classed as accetable?????:confused: :confused:

Mandem

10-07-2006, 00:52

Nomme, what you seem to be missing is that, although boxing involves inflicting pain on another living creature, this other living creature is a voluntary participant, fighting in a match by choice. On the other hand, all forms of hunting (which fishing surely is), and all other forms of 'entertainment' which causes unnecessary harm and distress to a creature, only have one voluntary party - the human. The fish doesn't get a choice.
Seems to be a bit of the ALF coming out here, where do we call a halt to this question of cruelty to other things,do you object to slug pellets to kill slugs, fly killer to kill flys, mouse traps to kill mice etc,etc,being concerned about so called pain caused to fish you really ought to get out more or get a hobby to take your time up.

wibbles

10-07-2006, 07:38

Just a small accidental discovery I made yesterday whilst fishing.
I caught a fish, unhooked it, dropped my line and hook back in the water next to my peg and no word of a lie, I put the fish back and it swam straight for my hook bait and took it again...:loopy: so it couldn't have been that traumatised by it's experience.

viking

10-07-2006, 07:50

Fishermen always seem to exagerate the size of their catch, so heres a little poem.

Something has been troubling me, the truth I only wish.
Are all fishermen liars, or do all the liars fish?.

pitsmoorlad

10-07-2006, 08:18

Fishermen always seem to exagerate the size of their catch, so heres a little poem.

Something has been troubling me, the truth I only wish.
Are all fishermen liars, or do all the liars fish?.

Or the fisherman's Prayer:

"God grant to me a fish,
So big that even I,
When speaking of it afterwards,
Would have no need to lie"

Nu_Skillz

19-07-2006, 20:12

"Is fishing cruel?"

never mind the fish's welfair, what about the poor maggot that gets a hook through its torso then dangled in the water untill its drownd or eaten by the fish.
barbaric, what kind of world is this we live.
anglers should be asshamed of their cruel behavior.

bring back hanging,,,thats what i say :)

joking really!

fishing is fine as long as your catching!!

sparkydope

23-07-2006, 14:29

Surely if you don't eat it then you throw it back....

daftlad

26-07-2006, 12:36

"Is fishing cruel?"
Of course it is!!!:o
Making some poor b****r sit out in the rain all day holding a stick!!!:o
Shame on you women.:hihi:

Its cruel and its boring, like watching paint dry
Would much rather get up go out in the countryside for a long walk then sit outside a pub all afternoon. Would rather spend a night talking with me mother in law than go fishing

pitsmoorlad

27-07-2006, 07:54

Its cruel and its boring, like watching paint dry

If you find fishing boring then you're doing it wrong. However, thinking that it's cruel is your perogative.
I find fishing anything but boring and I don't think it's cruel.
I think that the Grand National horse race is cruel, and I find snooker boring.
Different strokes for different folks.

Zaytsev

27-07-2006, 17:10

If you find fishing boring then you're doing it wrong. However, thinking that it's cruel is your perogative.
I find fishing anything but boring and I don't think it's cruel.
I think that the Grand National horse race is cruel, and I find snooker boring.
Different strokes for different folks.

I don't think anyone who posts such drivel as daftlad deserves a response.

He made this gem of a post on another thread.

The police love a car chase and harrassing motorists, I thought everyone new that. If only they put half as much effort into the other crimes as they do to motorists, Sheffield would be better place to live

NEKRO138

28-07-2006, 09:08

I fish with dynamite like Crocodile Dundee. It's never boring. Ever. Might br cruel though...

DC33

03-08-2006, 12:01

Its cruel and its boring, like watching paint dry
Would much rather get up go out in the countryside for a long walk then sit outside a pub all afternoon. Would rather spend a night talking with me mother in law than go fishing

Numpty:loopy:

Nu_Skillz

17-08-2006, 10:32

Give a man a fish and he will feed for the day!
Show a man how to catch fish and hell feed for a lifetime.

Fishing is not cruel, and anyone who thinks it is needs to go out and see what fishing is all about.
Fishing to your average joe, may look bouring, pointless, cruel, ect,
and they would probably be better killing what brain cells they have left in their tiny little minds by going for long bouring walk and sitting out side some pub all afternoon getting drunk, possably critasising any activity they dont get involved in....'Get A Life'
The fact that Fishing is the No'1 sport/passtime in the UK, and is more popular than Football tells me that it cant be that bouring or pointless.
The fact that Fishing requires a licence, and the money from this licence goes
towards maintinance of the british waters, making sure that the wildlife is looked after and the british waters and surrounding areas are kept clean and free from polution. Cruel? i dont think so!.
The fact that the health and size of the fish currently in britian is a direct result of all the food/bait that they have consumed through fishemen like myself constantly feeding them. Cruel? i dont think so!.
Fishermen are usually the 1st to spot any problems on our waters reporting them to the Environment Agency and preventing any further damage, or disasters that could arise from things like low oxygenated water, polution from factorys, illegal tipping/dumping of rubbish, to name just a few.

As for the fish feeling pain when hooked in the lip, they dont!,
do you feel pain when clipping your nail's or having your hair cut? 'NO'
the truth is that the fish have no nerve's in their lips and dont feel anything when hooked, the only distress they may encounter is being lifted out of the water for a brief moment while the hook is removed, fish are hardy creatures and will withstand a lot more stress than being out of the water for a short period, and some fish like Crusian carp, will acctually jump out of the water by themselfs?
for all the good that fishing dose this is a small price the fish have to pay in comparrison, and in my oppinion fishing is not as cruel.

to all the anti-fishing bregade who are out their i would recomend you find a worthy cause to complain about as your efforts on fishing are a waste of time, and would probably be more effective if you found a cause that you would acctually have some impact on, like stopping folk going on long walks and sitting outside the pub all day :hihi:

matsalleh

17-08-2006, 11:45

Surely if you don't eat it then you throw it back....
I don't throw mine back,I put them back.

Dude111

05-07-2008, 21:01

...To those on the thread who feel that fishing is cruel, simple answer.
Don't go fishing.Yes im sure they dont...

But that doesnt change the fact that 1000s of ppl do just this JUST FOR FUN.

How would people feel if others got off on "Reeling them in" just for fun regardless if it hurt or not??

If they are gonna do it they should complete the operation! (Dont put the fish back to deal with the damage they caused (Which who knows how long it will take them to recover from it))

little_m

05-07-2008, 22:35

Yes im sure they dont...

But that doesnt change the fact that 1000s of ppl do just this JUST FOR FUN.

How would people feel if others got off on "Reeling them in" just for fun regardless if it hurt or not??

If they are gonna do it they should complete the operation! (Dont put the fish back to deal with the damage they caused (Which who knows how long it will take them to recover from it))

Put the spliff down pal. :loopy: :hihi:

uniden300

18-07-2008, 13:31

:loopy:Give a man a fish and he will feed for the day!
Show a man how to catch fish and hell feed for a lifetime.

Fishing is not cruel, and anyone who thinks it is needs to go out and see what fishing is all about.
Fishing to your average joe, may look bouring, pointless, cruel, ect,
and they would probably be better killing what brain cells they have left in their tiny little minds by going for long bouring walk and sitting out side some pub all afternoon getting drunk, possably critasising any activity they dont get involved in....'Get A Life'
The fact that Fishing is the No'1 sport/passtime in the UK, and is more popular than Football tells me that it cant be that bouring or pointless.
The fact that Fishing requires a licence, and the money from this licence goes
towards maintinance of the british waters, making sure that the wildlife is looked after and the british waters and surrounding areas are kept clean and free from polution. Cruel? i dont think so!.
The fact that the health and size of the fish currently in britian is a direct result of all the food/bait that they have consumed through fishemen like myself constantly feeding them. Cruel? i dont think so!.
Fishermen are usually the 1st to spot any problems on our waters reporting them to the Environment Agency and preventing any further damage, or disasters that could arise from things like low oxygenated water, polution from factorys, illegal tipping/dumping of rubbish, to name just a few.

As for the fish feeling pain when hooked in the lip, they dont!,
do you feel pain when clipping your nail's or having your hair cut? 'NO'
the truth is that the fish have no nerve's in their lips and dont feel anything when hooked, the only distress they may encounter is being lifted out of the water for a brief moment while the hook is removed, fish are hardy creatures and will withstand a lot more stress than being out of the water for a short period, and some fish like Crusian carp, will acctually jump out of the water by themselfs?
for all the good that fishing dose this is a small price the fish have to pay in comparrison, and in my oppinion fishing is not as cruel.

to all the anti-fishing bregade who are out their i would recomend you find a worthy cause to complain about as your efforts on fishing are a waste of time, and would probably be more effective if you found a cause that you would acctually have some impact on, like stopping folk going on long walks and sitting outside the pub all day :hihi:

i agree to iam a pleasure fisherman and love my sport it gets me in the fresh air i see wild life every time & so do 2 million other anglers as well i dnt chuck my fish backin they get handled right to the bank and if they look like they need a hand then hold them in the curent to make sure they swim off ok, no fish gets harmed and the care of the fish comes first ive heard all the arguments from other anti anglers i sujest you get off your high hores and pick on something else like getting a better goverment in you are just knocking on a door that will not open:loopy: