Without the licence money from angling our rivers would have a severe lack of funding for investment. This funding doesn't just go into improving fish stocks, it goes into all sorts of management regarding our freshwaters. If that money wasn't there then the quality of our rivers would dramatically decline affecting animals and human wellbeing.
In comparison to rivers I do find fishing lakes cruel and that's before they're fished. Our rivers work at carrying capacity. That is, our stocks of all species groups are maintained at what our rivers can carry. Lakes on the other hand are now so heavily stocked and fished that the fish in there are constantly starving and if they're not, the food needing to be thrown in reduces water quality and makes these places ripe for disease.
On a personal level I don't see a problem with fishing as long as care is taken in handling the fish and the tackle is correct. I do however see the point people are making regarding inferiority etc.
Ultimately I think this comes down to 'good' fishing and 'bad' fishing. There are many fisherman out there who care passionately about our aquatic ecosystems. However, it seems to be there are far more who would rather see the fish suffer in pursuit of their next big catch. As an example I was surveying a riparian system (I work in ecological conservation) and happened to be speaking to someone who fished the river. He mentioned an otter had been spotted on the river in the last couple of months. I said that was excellent news as otter moving into a river have been shown to move on the mink. "Bullshit" he said. "The otter should be shot because it eats the fish".
That's a bit like saying, if they didn't have big game hunting in Africa the tourist economy would suffer.
That shouldn't give them the permission to carry on.
The government and other agencies should be responsible for cleaning up our rivers, not relying on blood sports to do it for them!
I shall try to deal with the 'telling you they are vegetarian/vegan it narks me' thing.
If the context is that you are told out of a clear blue sky then it is weird and annoying.
So if for example you and I are talking about fixing a dripping tap and I suddenly say 'I need to tell you at this point I am a vegetarian/vegan, carry on', then that would be incongruous to say the least.
I am assuming that kind of thing is the context irritated or narked carnivores get such information. I have some sympathy with that, bringing up personal, or moral things during a bit of plumbing or whatever is nothing to do with anything.
If I mention that I am a vegetarian there tends to be some context or reason. Like if a work colleague said 'lets all go out for a meal at an Angus Steak House, or a Nandos, I might say 'not really for me' if pressed I might say 'well I am a vegetarian'. There is usually some kind of context for such a revelation isn't there? Or is it the experience of carnivores/omnivores that vegetarians/vegans randomly announce it at unexpected moments?
Other contexts are usually all food related, enquiries in a restaurant, being sent to prison, being offered a sausage...that type of thing. if mentioning being a vegetarian is seen as an opening gambit in a moral high ground debate then maybe it is an issue for the person who hears it rather than the person who says it, or at least equally so.
The days are long gone when an angler turns up on the bank side, tosses in a bit of bait and hopes to catch somethingany kind of fish I can., bait, tackle and conditions narrow this down to allow anglers to target a fish of choice.
Minus the jizzing in the bait, this is pretty much my exact effort at fishing. Though I will confirm I do use a carp rig.
I am sure people do still turn up and hope to catch whatever swims past their bait, especially the youngsters but I kinda think you all got my drift. If you want to do this fine but there are other options available to today's angler.
The fish that come out of the carp lakes that I know over here are fed all year with top quality pellet, have the water checked every 3 months, get a thorough examination when they're caught to the point where a Betadine type ointment is put on the wound where the hook was and for all that each fish comes out a max of about 2 to 3 times per year (if at all).
Just because the fish are well treated and maintained, doesn't make it okay to stick a hook in their mouth.
Don't they say, one common denominator that is often found in serial killers, is their cruelty to animals.
"Where were you on the night of......."<(;-)>
"Jim Rose, professor of zoology and physiology at the University of Wisconsin, who led the project, said: ‘In spite of large injections of acid or bee venom, that would cause severe pain to a human, the trout showed remarkably little effect.’ Fish also resumed normal activity within minutes of surgical procedures, as well as after being caught and released back into the water. Prof Rose added: ‘It is highly improbable that fish can experience pain."
A fish lacks a developed central nervous system and seemingly feels as much pain as a lettuce if cut. Eating a lettuce isn't cruel by reference to the belief system of vegetarianism because a convenient line is drawn between life which it is cruel to exploit and life which, because it cannot be compared to the human experience of life, has no value which protects it from being exploited to infinity. A vegetarian does not question his/her ethics by eating the seeds of plants before the life has even had the chance to sprout, grow and produce flowers to feed the bees and butterflies. How cruel, how inconsiderate to nature, to starve it of its life force.
Cruelty in the eyes of vegetarians is widely drawn, until it abruptly stops when they hit their arbitrary perception of valid lifeforms, where their ethical values would otherwise be challenged by their own logic.
It is a belief system based on arbitrary rules that define the belief system, like Judaism and Islam. For that reason vegetarians and vegans have no more right than religious extremists to preach that non-conformists are committing evil and are going to hell.
Preaching against angling as a cruel sport is the equivalent of a Jehovah Witnesses knocking on my door telling me I am sinful. Sorry, I don't want to be converted, I don't share your belief system.
Shuts door and walks away........and isn't responding to anymore knocks, even if they are wind-ups.
So let me get this straight. This academic (who thinks that living in Wisconsin is a fine idea) cuts up fish and sews them back together again for a living? But let's give him his due, he actually noticed that fish resume normal behaviour after being caught and then released. What was he expecting? That they'd use their fins to make derogatory wanker signs at the deranged fruit-loop in a white coat? Partake in a spot of surfing, maybe? That guy needs to go out and get a proper job.
No, sorry, scrub some of that. He seems to be in Wyoming, he's not a Cheesehead as reported by Dipps. He's also a Professor Emeritus. To you and me that means he's retired. But I guess he's still looking for something to fill his time.
Surprise, surprise, it seems august bodies such as Angling Matters and the Angling Trust in the States are keen on his point of view, anyway, you get the picture. You may wish to ask yourself whether this "research" is wholly unbiased.
Notwithstanding any of that, fishing still seems an utterly dreary way of spending your free time. With a little vomit thrown in for good measure if offshore fishing is involved.
Years ago, way before this guy did his research I was untangling a knotted fly line and the hook was dangling in the water at my feet. A chub swam by gulped the fly and impaled itself on the hook, didn't flinch and carried on swimming normally taking the slack line with him. I form opinions based on what I see and observe, the professor you characterise as a freak from Wisconsin, just backs up my own experiences. All Wikipedia says is that some people don't accept the evidence, perhaps that's because they don't want to.
You on the other hand have not the slightest evidence to the contrary, merely opinions unsubstantiated by research that that feed the narrative you preach.
The narrow perspective on nature you are forced to follow, precludes any meaningful engagement with nature, or any understanding of the relationship between man and the natural world. The rule that defines your belief system is that angling, like that of any form of hunting, "....is pursued for the enjoyment of seeing blood spilt, causing pain and suffering, and killing animals. There can be no other reason otherwise it will be counter to our belief system".
You know this is not true, bar the odd psychopath, yet pretend it is true because you have no other argument that has any logic to support your belief system.
You take it a step further to protect the untruth by saying that only idiots fish, it is boring and there is no point to it. Fishing for me and many others is a way of connecting with nature and the countryside. I've seen wild otters, seals, hedgehogs, snakes, puffins, herons, eagles owls and much more, I've spent days away from civilisation with only the sound of birds and the wind to disturb the peace. I've lived off wild trout and mussels from the sea shore and some days caught nothing, but peace and tranquility. It's called "fishing" not "catching" so there's a clue there.
While you're falsely accusing me of massacering animals for pleasure, some of us buy licences that contribute £23m a year to the Environment Agencies budget to protect the environment and stock rivers, we contribute to the Angling Trust that produces the evidence required by the authorities to pursue cases of illegal river pollution as well as helping children overcome emotional and behavioural problems through introduction to angling.
So by all means follow your belief system but don't justify it on the back of demonising angling that you do not understand, do not take the trouble to research and dumbly regurgitate the anti angling narrative of your religious mullahs like PETRA.
Spot on @Dippenhall, Can I ask if you catch a fish do you just A- rip the hook out and dump it back or bludgeon it to death or B- Gently remove the hook, weigh the fish, maybe take a photo if you have time and it is a nice mirror etc, then lower the fish into the water to allow it to swim out of your hands at it's own pace? (Which is more often than not a relaxed and slow movement back into it's waters)
Having been a fisherman for over fifty years I can no longer kid myself that it does not do the fish or bait (luncheon meat, worms, sausage, cheese, maggot's or whatever) any harm. Granted the waters of the UK have many many things to thank angling for but I no longer feel the need to participate in what is at the end of the day the biggest blood sport in the world.
Without the licence money from angling our rivers would have a severe lack of funding for investment. This funding doesn't just go into improving fish stocks, it goes into all sorts of management regarding our freshwaters. If that money wasn't there then the quality of our rivers would dramatically decline affecting animals and human wellbeing.
In comparison to rivers I do find fishing lakes cruel and that's before they're fished. Our rivers work at carrying capacity. That is, our stocks of all species groups are maintained at what our rivers can carry. Lakes on the other hand are now so heavily stocked and fished that the fish in there are constantly starving and if they're not, the food needing to be thrown in reduces water quality and makes these places ripe for disease.
On a personal level I don't see a problem with fishing as long as care is taken in handling the fish and the tackle is correct. I do however see the point people are making regarding inferiority etc.
Ultimately I think this comes down to 'good' fishing and 'bad' fishing. There are many fisherman out there who care passionately about our aquatic ecosystems. However, it seems to be there are far more who would rather see the fish suffer in pursuit of their next big catch. As an example I was surveying a riparian system (I work in ecological conservation) and happened to be speaking to someone who fished the river. He mentioned an otter had been spotted on the river in the last couple of months. I said that was excellent news as otter moving into a river have been shown to move on the mink. "Bullshit" he said. "The otter should be shot because it eats the fish".
That's a bit like saying, if they didn't have big game hunting in Africa the tourist economy would suffer.
That shouldn't give them the permission to carry on.
The government and other agencies should be responsible for cleaning up our rivers, not relying on blood sports to do it for them!
You're not incorrect but you're not pragmatic either.
If we take that rationale we should tear up all our roads, remove all our drainage systems, allow our agricultural fields to forest over and we live knee deep in a boggy mire. 'wash-out' caused by surface run-off increases the turbidity of our rivers causing many of the young and small fish to be carried out of the rivers and ultimately killed. Far more harm than fishing does. But that's not going to work is it?
Without the licence money from angling our rivers would have a severe lack of funding for investment. This funding doesn't just go into improving fish stocks, it goes into all sorts of management regarding our freshwaters. If that money wasn't there then the quality of our rivers would dramatically decline affecting animals and human wellbeing.
In comparison to rivers I do find fishing lakes cruel and that's before they're fished. Our rivers work at carrying capacity. That is, our stocks of all species groups are maintained at what our rivers can carry. Lakes on the other hand are now so heavily stocked and fished that the fish in there are constantly starving and if they're not, the food needing to be thrown in reduces water quality and makes these places ripe for disease.
On a personal level I don't see a problem with fishing as long as care is taken in handling the fish and the tackle is correct. I do however see the point people are making regarding inferiority etc.
Ultimately I think this comes down to 'good' fishing and 'bad' fishing. There are many fisherman out there who care passionately about our aquatic ecosystems. However, it seems to be there are far more who would rather see the fish suffer in pursuit of their next big catch. As an example I was surveying a riparian system (I work in ecological conservation) and happened to be speaking to someone who fished the river. He mentioned an otter had been spotted on the river in the last couple of months. I said that was excellent news as otter moving into a river have been shown to move on the mink. "Bullshit" he said. "The otter should be shot because it eats the fish".
That's a bit like saying, if they didn't have big game hunting in Africa the tourist economy would suffer.
That shouldn't give them the permission to carry on.
The government and other agencies should be responsible for cleaning up our rivers, not relying on blood sports to do it for them!
You're not incorrect but you're not pragmatic either.
If we take that rationale we should tear up all our roads, remove all our drainage systems, allow our agricultural fields to forest over and we live knee deep in a boggy mire. 'wash-out' caused by surface run-off increases the turbidity of our rivers causing many of the young and small fish to be carried out of the rivers and ultimately killed. Far more harm than fishing does. But that's not going to work is it?
I wasn't trying to be pragmatic, I'm simply saying in MHO they shouldn't be taking money from something that ultimately is detrimental to animal/fish wellbeing.
In the same way motor racing shouldn't be sponsored by tobacco companies, though I think they've stopped that now?
Spot on @Dippenhall, Can I ask if you catch a fish do you just A- rip the hook out and dump it back or bludgeon it to death or B- Gently remove the hook, weigh the fish, maybe take a photo if you have time and it is a nice mirror etc, then lower the fish into the water to allow it to swim out of your hands at it's own pace? (Which is more often than not a relaxed and slow movement back into it's waters)
Are you seriously suggesting that vegetarians are widely respected for their views.....or am I missing something here?
No, you're right of course, normal people all think they are freakish c**ts, what was I thinking.
Some people - quite a few actually - find it possible to respect other people for making choices that they don't make themselves. On the other hand some people find that difficult.
Spot on @Dippenhall, Can I ask if you catch a fish do you just A- rip the hook out and dump it back or bludgeon it to death or B- Gently remove the hook, weigh the fish, maybe take a photo if you have time and it is a nice mirror etc, then lower the fish into the water to allow it to swim out of your hands at it's own pace? (Which is more often than not, a relaxed and slow movement back into it's waters)
I am a vegetarian and don't seek respect for being so. Some are bewildered by vegetarians, some don't understand it, some see it as no big deal, some are curious as to how it all works out, some despise vegetarians, some respect them, some vegetarians evangelise, some keep it on the down low. At the end of the day each adult person more or less decides for themselves what kind of relationship they have with other species who share the planet, and how much they see that relationship as important.
So, what do you think of animal products in £5 notes?
Aah, another diatribe from @Dippenhall , oh well. I tried refuting his apparent mistaken beliefs about my beliefs within his text but it was too long to fit in. So, here's an abbreviated version:
Dippy, Have you lost the plot to such an extent that you've mixed me up with someone else? All I've done is say that fishing would bore me rigid and point out that your little bit of research might, just might, not be the final word on the matter of whether or not fish feel pain. I then questioned the sanity of a man who seems to think that a little bit of trout autopsy would cover fish-kind completely. If you'd like to ask him about anything else you can track him down at trout@uwyo.edu BTW. Oh, it's still Wyoming, not Wisconsin.
A recent survey conducted in the UK, informs me that around 92.5% of anglers are men. Frankly, that's probably all the information I need.
Anyway, for the sake of clarity, I've made no comments on whether or not fishing should be banned or whether it counts as a blood sport. I have preached nothing, so you know nothing, nothing at all, about my beliefs on this matter.
That said, I must admit I'm a little bemused by your "whiter than white, do no wrong, donate to good causes Smashie and Nicey" view of angling. Almost everywhere I've been in the world recently my own personal commune with nature has been somewhat screwed over by feckless and yes, dare I say it, thick anglers. Usually, this is because of all the detritus they leave behind. Discarded line; discarded nets; line tangled in trees overhanging the riverbank; the riverbank itself turned into a muddy quagmire by over-enthusiastic use by anglers; beer tins and general rubbish; fish guts and human faeces; errant hooks caught in the beaks of swans, pelicans and countless other birds; and discarded fishing paraphernalia on Caribbean beaches
You paint a fine, rosy picture of angling. But my view is less flattering:
Aah, another diatribe from @Dippenhall , oh well. I tried refuting his apparent mistaken beliefs about my beliefs within his text but it was too long to fit in. So, here's an abbreviated version:
Dippy, Have you lost the plot to such an extent that you've mixed me up with someone else? All I've done is say that fishing would bore me rigid and point out that your little bit of research might, just might, not be the final word on the matter of whether or not fish feel pain. I then questioned the sanity of a man who seems to think that a little bit of trout autopsy would cover fish-kind completely. If you'd like to ask him about anything else you can track him down at trout@uwyo.edu BTW. Oh, it's still Wyoming, not Wisconsin.
A recent survey conducted in the UK, informs me that around 92.5% of anglers are men. Frankly, that's probably all the information I need.
Anyway, for the sake of clarity, I've made no comments on whether or not fishing should be banned or whether it counts as a blood sport. I have preached nothing, so you know nothing, nothing at all, about my beliefs on this matter.
That said, I must admit I'm a little bemused by your "whiter than white, do no wrong, donate to good causes Smashie and Nicey" view of angling. Almost everywhere I've been in the world recently my own personal commune with nature has been somewhat screwed over by feckless and yes, dare I say it, thick anglers. Usually, this is because of all the detritus they leave behind. Discarded line; discarded nets; line tangled in trees overhanging the riverbank; the riverbank itself turned into a muddy quagmire by over-enthusiastic use by anglers; beer tins and general rubbish; fish guts and human faeces; errant hooks caught in the beaks of swans, pelicans and countless other birds; and discarded fishing paraphernalia on Caribbean beaches
You paint a fine, rosy picture of angling. But my view is less flattering:
Aah, another diatribe from @Dippenhall , oh well. I tried refuting his apparent mistaken beliefs about my beliefs within his text but it was too long to fit in. So, here's an abbreviated version:
Dippy, Have you lost the plot to such an extent that you've mixed me up with someone else? All I've done is say that fishing would bore me rigid and point out that your little bit of research might, just might, not be the final word on the matter of whether or not fish feel pain. I then questioned the sanity of a man who seems to think that a little bit of trout autopsy would cover fish-kind completely. If you'd like to ask him about anything else you can track him down at trout@uwyo.edu BTW. Oh, it's still Wyoming, not Wisconsin.
A recent survey conducted in the UK, informs me that around 92.5% of anglers are men. Frankly, that's probably all the information I need.
Anyway, for the sake of clarity, I've made no comments on whether or not fishing should be banned or whether it counts as a blood sport. I have preached nothing, so you know nothing, nothing at all, about my beliefs on this matter.
That said, I must admit I'm a little bemused by your "whiter than white, do no wrong, donate to good causes Smashie and Nicey" view of angling. Almost everywhere I've been in the world recently my own personal commune with nature has been somewhat screwed over by feckless and yes, dare I say it, thick anglers. Usually, this is because of all the detritus they leave behind. Discarded line; discarded nets; line tangled in trees overhanging the riverbank; the riverbank itself turned into a muddy quagmire by over-enthusiastic use by anglers; beer tins and general rubbish; fish guts and human faeces; errant hooks caught in the beaks of swans, pelicans and countless other birds; and discarded fishing paraphernalia on Caribbean beaches
You paint a fine, rosy picture of angling. But my view is less flattering:
That'll learn swans for being such bullied to the ugly duckling.
Hundreds of pheasants each year are killed by cars. Let's ban cars.
Vegan logic.
My drive to work is through very pleasant countryside but the downside is the proliferation of pheasants and they are the thickest bastards I've ever come across. I haven't hit one for ages but when I do I exit my vehicle and say a little prayer over the prone body of the victim.
I would never advocate the banning of cars over it though nor have I met any vegans who would either. Nice try at belittling us though.
Hundreds of pheasants each year are killed by cars. Let's ban cars.
Vegan logic.
My drive to work is through very pleasant countryside but the downside is the proliferation of pheasants and they are the thickest bastards I've ever come across. I haven't hit one for ages but when I do I exit my vehicle and say a little prayer over the prone body of the victim.
I would never advocate the banning of cars over it though nor have I met any vegans who would either. Nice try at belittling us though.
Not belittling you, just exposing the flawed logic a few people in this thread have that any human activity that causes harm to animals ought to be curtailed.
Comments
That shouldn't give them the permission to carry on.
The government and other agencies should be responsible for cleaning up our rivers, not relying on blood sports to do it for them!
You on the other hand have not the slightest evidence to the contrary, merely opinions unsubstantiated by research that that feed the narrative you preach.
The narrow perspective on nature you are forced to follow, precludes any meaningful engagement with nature, or any understanding of the relationship between man and the natural world. The rule that defines your belief system is that angling, like that of any form of hunting, "....is pursued for the enjoyment of seeing blood spilt, causing pain and suffering, and killing animals. There can be no other reason otherwise it will be counter to our belief system".
You know this is not true, bar the odd psychopath, yet pretend it is true because you have no other argument that has any logic to support your belief system.
You take it a step further to protect the untruth by saying that only idiots fish, it is boring and there is no point to it. Fishing for me and many others is a way of connecting with nature and the countryside. I've seen wild otters, seals, hedgehogs, snakes, puffins, herons, eagles owls and much more, I've spent days away from civilisation with only the sound of birds and the wind to disturb the peace. I've lived off wild trout and mussels from the sea shore and some days caught nothing, but peace and tranquility. It's called "fishing" not "catching" so there's a clue there.
While you're falsely accusing me of massacering animals for pleasure, some of us buy licences that contribute £23m a year to the Environment Agencies budget to protect the environment and stock rivers, we contribute to the Angling Trust that produces the evidence required by the authorities to pursue cases of illegal river pollution as well as helping children overcome emotional and behavioural problems through introduction to angling.
http://www.resources.anglingresearch.org.uk/sites/resources.anglingresearch.org.uk/files/Substance_AnglingReport_Section6_YoungPeople.pdf
So by all means follow your belief system but don't justify it on the back of demonising angling that you do not understand, do not take the trouble to research and dumbly regurgitate the anti angling narrative of your religious mullahs like PETRA.
A- rip the hook out and dump it back or bludgeon it to death
or
B- Gently remove the hook, weigh the fish, maybe take a photo if you have time and it is a nice mirror etc, then lower the fish into the water to allow it to swim out of your hands at it's own pace? (Which is more often than not a relaxed and slow movement back into it's waters)
I'm going fishing for 24 hours on Sunday :-)
If we take that rationale we should tear up all our roads, remove all our drainage systems, allow our agricultural fields to forest over and we live knee deep in a boggy mire. 'wash-out' caused by surface run-off increases the turbidity of our rivers causing many of the young and small fish to be carried out of the rivers and ultimately killed. Far more harm than fishing does. But that's not going to work is it?
In the same way motor racing shouldn't be sponsored by tobacco companies, though I think they've stopped that now?
Some people - quite a few actually - find it possible to respect other people for making choices that they don't make themselves. On the other hand some people find that difficult.
Dippy, Have you lost the plot to such an extent that you've mixed me up with someone else? All I've done is say that fishing would bore me rigid and point out that your little bit of research might, just might, not be the final word on the matter of whether or not fish feel pain. I then questioned the sanity of a man who seems to think that a little bit of trout autopsy would cover fish-kind completely. If you'd like to ask him about anything else you can track him down at trout@uwyo.edu BTW. Oh, it's still Wyoming, not Wisconsin.
A recent survey conducted in the UK, informs me that around 92.5% of anglers are men. Frankly, that's probably all the information I need.
Anyway, for the sake of clarity, I've made no comments on whether or not fishing should be banned or whether it counts as a blood sport. I have preached nothing, so you know nothing, nothing at all, about my beliefs on this matter.
That said, I must admit I'm a little bemused by your "whiter than white, do no wrong, donate to good causes Smashie and Nicey" view of angling. Almost everywhere I've been in the world recently my own personal commune with nature has been somewhat screwed over by feckless and yes, dare I say it, thick anglers. Usually, this is because of all the detritus they leave behind. Discarded line; discarded nets; line tangled in trees overhanging the riverbank; the riverbank itself turned into a muddy quagmire by over-enthusiastic use by anglers; beer tins and general rubbish; fish guts and human faeces; errant hooks caught in the beaks of swans, pelicans and countless other birds; and discarded fishing paraphernalia on Caribbean beaches
You paint a fine, rosy picture of angling. But my view is less flattering:
Vegan logic.
My drive to work is through very pleasant countryside but the downside is the proliferation of pheasants and they are the thickest bastards I've ever come across. I haven't hit one for ages but when I do I exit my vehicle and say a little prayer over the prone body of the victim.
I would never advocate the banning of cars over it though nor have I met any vegans who would either. Nice try at belittling us though.