Any person that thinks they can ban all types of angling really needs to give their head a big wobble. If you re against it, fine, but the whole industry is worth billions and I think I'm right in saying that it is one of the most participated in sports the world over.
If you would seriously like an out right ban, you really haven't thought it through
I personally wouldn't do it unless I was going to eat what I caught. Whilst it may not actually hurt them, it does stress them out.
It would also bore me rigid. I think I could handle the sitting by a riverside with a crate of beer and cooking bacon sandwiches bit but as for the fishing itself, no thanks.
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.
What right do we humans think we have, to walk over and inflict our ways, wishes and cruelty on other creatures, that can't retaliate or defend themselves?
We don't have a 'right' as such and we don't need one. We're at the top of the food chain due to our infinitely superior intellect; we can do whatever we like to animals: ride them; eat them; wear them; make sacrifices of them; throw them off towers; anything we like in fact, they're too dumb to stop us unless you thrash about on a lilo where there are sharks or stroll around a savannah where lions live. Animals are animals.In the wild, an animal usually dies in wild-eyed agony while another animal rips its throat out and eats its stomach while it is still alive.The nearest it gets to being 'happy' is when this isn't happening to it, or it's eating something. People think chimps are clever because they poke a twig in an anthill, pull it out and eat the ants off it.Bravo cheetah, now imagine how good they'd be if only you could work out how to deep fry them and sprinkle them with a little salt... That said, I don't like animals suffering unnecessarily at our hand but I do like eating them. That quote above - you do realise that humans are guilty of doing everything mentioned to their fellow man. We're not just singling out animals...
If one person has a 'superior intellect' to another person, does that mean they can kill 'em and eat 'em?
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......."<(;-)>
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've never been cruel to an animal in my life mate. Saying that though, I could quite happily be very cruel to quite a few people.
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!
Big game hunting in Africa plays a massive part in the conservation of these reserves. If something needs to be taken out, why not get a fat yank to pay thousands to come and do it?
We also need to remember that locals in these African countries don't look at some of these big game animals as beautiful. To most, they are no more than a big pest.
Let me set up a scenario - Rogue bull elephant getting on a bit and not in the best condition keeps going on to local farmers land to eat as the natural food is getting low on the ground due to there being too many elephants in this reserve (Set up to prevent poachers killing everything n sight). A foreign tourist is brought in to pay thousands for the opportunity to shoot said elephant and have his / her photo taken next to it.
Pros - - Elephant was on it's way out, but instead of suffering, is killed instantly. - Thousands of much needed funds are injected into the reserve to carry on it excellent work in preserving these magnificent animals. - The local village gets enough meat to keep it going for a good few weeks. - The local elephant population is kept at a healthy number.
Cons - - A few uneducated people a few thousand miles away don't agree
Some points I'd also like to make - - I would never pay to kill an animal, just to have a photo taken next to it. You would need to speak to someone who would to find out what their motives are. - Big game hunting is NOT a threat to any of these species population in the modern world, poaching and mismanagement is. - Even Safari Parks that do not allow "trophy hunting" still need to manage the animals in their parks.
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!
Big game hunting in Africa plays a massive part in the conservation of these reserves. If something needs to be taken out, why not get a fat yank to pay thousands to come and do it?
We also need to remember that locals in these African countries don't look at some of these big game animals as beautiful. To most, they are no more than a big pest.
Let me set up a scenario - Rogue bull elephant getting on a bit and not in the best condition keeps going on to local farmers land to eat as the natural food is getting low on the ground due to there being too many elephants in this reserve (Set up to prevent poachers killing everything n sight). A foreign tourist is brought in to pay thousands for the opportunity to shoot said elephant and have his / her photo taken next to it.
Pros - - Elephant was on it's way out, but instead of suffering, is killed instantly. - Thousands of much needed funds are injected into the reserve to carry on it excellent work in preserving these magnificent animals. - The local village gets enough meat to keep it going for a good few weeks. - The local elephant population is kept at a healthy number.
Cons - - A few uneducated people a few thousand miles away don't agree
Some points I'd also like to make - - I would never pay to kill an animal, just to have a photo taken next to it. You would need to speak to someone who would to find out what their motives are. - Big game hunting is NOT a threat to any of these species population in the modern world, poaching and mismanagement is. - Even Safari Parks that do not allow "trophy hunting" still need to manage the animals in their parks.
Same thing in Scotland. Human habitation over the course of hundreds of years has driven out natural predators meaning deer populations would be massively out of control without hunting season.
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!
Big game hunting in Africa plays a massive part in the conservation of these reserves. If something needs to be taken out, why not get a fat yank to pay thousands to come and do it?
We also need to remember that locals in these African countries don't look at some of these big game animals as beautiful. To most, they are no more than a big pest.
Let me set up a scenario - Rogue bull elephant getting on a bit and not in the best condition keeps going on to local farmers land to eat as the natural food is getting low on the ground due to there being too many elephants in this reserve (Set up to prevent poachers killing everything n sight). A foreign tourist is brought in to pay thousands for the opportunity to shoot said elephant and have his / her photo taken next to it.
Pros - - Elephant was on it's way out, but instead of suffering, is killed instantly. - Thousands of much needed funds are injected into the reserve to carry on it excellent work in preserving these magnificent animals. - The local village gets enough meat to keep it going for a good few weeks. - The local elephant population is kept at a healthy number.
Cons - - A few uneducated people a few thousand miles away don't agree
Some points I'd also like to make - - I would never pay to kill an animal, just to have a photo taken next to it. You would need to speak to someone who would to find out what their motives are. - Big game hunting is NOT a threat to any of these species population in the modern world, poaching and mismanagement is. - Even Safari Parks that do not allow "trophy hunting" still need to manage the animals in their parks.
Same thing in Scotland. Human habitation over the course of hundreds of years has driven out natural predators meaning deer populations would be massively out of control without hunting season.
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!
Big game hunting in Africa plays a massive part in the conservation of these reserves. If something needs to be taken out, why not get a fat yank to pay thousands to come and do it?
We also need to remember that locals in these African countries don't look at some of these big game animals as beautiful. To most, they are no more than a big pest.
Let me set up a scenario - Rogue bull elephant getting on a bit and not in the best condition keeps going on to local farmers land to eat as the natural food is getting low on the ground due to there being too many elephants in this reserve (Set up to prevent poachers killing everything n sight). A foreign tourist is brought in to pay thousands for the opportunity to shoot said elephant and have his / her photo taken next to it.
Pros - - Elephant was on it's way out, but instead of suffering, is killed instantly. - Thousands of much needed funds are injected into the reserve to carry on it excellent work in preserving these magnificent animals. - The local village gets enough meat to keep it going for a good few weeks. - The local elephant population is kept at a healthy number.
Cons - - A few uneducated people a few thousand miles away don't agree
Some points I'd also like to make - - I would never pay to kill an animal, just to have a photo taken next to it. You would need to speak to someone who would to find out what their motives are. - Big game hunting is NOT a threat to any of these species population in the modern world, poaching and mismanagement is. - Even Safari Parks that do not allow "trophy hunting" still need to manage the animals in their parks.
Same thing in Scotland. Human habitation over the course of hundreds of years has driven out natural predators meaning deer populations would be massively out of control without hunting season.
We should shoot some of the Scots, preferably Celtic fans, so that the natural predators return.
To say an animal population is 'out of control' raises some interesting philosophical issues. There is an argument to suggest that the biggest out of control animal on the planet is the human.
To say an animal population is 'out of control' raises some interesting philosophical issues. There is an argument to suggest that the biggest out of control animal on the planet is the human.
Lets shoot Humans then, hold on, Americans already do.........hurrah!
To say an animal population is 'out of control' raises some interesting philosophical issues. There is an argument to suggest that the biggest out of control animal on the planet is the human.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that mate, but that horse has well and truly bolted IMO, unfortunately.
To say an animal population is 'out of control' raises some interesting philosophical issues. There is an argument to suggest that the biggest out of control animal on the planet is the human.
If we left the deer to it, they'd multiply like crazy and the ecosystem would be destroyed, leaving lots of unhappy deer with not enough to eat. Yes, humans are to blame for driving away predators. The best way humans can ensure the population remains stable is to thin the herd on a seasonal basis. Better a quick death with a bullet then the carcass put to good use than the deer starving to death and fighting for survival.
To say an animal population is 'out of control' raises some interesting philosophical issues. There is an argument to suggest that the biggest out of control animal on the planet is the human.
If we left the deer to it, they'd multiply like crazy and the ecosystem would be destroyed, leaving lots of unhappy deer with not enough to eat. Yes, humans are to blame for driving away predators. The best way humans can ensure the population remains stable is to thin the herd on a seasonal basis. Better a quick death with a bullet then the carcass put to good use than the deer starving to death and fighting for survival.
When it comes to animal welfare, regardless of animal/creature, my heart rules over my head.
There may well be logical reasons why some say there are benefits to certain things that should be allowed, I still find that unpalatable.
The culling of Badgers may be one in point.
But even if it was proved conclusively that Badgers are responsible for the spread of Bovine TB, I still wouldn't support culling.
Serious question, not meant to be in any way facetious. If you had an infestation of mice or rats in your property would you put traps or poison down? Would you treat a wasps nest in your roof?
It's a question I have often posed, do people opposed to the killing of animals, for whatever reason, treat their pets for parasites?
If so, why is killing a badger / rabbit etc. any different from killing a flea / tic?
Do vegan's treat aphid infestations on their veg, when growing their own?
Vegetarians wouldn't keep a pet, it's exploitation of animals for the pleasure of humans, like having your own private zoo.
Badgers and rabbits are furry, cuddly and are childhood characters in books and films, fleas and tics lack personality and charisma, are not innocent given they bite us without being provoked, so it's not cruel to kill them.
Hunting aphids in the garden with the intention of catching and killing them counts as a blood sport, people only do it because they like killing poor innocent insects so vegetarians would never participate in such barbarity.
When it comes to animal welfare, regardless of animal/creature, my heart rules over my head.
There may well be logical reasons why some say there are benefits to certain things that should be allowed, I still find that unpalatable.
The culling of Badgers may be one in point.
But even if it was proved conclusively that Badgers are responsible for the spread of Bovine TB, I still wouldn't support culling.
Serious question, not meant to be in any way facetious. If you had an infestation of mice or rats in your property would you put traps or poison down? Would you treat a wasps nest in your roof?
You'll be pleased to know bob, I'm living happily with all three.<(;-)>
I guess a point maybe, is whether you're doing something for pleasure/sport or whether you're dealing with something that is potentially a threat/hazard?
If I was being mauled by a lion, I'd naturally try to defend myself and I guess if I had the means, I'd probably have to kill it or be killed.
But that doesn't mean I'd go out of my way to kill, if I'd could find an alternative.
I am in fact living with a mouse at the moment, not intentionally and despite the humane trap I've put down, he/she still remains at large.
Hundreds of pheasants each year are killed by cars. Let's ban cars.
Vegan logic.
No, Sir. You are mistaken. In my twenty plus years of being a vegan, I have never heard, read about, nor imagined a vegan making such a statement. Slow down, yes. Be careful, yes. Ban cars.....no.
Your comments are often unkind. And rather rubbish.
Hundreds of pheasants each year are killed by cars. Let's ban cars.
Vegan logic.
No, Sir. You are mistaken. In my twenty plus years of being a vegan, I have never heard, read about, nor imagined a vegan making such a statement. Slow down, yes. Be careful, yes. Ban cars.....no.
Your comments are often unkind. And rather rubbish.
When it comes to animal welfare, regardless of animal/creature, my heart rules over my head.
There may well be logical reasons why some say there are benefits to certain things that should be allowed, I still find that unpalatable.
The culling of Badgers may be one in point.
But even if it was proved conclusively that Badgers are responsible for the spread of Bovine TB, I still wouldn't support culling.
Serious question, not meant to be in any way facetious. If you had an infestation of mice or rats in your property would you put traps or poison down? Would you treat a wasps nest in your roof?
You'll be pleased to know bob, I'm living happily with all three.<(;-)>
I guess a point maybe, is whether you're doing something for pleasure/sport or whether you're dealing with something that is potentially a threat/hazard?
If I was being mauled by a lion, I'd naturally try to defend myself and I guess if I had the means, I'd probably have to kill it or be killed.
But that doesn't mean I'd go out of my way to kill, if I'd could find an alternative.
I am in fact living with a mouse at the moment, not intentionally and despite the humane trap I've put down, he/she still remains at large.
Little fucker, now where's that f ing club!
The most humane trap for a mouse is a conventional break-back trap. What would you do with the mouse if you caught it Sivo?
Comments
Totally agree.
If you would seriously like an out right ban, you really haven't thought it through
Your not allowed to even move in the bed, cos that would harm any mites.
We may as well be dead Steve.
It would also bore me rigid. I think I could handle the sitting by a riverside with a crate of beer and cooking bacon sandwiches bit but as for the fishing itself, no thanks.
We also need to remember that locals in these African countries don't look at some of these big game animals as beautiful. To most, they are no more than a big pest.
Let me set up a scenario -
Rogue bull elephant getting on a bit and not in the best condition keeps going on to local farmers land to eat as the natural food is getting low on the ground due to there being too many elephants in this reserve (Set up to prevent poachers killing everything n sight). A foreign tourist is brought in to pay thousands for the opportunity to shoot said elephant and have his / her photo taken next to it.
Pros -
- Elephant was on it's way out, but instead of suffering, is killed instantly.
- Thousands of much needed funds are injected into the reserve to carry on it excellent work in preserving these magnificent animals.
- The local village gets enough meat to keep it going for a good few weeks.
- The local elephant population is kept at a healthy number.
Cons -
- A few uneducated people a few thousand miles away don't agree
Some points I'd also like to make -
- I would never pay to kill an animal, just to have a photo taken next to it. You would need to speak to someone who would to find out what their motives are.
- Big game hunting is NOT a threat to any of these species population in the modern world, poaching and mismanagement is.
- Even Safari Parks that do not allow "trophy hunting" still need to manage the animals in their parks.
There is an argument to suggest that the biggest out of control animal on the planet is the human.
This one : For stashing in with the camping gear (just in case)
https://www.decathlon.co.uk/xtrem-9-travel-300-carp-rod-id_8350172.html?iv_=__iv_p_1_g_25792539416_c_93735762896_w_pla-163023892856_n_g_d_c_v__l__t__r_1o11x_pla_y_15177021_f_online_o_1863102_z_GB_i_en_j_163023892856_s__e__h_1006861_ii__vi__&gclid=CM6-x4CsodMCFRdmGwodesMGYg
and this one for when I go on a dedicated fishing trip.
http://www.anglingdirect.co.uk/shimano-tribal-xs1-rod
There may well be logical reasons why some say there are benefits to certain things that should be allowed, I still find that unpalatable.
The culling of Badgers may be one in point.
But even if it was proved conclusively that Badgers are responsible for the spread of Bovine TB, I still wouldn't support culling.
If so, why is killing a badger / rabbit etc. any different from killing a flea / tic?
Do vegan's treat aphid infestations on their veg, when growing their own?
Badgers and rabbits are furry, cuddly and are childhood characters in books and films, fleas and tics lack personality and charisma, are not innocent given they bite us without being provoked, so it's not cruel to kill them.
Hunting aphids in the garden with the intention of catching and killing them counts as a blood sport, people only do it because they like killing poor innocent insects so vegetarians would never participate in such barbarity.
I guess a point maybe, is whether you're doing something for pleasure/sport or whether you're dealing with something that is potentially a threat/hazard?
If I was being mauled by a lion, I'd naturally try to defend myself and I guess if I had the means, I'd probably have to kill it or be killed.
But that doesn't mean I'd go out of my way to kill, if I'd could find an alternative.
I am in fact living with a mouse at the moment, not intentionally and despite the humane trap I've put down, he/she still remains at large.
Little fucker, now where's that f ing club!
Your comments are often unkind. And rather rubbish.