Using quasi harvesting as an excuse for angling isn`t peticularly ethical ,i think.
Considering the number of anglers in some countries(angling still being legal in Germany),it isnt ecologically sustainable to insist om all fish being caught by anglers
to be killed.What would happen with any lake containing carp,if all fish caught would be slaugthered,just for the sake of it(or rather for the sake of finding a MOTIVE for practising angling)?
In my view the psychological effects of being out in the nature amongst other creatures(birds and fish ,mostly ),seeing how nature works and to a certain extent taking part in i,are positive enough for them alone to be cited as a reason for giving anglers continued right to practice their sport.
The best guarantee for a piece of forest,a lake or a small stream to protected from destruction in any way,is if it is being used by someone.
Us for example..
With a continually growing number of anglers catch and release is the way to go.Anyone saying otherwise(or doing otherwise)is contributing to ruining a lot of fragile ecosystems....a small brook for example.
Animal Cruelty?
I certainly dont feel cruel when unhooking a good fish with the purpose of releasing it.A big ,healthy specimen can live on for years after having met a responsible angler who practices c&r.Make kids ,eat slugs and have fun.. ensuring future generations of fish.
At some point we have to make a mark where human rights begin and fish-rights(sic)end.
I certainly dont believe fish feel the way humans do.Nor do i believe in equal definitions of cruelty for man and fish.....................
Sorry about my written english.Hope i made my point clear.