Justification

[Anderoo]

Andy, with respect I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. I said that the only justification for me would be because I enjoy it, which is another way of saying, for selfish reasons. 'Selfish' just means for my own pleasure.

 

The long running pain debate is not relevant here.

 

A couple of questions may help to clarify it - would you still go fishing if you didn't enjoy it? And would you donate money to the EA and landowners, and walk the banks picking up litter (which there wouldn't be much of, if there was no fishing! Sad but true) if you didn't fish?

 

As Elton says, the social and environmental benefits of angling (of which there are many) are a by-product, not the main reason.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Anderoo

[Jeffwill]

Unless angling is outlawed you dont have to justify it... public opinion is very important in governments forming policies but the general public dont care about fish welfare so angling is here to stay.

 

The fish feeling pain..... does it really matter if they do or dont..... the public see fish for what they are, a food source / part of the food chain, something they may eat from time to time. Something that lives in water and they dont have any affinity for or with.

 

If the public saw on TV an otter eating a live fish (usually tail first) with a running commentary by Sir David Attenborough, would they even give a seconds thought to the welfare of the fish..as it was being eaten alive. Or those programs showing north american bears catching salmon going up rivers to spawn. Fish have no means of signalling distress...unless flapping about counts....so they will never get any public sympathy.

 

If you took a nice freshly caught trout round to your neighbours, assuming they'd be very pleased to have it, would they ask about the life of the fish or how it had been "humanely" caught and killed? Lets be honest... they may ask out of interest where you caught it (as they are going to eat it) but thats as far as the interest goes.

 

Law abiding anglers dont have to apologise for anything, especially after paying the government a fee to use a rod and line. Do we torture fish a bit? ..... almost certainly we do but going by my last few outing I dont torture enough

[ayjay]

Justification?

 

Where else would maggots and worms get swimming lessons if not from anglers?

[wellyphant]

I've thought about posting this for some time now, and I know this will be controversial, and probably won't get many replies but here goes.

 

In the light of the recent proposals for a ban on the taking of coarse fish for the pot. How would you justify the catching of fish?

I don't mean "the guardians of the water" stance, or the "getting away from it all" and "being a part of nature", because these can be done without actually catching fish.

If you had to justify our obsession with catching fish, what would you say?

 

Over to you.

 

John.

Even before the recent proposals you mention,i have found that on several occasions i have to justify or at least explain the reasons i going fishing.More often than not the people who i have to justify myself to are people who think it's normal to argue with a fan of a rival team about football.They can't get their head around my obsession as i can't theirs.

 

Hoping i don't look like i'm jumping on the bandwagon here i would say that i do it for purely selfish reasons.I enjoy it and that's that.I enjoy,amongst other things, the bend in the rod,the line screaming off the reel and catching a bigger fish than my mates.I can't imagine what my life would be like now if i hadn't taken up fishing or what it would be like in the future if,for whatever reason,i couldn't do it.I simply can't think of anything else i'd be that into,i know one thing though,it definitely wouldn't be football.

Edited October 26, 2009 by wellyphant

[poledark]

Unless angling is outlawed you dont have to justify it... public opinion is very important in governments forming policies but the general public dont care about fish welfare so angling is here to stay.

 

The fish feeling pain..... does it really matter if they do or dont..... the public see fish for what they are, a food source / part of the food chain, something they may eat from time to time. Something that lives in water and they dont have any affinity for or with.

 

If the public saw on TV an otter eating a live fish (usually tail first) with a running commentary by Sir David Attenborough, would they even give a seconds thought to the welfare of the fish..as it was being eaten alive. Or those programs showing north american bears catching salmon going up rivers to spawn. Fish have no means of signalling distress...unless flapping about counts....so they will never get any public sympathy.

 

If you took a nice freshly caught trout round to your neighbours, assuming they'd be very pleased to have it, would they ask about the life of the fish or how it had been "humanely" caught and killed? Lets be honest... they may ask out of interest where you caught it (as they are going to eat it) but thats as far as the interest goes.

 

Law abiding anglers dont have to apologise for anything, especially after paying the government a fee to use a rod and line. Do we torture fish a bit? ..... almost certainly we do but going by my last few outing I dont torture enough

 

Says it all really.

 

I do suspect that fish feel fear, which is why I don't like livebaiting, but despite this, I still go fishing, and the harder it is to catch, then the more keen I become.

 

Does that offer anything to this discussion?

 

Den

[gozzer]

I’m sorry that it’s taken me so long to get back on this thread, I intended to post Saturday, but something cropped up.

 

I’m surprised and thankful that so many replied to my question, (even the one that told me to “mind my own ****** business”. Elton ).

I purposely left out the ‘pain’ issue because I didn’t think it was relevant to the question.

For the record, my own experiences have proven, (to my satisfaction), that fish do not feel ‘pain’, as we know it.

I asked about justifying the catching of fish in regard to the proposed ban on the taking of coarse fish. I (and many others) feel that without the option to take fish for food, our case for catching them is weakened in the eyes and minds of others.

I believe that a time will come when we are called on to justify the catching of fish for sport or pleasure. Justify it, not to those who would ban it, (that would be impossible), but to an ever changing population of non anglers, many of whom are so fickle in their beliefs, that all it will take is a strong, sustained anti campaign to make them turn against us. Many make the mistake of thinking that the anti brigade only consists of mindless mobs that go around the country, trying to sabotage field sports. These are just the ‘foot soldiers’, some truly believe what they’re doing is right, many just want a cause to fight for, and need someone to supply that cause. The suppliers of the ideas are the dangerous ones, they are clever people who use the others to do the dirty work, but also attack indirectly, like the recent ‘Hooked’ anti smoking campaign, and try to ‘groom’ youngsters into their ‘cause’.

I’m not surprised by the honest answers that were given, regarding selfishness, those that gave it are the realists, and I admire their honesty. If you impose an action on something purely for your own pleasure, then it is a “selfish” action. Anything else arising from that is just incidental, and doesn’t change the original intent.

The “hunting instinct” idea, I can accept, but this again can be construed as selfish. Although many anglers baulk at the words, hunting, and angling, being used in the same sentence. I’ve seen too many “angling is not hunting” comments on the net.

 

Those who think I’m wrong in what I say, just think how clever ad’ campaigns have changed the opinion of the general public in the past. It’s not done over night, it’s a continual, nagging process, and, depending on the persistence of the campaigners, and the amount of coverage it receives, can take a few years for the first seeds of doubt to show, but it does work over time.

If we add to this the attempts by some anglers and angling bodies to somehow sanitize angling, then we are doing part of the job for them.

 

Many of us (and the non angling public who have an opinion) have said that the only true justification for catching a fish, is to eat it. So long as we have that option, (whether we choose to use it or not) then we have an accepted reason. Total catch and release by law, takes away that reason, and we are left with the answers in this thread. None of which (I believe) are good enough reasons, except to those of us that participate, and understand the feeling.

 

John.

[Jeffwill]

I’m sorry that it’s taken me so long to get back on this thread, I intended to post Saturday, but something cropped up.

 

I’m surprised and thankful that so many replied to my question, (even the one that told me to “mind my own ****** business”. Elton ).

I purposely left out the ‘pain’ issue because I didn’t think it was relevant to the question.

For the record, my own experiences have proven, (to my satisfaction), that fish do not feel ‘pain’, as we know it.

I asked about justifying the catching of fish in regard to the proposed ban on the taking of coarse fish. I (and many others) feel that without the option to take fish for food, our case for catching them is weakened in the eyes and minds of others.

I believe that a time will come when we are called on to justify the catching of fish for sport or pleasure. Justify it, not to those who would ban it, (that would be impossible), but to an ever changing population of non anglers, many of whom are so fickle in their beliefs, that all it will take is a strong, sustained anti campaign to make them turn against us. Many make the mistake of thinking that the anti brigade only consists of mindless mobs that go around the country, trying to sabotage field sports. These are just the ‘foot soldiers’, some truly believe what they’re doing is right, many just want a cause to fight for, and need someone to supply that cause. The suppliers of the ideas are the dangerous ones, they are clever people who use the others to do the dirty work, but also attack indirectly, like the recent ‘Hooked’ anti smoking campaign, and try to ‘groom’ youngsters into their ‘cause’.

I’m not surprised by the honest answers that were given, regarding selfishness, those that gave it are the realists, and I admire their honesty. If you impose an action on something purely for your own pleasure, then it is a “selfish” action. Anything else arising from that is just incidental, and doesn’t change the original intent.

The “hunting instinct” idea, I can accept, but this again can be construed as selfish. Although many anglers baulk at the words, hunting, and angling, being used in the same sentence. I’ve seen too many “angling is not hunting” comments on the net.

 

Those who think I’m wrong in what I say, just think how clever ad’ campaigns have changed the opinion of the general public in the past. It’s not done over night, it’s a continual, nagging process, and, depending on the persistence of the campaigners, and the amount of coverage it receives, can take a few years for the first seeds of doubt to show, but it does work over time.

If we add to this the attempts by some anglers and angling bodies to somehow sanitize angling, then we are doing part of the job for them.

 

Many of us (and the non angling public who have an opinion) have said that the only true justification for catching a fish, is to eat it. So long as we have that option, (whether we choose to use it or not) then we have an accepted reason. Total catch and release by law, takes away that reason, and we are left with the answers in this thread. None of which (I believe) are good enough reasons, except to those of us that participate, and understand the feeling.

 

John.

 

 

Few interesting points there but I thought that the modern way was "catch and release" which is actually promoted by the government's Environment Agency. Any ban on taking fish is simply an extension of that and not some bigger plot against anglers. You need to remember as well that the E.A has a large number of fanatical anglers in its own ranks. The organisation is very pro fishing.

 

A long (and therefore massively expensive) "anti fishing" advertising campaign.... a waste of money.

 

As for feeling pain, the public's been told that catching tuna by rod and line is humane compared to feeling stress in nets. Yet the tuna are yanked up on a pole and in one motion tossed behind and bounced down the hull of the boat...it certainly aint humane but the public have been told as much as they "want" to know..before it puts them of their salads..

 

In my experience its usually girlies who remark "do you just throw them back" ..just because I practice "catch and release" and I wont give them one

[Worms]

I thought that the modern way was "catch and release" which is actually promoted by the government's Environment Agency. Any ban on taking fish is simply an extension of that and not some bigger plot against anglers. You need to remember as well that the E.A has a large number of fanatical anglers in its own ranks. The organisation is very pro fishing.

Don't forget Jeff, you are an enthusiastic fisher of the great River Wye.

 

The Wye didn't become famous for catch and release. it became famous for catch, kill, photograph, cook and eat.

 

Subsequent catch and release legislation was put in place to protect the mighty Atlantic salmon that made the Wye so famous.

 

The current proposed catch and release legislation is a misguided attempt to try and prevent fish thieves from breaking the law by imposing another law that will only hurt legitimate anglers.

 

The "modern way"? I fish for 'selfish' enjoyment and occasionally for food. I pay for the right to do so and my fanaticism is based solely on ensuring I do so in as sporting a manner as possible (for me and the fish) and also according to legislation and commonsense.......I'm sorry but I believe that there is an alternative agenda behind this misguided catch and release bullshine.

 

The EA may have "a large number of fanatical anglers" in its ranks but that doesn't make it good or right.

[lutra]

Many make the mistake of thinking that the anti brigade only consists of mindless mobs that go around the country, trying to sabotage field sports. These are just the ‘foot soldiers’, some truly believe what they’re doing is right, many just want a cause to fight for, and need someone to supply that cause. The suppliers of the ideas are the dangerous ones, they are clever people who use the others to do the dirty work, but also attack indirectly, like the recent ‘Hooked’ anti smoking campaign, and try to ‘groom’ youngsters into their ‘cause’.

No you must be wrong there John are new Angling Trust thinks its a good idea to rub shoulders and involve animal welfare groups with angling. See here.

[Dick Dastardly]

It seems to have escaped several here that the initial question was to "justify" why you fish and not "why" you fish.Very different.