Livebaiting for pike

[Guest TheDacer]

Sorry, Steady-On but I don't think that's quite true.

 

The issue over whether or not fish feel pain (and therefore livebaiting is cruel) is NOT at the centre of this debate.

 

At the centre of this debate is whether or not it is possible to be cruel regardless of whether or not a fish (or anything else) can feel pain.

 

And in my opinion it is possible to be cruel to any animal - regardless of whether or not they feel what we call pain.

 

Therefore I fish, knowing it can be cruel, but accepting that I chose to both be the cause of that cruelty AND, at the same time,

minimise that cruelty by using the maximum care for my catch.

 

Interestingly, this makes my position on angling unassailable to the likes of PETA. Whereas those that argue along your lines must give up angling if it is ever 'proven' that fish do feel pain.

 

Where I disagree with PETA is that they make out that angling is cruel.. and that therefore it must be stopped. This is a non-sequitor! Farming is cruel (animals die) therefore that too must be stopped - by their argument. Even organic gardening is cruel (insects and some animals die) therefore that too must be stopped - by their argument.

 

Left to these spineless, lily-livered, idiots, the world would starve to death!

 

Life is cruel. That's the fact they fail to accept. Not just angling. We, as humans, must limit the cruelty we inflict - not try to stop inflicting cruelty altogether.

 

That is impossible.

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Originally posted by Steady On:

Have you noticed that the two sides of this debate have a differing way of expressing their opinions.  The antis are candid in their expression of a personal view, despite presenting no evidence - following their heart. The pros can't see any evidence so follow their heads. I would stop fishing - let alone livebaiting - tomorrow if I found evidence that I was being cruel to fish.

 

I have no argument at all with any angler who holds a belief that any angling practice is wrong refraining from using that practice.

 

I think that they should, especially if they regard the practice as cruel in any way.

 

I have no argument with any angler holding such a belief trying to persuade other anglers to give up that practice. In fact, if they feel strongly, it is their moral duty to do so.

 

Where there is good evidence that their belief is well founded, then I believe that angling should adapt to their concerns (eg tether rigs, barbless hooks in many circumstances, use of unhooking mats, care when using keepnets etc).

 

Where there is no such evidence, I can understand the personal dilemma of reconciling personal beliefs with the acceptance that each angler should be left to make up their own mind on the issue.

 

What I do find abhorrent is the attitude of some that 'I don't use livebait, I think it's cruel (although I don't have any evidence that it is), so I will support a ban on anyone else having the freedom to make up their own mind on the issue.'

 

Especially those that take the further position 'That might get me of the hook, as an angler, with the general public'

 

What other practices would you concede, and would you be equally ready to concede those that would affect you?

 

The possible list is endless, and the antis aren't going to go away until angling itself is banned, even if it's achieved bit by bit!!

(see my post toward the beginning of the thread!)

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Guest poledark]

Thanks for your reasoned reply Lee, personally I wouldn't use a barbel, a bit gristley I think.

I'm not sure I would rush to cut you down, might let you "hang" for a bit until ripe.

It is interesting that you expect at least some of the barbel men to jump on you though.

Now to get a little more serious, If fish dont feel fear then why do they flee from predators/ anglers/anything that casts a shadow/ makes a noise/or shines a light?

Do fish really just wander about waiting to be eaten? Of course not, they are in a constant state of alertness trying to AVOID being eaten.

Now the question is what makes them react, is it what we know as fear? or is it simply an inherited reaction that ensures their survival? Surely without this they would soon have become extinct?

 

Why are predators camouflaged or if not then built for speed? It must be because their prey tries to escape, ..why do they try to escape? Could it just be that they are afraid of being eaten?

 

Now another question, is it OK to use small fish but cruel to use larger "specimen" fish? I cringed the first time I heard of someone using a 1lb roach, I also cringed when listening to a party of Catfish anglers who were using 5lb carp and (even worse) 4lb Tench.

When I had calmed down a bit I realised it was really a simple case of the current fashion as I perceived it at the time.

 

Like some of the others on here I am uneasy about livebaiting but once I have had a run or caught a predator then my doubts dissapear.

Now for the treble hook business. Quite a few years back it became accepted by most anglers and hook makers that the use of treble hooks with barbs was not a good thing to do and semi barbed i.e. only one hook on a set having barbs, became the sporting way to fish for pike. Also stainless hooks were frowned on as they do not rust away.

Has this all changed? The reason I ask is that there have been several references to barbed trebles and stainless hooks in these postings.

The use of trebles as Snap tackle was to enable the angler to strike IMMEDIATELEY a pike takes hold. I will here quote John Bickerdyke 1900, "the hooks for float fishing are of three kinds, Snap-hooks,gorge-hooks and semi-gorge,. The former are so arranged so that the pike can be struck immediately he takes the bait. Gorge hooks are never used by humane anglers"

Gorge fishing was a method whereby the pike is allowed some time to swallow the bait, this can vary from a few seconds upwards.

Far from condemning the use of trebles I am in favour of using as many as you think neccessary to enable you to strike IMMEDIATELY. When using whole 11 or 12inch herrings I used to use 3 no6 trebles spaced along the bait, and conversly when using 4inch roach I use a single no6 longshank in the lip.

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------------

poledark ANMC

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Hi Dennis,

 

Not swinging quite yet so I am able to still post. Another interesting post from yourself Dennis even though you would watch me dangle!

 

Eels as you know are amazing creatures. How the hell do they know where to go to spawn? What do they possess that allows them to swim thousands of miles to somewhere where they have never been before?

 

Salmon are similar. They spend their lives at sea then return to the place of their birth to complete their life cycle knowingly facing certain death. How do they know?

 

Just two examples of fantastically unexplained miricles from the watery world.

 

Given those, I would say that basic instincs in fish to avoid and flee from their predator cousins would be a walk in the watery park. Of course, just the same, why is it that these prey fish live in peaceful existence with their predators for most of the time? Most of us have watched pike swiming amid shoals of roach and bream in almost perfect harmony. Of course the same can be witnessed with predators all over the world. Animals as well as fish.

 

Come the predators feeding time however, relations get a bit more tenuous.

 

I feel that it is worth remembering, fish are extremely ancient creatures. Over millions of years, certain instincts have become inprinted. These instincs do not have to be learned, they are there from birth.

 

Fish bred in captivity for stocking programes never see a predator. But when they are released into a wild environment, they assume their lives perfectly aware that they are food for other fish they have yet not encountered. Genetic instinct, basic and millions of years old tells them so. Fear, in the human sense, surely never enters the equation. How could it when at the start of their lives, captive bred fish and wild fish are not told to expect trouble ahead. Ancient instincts genetically formed in the same way as their fins and scales are formed tells them so.

 

Herein lies a problem. Humans, anglers especially, have a habit of comparing many things with the way they as humans feel and sense things.

 

As an example, why on earth do we choose flavours because they smell nice and are similar to flavours and tastes that we like when a fish cannot smell or taste in the same way we can. Yes they catch fish but so does loads of things with little or no smell at all?

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Originally posted by poledark:

 Now to get a little more serious, If fish dont feel fear then why do they flee from predators/ anglers/anything that casts a shadow/ makes a noise/or shines a light?

 Do fish really just wander about waiting to be eaten? Of course not, they are in a constant state of alertness trying to AVOID being eaten.

 Now the question is what makes them react, is it what we know as fear? or is it simply an inherited reaction that ensures their survival? Surely without this they would soon have become extinct?

 

When you hear a sudden bang!, you freeze, and instruct the hairs on the back of your neck to stand up.

 

This is caused by a primitive part of your brain which you share with fishes.

 

A split second later, the neurons in a more developed area, which you share with mammals, fire. Now comes the sudden jump of conscious fear. Other neurons fire and you start to assess the situation.

 

Same kind of thing happens when you touch something hot. The primitive area of your brain fires, you snatch your hand away.

 

Then comes the realisation of pain, then you start to think what to do about it (run it under a tap).

 

Fish have the first instinctive reflexes, but they cannot experience the emotion, the pain, or the intellectual assesment which occurs in the parts of our brain which only begun to develop in the more evolved reptile and mammalian brain structures.

 

What I find amazing is how birds of a particular species build a particular kind of nest, even if they are hand reared and never knew such a nest in their childhood.

 

All that complex weaving and packing with mud, lining with moss etc, and no blueprint to work by, getting the dimensions right, selecting the right kind of cover etc.,

 

All that information, passed in the genes, hidden in the runny egg which grows a bird!

 

Their brains pre-programmed with all the 'knowledge' they need, to carry out what to us would be an intellectual activity!!

 

The same with ants knowing how to farm, termites to build air-conditioned cities etc!!

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Guest easternangler]

After just getting back on line after modem problems I have not been able to keep up with the massive response to this debate. However, I find the bits I have read extremely interesting.

The point I would like to make relates to the so called "publicly acceptable" method of dead baiting. Lets not forget that the dead fish we use was also alive at one time, be it sea or freshwater. I am sure that the millions of sea fish used as deadbait also suffer whilst being trawled and frozen. Whilst the public seem to accept this when the end use is food, I am sure the antis would look at this if they were succesfull with livebaits. Lets not give them encouragement by allowing them to win this particular battle, even if individuals do not support livebaiting, they should support the freedom of choice.

[Guest poledark]

I'm still not convinced either way but for those who have concerns it may help to know that many wild creatures seem to accept deathby going into a state of severe shock. I have seen rabbits just "give up" and one of my Jack Russells suffered this when a Rottweiller attempted to eat him. He just "died", Fortunately we got him out of the b*****d dogs jaws and rushed him to a vet.

Often while watching wildlife films you see this shock effect kick in.

I believe that we humans also have this built in to our systems, I have "blacked out" a couple of times just a split second before smashing into the side of a car, once at over 90mph,and I read a piece recently about American WW11 bomber pilots who came to terms with the inevitable as they watched fighters shooting their comrades down, they described it as a feeling of extreme calm.

So even if the fish does feel "fear" its nervous system probably shuts down when it is siezed.

In the light of my accident experiences I have no fear of death as I know that when my body decides that it has had enough then it will "shut down"

On that cheerful note I will end.

 

 

 

------------------

poledark ANMC

[Guest pickerel]

Isn't what Lee described above (hope you don't mind me calling you Lee tho we've never met) almost a definition of fear: an evolutionary (or what you will) mechanism for the recognising and avoidance of danger. Likewise pain in a similar way.

 

No-one (at least I don't think so) is suggesting that fish have higher order feelings such as conscience or love, but pain and fear are pretty primitive, I'd've thought, even in humans.

As you rightly say people have a habit of comparing things to the way humans sense them

and I think that there is actually a danger of doing just that here, by which I mean

insisting that if fish do not feel exactly what humans feel then they must not feel anything at all.

 

Do those who believe that fish are incapable of feeling pain believe then that nothing that could ever be done to a fish - no matter what fiendish attempted tortures -could ever be considered cruel? Do you believe that no animals can feel pain? If not, where do you draw the

line? I imagine no-one would shed a tear over an amoeba, but do dogs feel pain?

Do rabbits? Do birds? Snakes? We all talk of fish exhibiting preferences, making quite complex choices, and so on and even devise intricate rigs (well, some do) to counter what appears to be sophisticated learned

behaviour. When the question of pain arises, are we then to shake our heads and say 'oh no, fish are too primitive for that'? It seems a bit like sticking your head in the sand and hoping it will go away...

 

 

I think that it is not a matter of black and white, of fish feel pain/fish do not feel pain, but a question of degree (and like everyone else, I could be completely wrong). I reckon fish can and do feel pain (why not?) but that doesn't mean that they experience it in the same way or with the same effects as humans. It is then up to each angler to decide for themselves

what level of pain or suffering they are willing to accept as a by-product of their activities. The problem with livebaiting for many people is then that even if fish experience pain to a relatively small degree, the prolonged nature of the suffering and the fact that the end result (at least the hoped for end result as a predator takes the bait) is mutilation or death, is unacceptable.

 

As for evidence, the antis certainly believe that they have convincing scientific 'proof'. For example, this is the sort of thing they quote:

 

"Fish have nerve endings near the skin which are very similar to those of humans and other mammals. We all have receptor cells (called nociceptors) near the skin, which are stimulated by events severe enough to cause damage to body tissues. The lips and mouth of fish are particularly well supplied with nerve endings.

Fish produce the same pain-transmitting chemicals as humans. There are two main chemicals involved. When a nerve ending is damaged, a substance called bradykinin is released. This causes the nerve cell to fire, sending an electrical impulse along the nerve. When bradykinin is released near the skin, a second chemical, called substance P, is released near the spinal cord.

Both substances are known to be involved in transmitting pain. For example, if bradykinin is injected in humans, it causes intense pain, even if a local anaesthetic is used. Both bradykinin and substance P are found in mammals, birds, frogs and fish.

Fish produce the same pain-blocking substances as humans. When in severe pain, humans and other vertebrates (animals with backbones) produce pain-killing chemicals called endorphins. These endorphins block pain by stopping the release of substance P."

(Animals Today, Australia)

 

or

 

"Those that doubt that fish feel pain must explain why it is that their brains

contain endogenous opiates and receptors for them; these are accepted as

mechanisms for the attenuation of pain in other vertebrates."

 

Frankly, as I'm not a biologist I have next to no idea what they are on about. I would

welcome some explanation or answer to this from anyone who does happen to know what it allmeans (BB, for example: I mean Dr Broughton, not Watkins-Pitchford...)

 

 

PS perhaps I ought to make it clear that I do livebait and I would not support a ban...

[Guest trent.barbeler]

I didn't know that Bruno was a doctor.

 

If you are Bruno, could you put me down for a box of aspirins. This stuff is starting to give me a headache.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Guest pickerel]

er...not that kind of doctor as far as |I know...though again I don't think we've ever met..apologies if I've got it wrong..

 

I hope it wasn't my overblown message that gave you a headache...I didn't realise it would be quite so long...