Killing fish

[Sportsman]

I am sure that the vast majority of respondents on here are not cruel people but it concerns me when I hear phrases like "let it take it chances" or "out of site out of mind"

Is that not shirking your responsibility to your quarry?

How would it be on a shoot if a wounded pheasant was returned to the covet with the idea that if we leave it it might survive and we can shoot it again next week.

 

The fish is going to die and deep down you know that, but you lack the cojones to do the deed yourself so you leave it to nature and walk away feeling you did your best.

You didn't.

If you are happy for the dead fish to return to nature by becoming food for other fish then throw it back in the river after you have killed it.

 

Just to finish, I use a priest to kill fish that I am going to eat. These days that is limited to the occasional trout.

 

I haven't had to use one on an injured fish since I can't remember when, just lucky I guess, but if I do it's there.

[AddictedToScopex]

I am sure that the vast majority of respondents on here are not cruel people but it concerns me when I hear phrases like "let it take it chances" or "out of site out of mind"

Is that not shirking your responsibility to your quarry?

How would it be on a shoot if a wounded pheasant was returned to the covet with the idea that if we leave it it might survive and we can shoot it again next week.

 

The fish is going to die and deep down you know that, but you lack the cojones to do the deed yourself so you leave it to nature and walk away feeling you did your best.

You didn't.

 

Maybe some people just arent comfortable with taking life in such a way. It does not make them any less of a person because they would rather not kill a creature in their hands. If some don't mind killing creatures in such a way that is their decision. Just as you consider people who do not like to kill as being 'lacking cojones' they may consider you barbaric. At least an injured fish has a chance of survival if not knocked on the head. That chance may be 0.0005% but it is still a chance. If you were hit by a truck and given a 5% chance of survival would you be happy for the ambulance guy to say 'well sorry old chap but were going to have to knock you on the head as your chances of survival aren't high enough for us to give you a chance'. I think not. Whether you suffer the pain or not you will still want a chance to survive.

 

Some may say (cue our resident phone) 'they are just fish' but surely the fish deserver the same chance to survive as we would want ourselves. I think that is just as respectful as your opinion of knocking them on the head.

 

A final note. Is it right to kill on the chance of death or spare on the chance of life. Who are we to decide?

Edited August 22, 2012 by AddictedToScopex

[Worms]

A final note. Is it right to kill on the chance of death or spare on the chance of life. Who are we to decide?

We are the ones to decide as we are the ones that put the fish in such a position.

[Steve Walker]

It's a judgement call of likelihood of survival versus perception of suffering, IMO. If a fish is almost certainly going to survive (and you don't want to eat it) you should obviously let it go. If it is almost certainly going to die, you should obviously kill it humanely and quickly. Somewhere between those two easy choices there is a harder decision. People have to draw their own line.

 

I have always suspected that when small fish turn belly-up in a keep net, rather than the net being the cause of mortality, the angler is being confronted with something that would otherwise have happened anyway, out of sight and out of mind.

[Dales]

The fish is going to die and deep down you know that, but you lack the cojones to do the deed yourself so you leave it to nature and walk away feeling you did your best.

 

I don't think it is about not having the cojones to kill a fish, I would like to give them a chance of survival even if it is marginal. If I wanted a super fresh dead bait then I would and do kill fish as and when I need them.

 

I live bait and often release a bait after a while after making a judgement call on whether it has a decent chance of survival. If it's chances do not look to good then I will dispatch it and put it in the cooler box for use as a dead bait. It might seem like double standards and may well be, but in my mind there is a difference to killing a fish for a purpose be that bait or to eat then just dispatching them because they may not survive.

 

To be honest if some one is not fishing for the pot or bait and the topic of needing to dispatch fish due to low chances of survival is a genuine concern in your fishing then I would suggest that you need to re-evalute your fishing methods.

[AddictedToScopex]

.....but in my mind there is a difference to killing a fish for a purpose be that bait or to eat then just dispatching them because they may not survive.

 

To be honest if some one is not fishing for the pot or bait and the topic of needing to dispatch fish due to low chances of survival is a genuine concern in your fishing then I would suggest that you need to re-evalute your fishing methods.

 

Two points very well made. It is all about choice and all we can do here is express opinion. Those who do not mind killing the fish (as long as it is for a genuine reason) do not need to defend their position any more than those who do not. Both can be considered the correct thing to do depending on your way of thinking.

 

My point of view is that even if I have mortally wounded a fish by unintentional injury (by which I mean I did not set out to kill or severely injure the fish) as a result of my fishing I still do not have a right to take its life nor an obligation. Removal of life is not a right just because we are sentient beings.

 

We are the ones to decide as we are the ones that put the fish in such a position.

 

I dont agree with that. Its a bit like saying someones intentional wreckless driving caused a sheep to be injured so the fella who hit it has the decision to make whether it lives or dies. Just because he caused the injury it does not give him the right to kill the sheep based on his judgement (correct or otherwise). Unless you can see the future how can you guarantee the animal would have died anyway. I suspect most people arent qualified vets and so could only make a guess at best in that circumstance and the sheep may be killed despite the fact that it could have had a lucky recovery.

 

I have seen fish with huge scars which must have looked life threatening at the time and they are fine now. Some one may have knocked them on the head due to the injury when in truth they couldnt be 100% sure that the fish would have died.

[Sportsman]

Couple of points I would take issue with,

Firstly the Ambulance scenario. If I had a 5% chance of survival then I would expect the ambulance crew and subsequent staff to work very hard and aggressively to resuscitate me, to maximise my chances.

If, on the other hand, they just laid me on the side of the road and left nature to take it's course (die slowly and possibly in great pain) then hitting me on the head might be the kinder option.

 

Secondly I don't see how, if we have no right to take life, why it is OK to kill a fish for a purpose i.e. use as a deadbait to allow us to satisfy our selfish need to catch another fish, but it is not OK to kill a fish to potentially alleviate it's suffering. Before anyone objects I said potentially. I don't know if fish suffer but prefer not to take the chance.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Sportsman

[Sportsman]

Two points very well made. It is all about choice and all we can do here is express opinion. Those who do not mind killing the fish (as long as it is for a genuine reason) do not need to defend their position any more than those who do not. Both can be considered the correct thing to do depending on your way of thinking.

 

My point of view is that even if I have mortally wounded a fish by unintentional injury (by which I mean I did not set out to kill or severely injure the fish) as a result of my fishing I still do not have a right to take its life nor an obligation. Removal of life is not a right just because we are sentient beings.

 

 

 

I dont agree with that. Its a bit like saying someones intentional wreckless driving caused a sheep to be injured so the fella who hit it has the decision to make whether it lives or dies. Just because he caused the injury it does not give him the right to kill the sheep based on his judgement (correct or otherwise). Unless you can see the future how can you guarantee the animal would have died anyway. I suspect most people arent qualified vets and so could only make a guess at best in that circumstance and the sheep may be killed despite the fact that it could have had a lucky recovery.

 

I have seen fish with huge scars which must have looked life threatening at the time and they are fine now. Some one may have knocked them on the head due to the injury when in truth they couldnt be 100% sure that the fish would have died.

 

Would the driver have an obligation to call someone to make sure that they took care of the sheep or would it be OK for him to just drive away and say to himself "well, it was alive when I left it so it is nothing to do with me"

Edited August 22, 2012 by Sportsman

[AddictedToScopex]

I am not saying it is acceptable or not to use deadbaits. We define our own boundaries as to what we personally find acceptable. I guess that is the whole point of the thread. Some deem it acceptable to take life. Others dont. Some will based on a personal opinion or predefined set of morals.

 

I choose not to kill the injured fish because it does not sit comforably with me to kill things in such a manner. It is a debate that can go round and round in circles and never meet a conclusion whereby every one agrees. You can argue that it is more humane to kill the fish but then you can say that the fish may have lived so you shouldnt have killed it. It isn't black and white. It is very much a grey area that is open to personal interpretation.

[AddictedToScopex]

Couple of points I would take issue with,

Firstly the Ambulance scenario. If I had a 5% chance of survival then I would expect the ambulance crew and subsequent staff to work very hard and aggressively to resuscitate me, to maximise my chances.

If, on the other hand, they just laid me on the side of the road and left nature to take it's course (die slowly and possibly in great pain) then hitting me on the head might be the kinder option.

And there is the grey area.

 

The only way to find out if it would have been better is to wait and see. Hindsight is a beautiful thing to base opinion on.

 

In this case you have the added bonus of attempted treatment. Take that away and you have the scenario the fish is faced with. Certain death or natures choice. Lets pretend for a moment no-one has the medical skill to help you. What would you prefer?? A knock on the head by a bystander because they thought you may not make it or for them to leave you alone to see if you survive??

Edited August 22, 2012 by AddictedToScopex