Killing fish

[Worms]

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 think that your reckless driving/sheep example is a mile away from what we are discussing. I hit a sheep (not driving recklessly I hasten to add) that ran out of a farmyard and knocked it out and I did the sensible thing, I went to the farmer (with the sheep) and let him deal with his responsibility. If you can't find the farmer then you should inform the polce and report it, they will inform the farmer/vet or whoever.

 

When fishing we put ourselves in a situation where we are absolutely responsible for our actions and, we are absolutely responsible for the welfare of the fish we catch. In my opinion that absolute responsibility for fish welfare extends to making absolute decisions and evaluating the likelihood of survival against suffering of the fish.

 

The discussion seems to have gone from a "do you carry a priest to humanely despatch fish" to a moral maze of "what gives you the right to kill fish". If, one is worried that one may injure fish and cannot bring oneself to humanely kill a fish then, in my view, fishing is not for that person. We are dealing with live animals, whether bait or quarry, we have to make quick and absolute decisions and be confident that we are doing the right thing as we see it.

 

People's views vary and there is no set answer. It is down to the individual but, I always carry a priest and in my opinion, if I think a fish is going to suffer or die then I despatch that fish as quickly and as humanely as possible. It might end up on my plate, it might end up on my hook. Very rarely it might end up back in the water but I am the only person there who can make that decision (I don't believe in "higher beings").

 

As an aside, I confidently predict that the vast majority of non anglers would rather see an injured fish despatched humanely than thrown back in to gasp away in the margins or to float off downstream...much as the woman whose white cat I ran over was glad that I had put it out of its misery by breaking it's neck...it had a broken back and crushed hindquarters but was very much alive. I could have spent half an hour taking it to a vet but...

[Anderoo]

Making any comparisons with foxes, sheep or knocked over pedestrians is doing exactly what PETA does, which I find kind of funny.

 

I assume those who advocate a quick death from the priest don't eat sea fish, which are left to slowly suffocate to death.

 

I've killed many fish in my life, some to eat (coarse and game), some for bait for other fish. (I guess that means I have big cojones, which is apparently good.) Some were dispatched with a priest, some with a knife. I've returned some fish which I suspected would die as a result of being caught, as I said before, usually a combination of small perch and big hooks. Some probably survived, some probably died, who knows. The ones that died probably died a similar death to the sea fish I'm happy to eat.

 

If you want to, or feel the need to kill a fish, it makes sense to make it quick. But I expect if you ask the fish, it would say it would choose not being caught in the first place over any kind of death, quick or slow.

[AddictedToScopex]

I think that your reckless driving/sheep example is a mile away from what we are discussing. I hit a sheep (not driving recklessly I hasten to add) that ran out of a farmyard and knocked it out and I did the sensible thing, I went to the farmer (with the sheep) and let him deal with his responsibility. If you can't find the farmer then you should inform the polce and report it, they will inform the farmer/vet or whoever.

 

But isn't that you shirking the responsibility?? You chose to drive that day so you knew there was a chance your car would strike something either intentionally or not going by your logic. As you hit the sheep 'only you can decide' whether or not it lives or dies. Or does it not matter now that the creature is someones property? Does that mean that you get to walk away with a clear conscience because you passed the responsibility on to them? It seems a hypocritical view to take.

 

 

When fishing we put ourselves in a situation where we are absolutely responsible for our actions and, we are absolutely responsible for the welfare of the fish we catch. In my opinion that absolute responsibility for fish welfare extends to making absolute decisions and evaluating the likelihood of survival against suffering of the fish.

 

The discussion seems to have gone from a "do you carry a priest to humanely despatch fish" to a moral maze of "what gives you the right to kill fish". If, one is worried that one may injure fish and cannot bring oneself to humanely kill a fish then, in my view, fishing is not for that person. We are dealing with live animals, whether bait or quarry, we have to make quick and absolute decisions and be confident that we are doing the right thing as we see it.

 

Nothing wrong with that. It is an open forum after all. It is good to delve deeper on the subject. It is what makes it a discussion rather than a poll.

 

I disagree that there is an obligation to kill an injured fish but again it comes down to personal opinion. In my book a 1% chance of survival is enough to take a chance. If I am wrong then I live with that on my conscience but I at least know I gave it its 1% shot at life.

 

People's views vary and there is no set answer. It is down to the individual but, I always carry a priest and in my opinion, if I think a fish is going to suffer or die then I despatch that fish as quickly and as humanely as possible. It might end up on my plate, it might end up on my hook. Very rarely it might end up back in the water but I am the only person there who can make that decision (I don't believe in "higher beings").

 

Precisely, which is why I dont tell you guys to stop killing fish and am instead discussing the different aspects to the moral side of it. I have no right to dictate what you do nor comment against it as I don't do it myself. I have in the past and felt very guilty for taking the life.

 

As an aside, I confidently predict that the vast majority of non anglers would rather see an injured fish despatched humanely than thrown back in to gasp away in the margins or to float off downstream...much as the woman whose white cat I ran over was glad that I had put it out of its misery by breaking it's neck...it had a broken back and crushed hindquarters but was very much alive. I could have spent half an hour taking it to a vet but...

 

Your not very good at this driving lark are you

[Worms]

I assume those who advocate a quick death from the priest don't eat sea fish, which are left to slowly suffocate to death.

I do Anderoo...(eat seafish that is) and I despatch them with a stainess steel priest or knife as mentioned earlier. The other side of the coin however, is, those that feel that they do not have the right to kill a fish and throw it back injured may still be happy to eat suffocated cod. Double standards?

 

Then again, the suffocated commercially caught seafish don't taste as good as humanely despatched ones in my opinion.

[AddictedToScopex]

Making any comparisons with foxes, sheep or knocked over pedestrians is doing exactly what PETA does, which I find kind of funny.

 

I think in terms of morality it is fine to keep the argument on a level playing field. No creature deserves life over an other. Particularly humans. Anyone who knows me knows that I am very far from being a PETA activist. I just like to draw fair conclusions and look at the bigger picture.

 

I assume those who advocate a quick death from the priest don't eat sea fish, which are left to slowly suffocate to death.

 

You sure your not a PETA member in disguise too

Edited August 22, 2012 by AddictedToScopex

[AddictedToScopex]

I do Anderoo...(eat seafish that is) and I despatch them with a stainess steel priest or knife as mentioned earlier. The other side of the coin however, is, those that feel that they do not have the right to kill a fish and throw it back injured may still be happy to eat suffocated cod. Double standards?

 

Unfortunately the world isnt so black and white and in order to eat the way we want to and to be able to afford to eat we must let someone else do the killing. I have work to do so I cant be chasing a cow round a field trying to bash it on the head for my tea tonight and then spending hours skinning, gutting and butchering it. As such I must allow someone else to do it for me. How they choose to do it is pretty much out of my control so I am happy to eat it regardless. I do try to eat things that have been looked after as much as possible though. Double standards work both ways. You say you should kill the animal humanely. If you eat turkey or chicken that certainly doesnt happen. I used to work on a turkey/chicken farm over the christmas period and the stun doesnt last long. They then slit the throat and let the bird die slowly. Humane?? So you are saying your fine with that as much as the person who takes a chance on survival. Both sides in this argument are subject to double standards.

Edited August 22, 2012 by AddictedToScopex

[Sportsman]

I disagree that there is an obligation to kill an injured fish but again it comes down to personal opinion. In my book a 1% chance of survival is enough to take a chance. If I am wrong then I live with that on my conscience but I at least know I gave it its 1% shot at life.

 

or to put it another way a 99% chance of a long painful drawn out death

[AddictedToScopex]

I disagree that there is an obligation to kill an injured fish but again it comes down to personal opinion. In my book a 1% chance of survival is enough to take a chance. If I am wrong then I live with that on my conscience but I at least know I gave it its 1% shot at life.

 

or to put it another way a 99% chance of a long painful drawn out death

 

Yes. I guess I am a glass half (or 1%) full kind of person

Edited August 22, 2012 by AddictedToScopex

[Worms]

But isn't that you shirking the responsibility?? You chose to drive that day so you knew there was a chance your car would strike something either intentionally or not going by your logic. As you hit the sheep 'only you can decide' whether or not it lives or dies. Or does it not matter now that the creature is someones property? Does that mean that you get to walk away with a clear conscience because you passed the responsibility on to them? It seems a hypocritical view to take.

 

Not at all, the farmer, as owner of the sheep, has a responsibility for his animals which includes preventing them from running into the road...it might have been a very different scenario had I been on my motorbike as opposed to being in two tons of Land Rover. I was responsible in that I returned the injured sheep to the farmer who hadn't realised it had escaped. I could have taken a lump hammer to it prior to slitting its throat and piling it in the back of the Landy but the animal was only unconscious (and I was only 20 yds from the farmyard ). So no, I am not being hypocritical I did not put the sheep in that position and I did everything to ensure the survival of an animal bred to ultimately be put on your/my plate.

 

 

Nothing wrong with that. It is an open forum after all. It is good to delve deeper on the subject. It is what makes it a discussion rather than a poll.

 

Very true.

 

I disagree that there is an obligation to kill an injured fish but again it comes down to personal opinion. In my book a 1% chance of survival is enough to take a chance. If I am wrong then I live with that on my conscience but I at least know I gave it its 1% shot at life.

 

And I know 100% that I haven't returned an animal to suffer!

 

Precisely, which is why I dont tell you guys to stop killing fish and am instead discussing the different aspects to the moral side of it. I have no right to dictate what you do nor comment against it as I don't do it myself. I have in the past and felt very guilty for taking the life.

 

With respect, your previous statement "Removal of life is not a right just because we are sentient beings." Had a ring of "holier than thou" about it (I may have mis-interpreted the 'tone' and if so I apologise), and as we are sentient beings is precisely why we can and should decide whether an animal should be humanely despatched. Evolution has dealt us (Man as a species) some odd cards. Using them is why we have survived. Those same cards should be used when we apply hunting skills to pastimes that we now use as entertainment.

 

 

 

Your not very good at this driving lark are you

Oh yes, I'm brilliant at driving...just not very good at stopping

[AddictedToScopex]

With respect, your previous statement "Removal of life is not a right just because we are sentient beings." Had a ring of "holier than thou" about it (I may have mis-interpreted the 'tone' and if so I apologise), and as we are sentient beings is precisely why we can and should decide whether an animal should be humanely despatched. Evolution has dealt us (Man as a species) some odd cards. Using them is why we have survived. Those same cards should be used when we apply hunting skills to pastimes that we now use as entertainment.

 

Oh yes, I'm brilliant at driving...just not very good at stopping

 

I certainly didnt mean it to come across in that tone. It was more of an opinion on my take of our responsibility with regard to life and death. I understand both sides of the argument with regard to our 'responsibility' but as I said earlier I dont like to have the power of life and death bestowed upon me as I feel I have no right to it. I should probably point out that I am not religious either.

 

I think as my conclusion to my participation to this topic I would say this: A priest is indeed a useful tool should you be of the opinion that you should use one.

 

Black and white is never black and white. Grey will always find a way to go 7 or 8 pages on a forum thread

 

Also if I see a landrover heading toward me with sea fishing gear or cane rods in it I should get out of the way asap.

 

The morality side of the debate could literally rage on and on as no one side would ever concede and rightly so. I have enjoyed the discussion either way though but feel there is very much a viscious circle developing so will respectfully bow out.

Edited August 22, 2012 by AddictedToScopex