What if?

[corydoras]

... 'Word Of Mouth' On BBC Radio 4...

Love it. I wish the BBC would podcast it.

[Emma two]

I doubt if sea fishing could ever be banned because all seas anglers can reasonably claim to be fishing for the table and it is a recognised fact that being caught on rod and line and then being killed quickly is far less stressful than being dragged up in a net and crushed when the net is swung inboard on a trawler.

All anglers have to do is to nullify the antis' armoury and it will make it very difficult for them to get angling banned.

 

There is no logic to the aspirations of some elements of anti field sports philosophy. Catching fish with rod and line may well be prefarable to haulin' 'em out by the ton in nets, but the antis are concerned not with what is better for the creatures which to propose to champion, but rather with the realisation of some socio-political goal. They tend not to encumber themselves with 'recognised facts'

 

The hunting ban has done little for the red fox. baning hunting with hounds did not make the fox a protected species, its reality is that while it is illegal to hunt them with hounds, a method which was deemed as humane by an independent (Burns 2000) inquiry, and supported by the RCVS, foxes continue to be controlled by far less humane methods. Shooting for example, the method often suggested as the 'quick clean' one isn't so straightforward, sure a perfect scenario head or heart and lungs shot with a weapon of suitable power which drops 'matey' dead is fine. however its doesn't always work like that, foxes present a small target, are often difficult to draw a bead on, most shootin' of them is done and night by lamplight and a missing the vital areas by a few inches means a wounded animal. I ran my lurchers with a fox controller who used a high power rifle in the lake district for years, he was a good shot, and I have shot lots too, but the 100% 'quick kill' is a myth. As soon as he released his shot I would slip the dogs, hit or miss, and often they actually killed the fox,not the bullet. We knew lots of hill shepherds who (and do it more now there is no hunt) would simply 'blat' away at foxes with unsuitable weapons, like 12 bores with 6 or 7 (bird) shot in 'em. Foxes are still snared, and their physiology means thay the method doesnt kell 'em quickly like properly set hare or rabbit snare will. Fox snares are usually attached with a chain to a heavy object like a log, it's slow strangulation. Probably the worst method of control is poison, and it's almost impossible to police, the bait goes down and almost anything can pick it up and it gets into the food chain, rat eats bait, buzzard eats dead rat and dies, crows eat buzzard and die...and so on. Or people take a country walk and suddenly the pet dog goes belly up in convulsions, foaming and biting its tounge off, I saw this once and the hysterical kids. The antis dont give a toss, nor do the slimy politicians, they got their ignorant way, and sit back at best unaware of what they have done and at worst uncaring. It's not about what is best or humane, it's about their 'principles' (that word again) and votes.

[corydoras]

Recent experiments in this field which are quoted by these bedsit activists cite experiments that show that a fish feels pain use electric shocks or bee venom injection in fishes mouths, and because the fish showed distain or a reaction then they said that they must be feeling pain.

 

Utter ClapTrap!!!!

Sorry mate, even if I agree with you that fish do not feel pain, I take exception to your line of reasoning. The research that you are alluding to sounds like the work done at Roslin. If you disagree with that that's fine, but you really ought to back up your argument by citing some research that backs your position. All you have done though is to launch an Ad Hominim attack against those who did the original research.

[Vagabond]

Shooting for example, the method often suggested as the 'quick clean' one isn't so straightforward, sure a perfect scenario head or heart and lungs shot with a weapon of suitable power which drops 'matey' dead is fine. however its doesn't always work like that, foxes present a small target, are often difficult to draw a bead on, most shootin' of them is done and night by lamplight and a missing the vital areas by a few inches means a wounded animal. I ran my lurchers with a fox controller who used a high power rifle in the lake district for years, he was a good shot, and I have shot lots too, but the 100% 'quick kill' is a myth. As soon as he released his shot I would slip the dogs, hit or miss, and often they actually killed the fox,not the bullet. We knew lots of hill shepherds who (and do it more now there is no hunt) would simply 'blat' away at foxes with unsuitable weapons, like 12 bores with 6 or 7 (bird) shot in 'em.

 

Good post, good sense, and will no doubt attract a lot of flak.

 

I said exactly that on here when fox-hunting was still legal, and several people (most of whom had never held anything more powerful than an airgun in their life) were anxious to tell me that shooting was the answer to fox control. I did not believe then, and do not believe now, that there were/are enough crack rifle shots out there to make even a small dent in the fox population.

 

(BTW, apart from yourself, have you ever met a lamper who will admit to anything less than 100% accuracy?)

 

By far the most common method of "controlling foxes by shooting" is, as you imply, bladdering away with a 12-bore. Probably kills quite a few, but not very quickly.

[lutra]

Good post, good sense, and will no doubt attract a lot of flak.

 

I said exactly that on here when fox-hunting was still legal, and several people (most of whom had never held anything more powerful than an airgun in their life) were anxious to tell me that shooting was the answer to fox control. I did not believe then, and do not believe now, that there were/are enough crack rifle shots out there to make even a small dent in the fox population.

 

(BTW, apart from yourself, have you ever met a lamper who will admit to anything less than 100% accuracy?)

 

By far the most common method of "controlling foxes by shooting" is, as you imply, bladdering away with a 12-bore. Probably kills quite a few, but not very quickly.

I have done a lot of hunting and shooting day and night and would never claim everything is dead first time. There is always likely to be runners when shooting that need sorting out, ask the Queen.

[SPSwallow]

I find it hard to believe that anyone could think that fish do not feel pain.

 

If I pinch my dog it's pretty obvious it hurts her. If I stick a hook in a worm it seems to do everything it can to stop me doing it more (like attempt to wriggle out of my grasp).

 

Pain seems to be a natural part of being an animal and is crucial to self-preservation. Pain is useful and has to be unpleasant to serve its purpose, its purpose being to ensure the entity (collection of genes) stays alive to replicate. Not anthropomorphism, but if pain was pleasurable life spans would be considerably shorter.

 

I can't see how fish could be exempt from unpleasurable pain.

 

I do find it interesting that anglers assume that fish do not feel pain and then say that they'd stop angling if it was proved that fish did feel pain. Why not assume that fish do feel pain? In the absence of evidence we prefer to believe what suits us maybe.

 

Part of the art of fishing is to ensure the fish feels as little pain as possible.

 

MC

 

I agree with all that. But it all depends on what consious level you feel it. Worms cannot possible know that they are alive, it isn't physically possible, they just don't have the anatomy to make that possible. When they riggle you are just witnessing an instinctual reaction triggered by a very basic nervous system. They are not actively thinking...'oh dear, I need to get away because this bloody stings a bit!'.

 

We feel pain the way we do because evolution has developed us in a way to understand our pain consiously so we can out smart the enemy, we can think outside of the box. That is why homosapians out competed the earlier versions of man that couldn't. Homosapiens where around at the same time as other species of human, i.e neanderthal. All the the other prehistoric species of human are now extinct because we wiped them out 1000's of years ago. Just like grey squirrels with red and signal crayfish with ours are currently doing.

 

I don't think fish or insects are far enough down the evolutionary scale to have evolved a consious level of pain. They are just instinctual responses. Something that convinced me further that fish don't feel pain, or even know that they are alive is a video clip of a fish still trying to eat something when it was actually bitten in half by another bigger fish! Just automated response caused by chemical reactions and electrical impulses......in my opinion

 

I think if it was any other way we would have had a much harder time staying at the top of the food chain.

 

As for the topic. Banned - I'd probably go sea fishing more often or even take up a different hobby, there's plenty of them

 

Catch n kill - Just target the edible species and get'em cooked!

 

 

For the second topic....hahahahah.....hmmm. If it was to happen. I'd open a counselling clinic for fish so they can get there troubles off of their chest, a support group or two. Maybe even try to sort out a compensation scheme for them. Could publish there books on 'my story of 1000's of years of repression and torture'. Probably see little polital rallies with wooden signs and flags coming out of the water.

 

Ahem, i'd quit. Take up, country walking or something...seems much less hassle, unless there are anti's banging on about the feelings of grass.

Edited September 30, 2008 by SPSwallow

[Steve Walker]

There is no logic to the aspirations of some elements of anti field sports philosophy. Catching fish with rod and line may well be prefarable to haulin' 'em out by the ton in nets, but the antis are concerned not with what is better for the creatures which to propose to champion, but rather with the realisation of some socio-political goal.

 

I think the thing that really gets their goat, though, is the worry that someone might be enjoying himself in the process.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Steve Walker

[Emma two]

I think the thing that really gets their goat, though, is the worry that someone might be enjoying himself in the process.

 

I belive that is the nail smacked firmly on the head.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Emma two

[SPSwallow]

There is nothing wrong with the word Paki at all. Afghanis come from Afghanistan and Pakis come from Pakistan, yet Afghanis see nothing wrong in it, so what's the problem? The suffix -stān is Persian for "place of", derived from the Indo-Aryan equivalent, -sthāna, a cognate Sanskrit suffix with a similar meaning. In Indo-Aryan languages, sthāna is also used as a word to mean "place". To call someone from Pakistan a Paki, is no different to calling someone from Scotland a Scot. The only reason Pakis have come to see the term as abuse is because the term is often followed by a term of abuse, like bastard. If someone calls me a Scots bastard, it doesn't change the fact I'm a Scot. It's what I am and I'm proud of it. Pakis should be proud too.

Nigger is a bit of a grey area but again, it is a term that has basis in language, without any derogatory connotations. Earlier variants (such as neger or negar) derive from the Spanish/Portuguese word negro, meaning "black", and probably also the French nègre, which has also been used pejoratively (but also positively as in Négritude), derived from negro (the ordinary French word for "black" being noir). Both negro and noir (and therefore also nègre and nigger) ultimately come from nigrum, the accusative form of the Latin word niger (pronounced [niger], like "knee-ger" with the final r being trilled), simply meaning "black".

Chink however has many possible origins, some positive, some less so.

 

Just thought you should know that.

 

It is never about the words, it is about the meaning hate behind them them. I grew up on a rough council estate in Sheffield where there was a large pakistani population. and believe me, to call someone a paki is incredibly hateful and racist. After all words and language are only a format to communicate emotion and meaning. When a word has been used to convey a hateful emotion for so long it becomes that emotion

[great_badir]

unless there are anti's banging on about the feelings of grass.

 

One of my dreams (and this is the hardcore carnivore in me talking) is that one day scientists will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that all plants feel pain equivalent to humans.

 

An unlikely pipe dream, I know, but can you imagine all those years of holier-than-thou vegetarian and vegan fascism washed away in one swoop. Ahhhhh, that'd be amazing.