What if?

[captain cojones]

i belive germany USED to have.(a match scene)

dont think they do now.at least not to the same extent.

[Dick Dastardly]

The Green Party ruling certainly affected the International match scene in Germany and as this was mainly run by British servicemen it messed up their fishing a bit too.I dont know how it affected the German nationals though as catch and kill was very much their way for many years before the Brits influence.

[great_badir]

If I'm honest I'm not sure what I'd do - I'm not fishing at the moment, so would probably just stop altogether.

 

But is there a reason behind the question being asked? I know this sort of thing hangs over angling all the time, but has there been some recent sway in the general thoughts of the populace? Cos, last time I was fishing (in the 90s to very early 00s) it seemed that the whole anti thing of the 80s had died down siginificantly. In fact, for the 8 or 9 years I was fishing, I don't think I heard about a single protest, certainly not on local waters.

 

Is outside interest being piqued by the "success" of the fox hunting ban?

[Dick Dastardly]

Any way as we are starting to drift away a bit from the origonal question I would like to quickly sum up my thoughts on the replies so far before moving on to the next all important question in my "What if?" scenario.

 

Well it hasnt really suprised me that the greater majority would carry on and "work" round a "kill all you catch" ruling despite the fact that it would be breaking the law no matter how you dress it up ie too small,too big,not what you wanted to catch/eat. It seems our love of the sport would allow us to "feel we knew better" and carry on regardless of breaking the law.

 

No great supprise that some also said they would break a "no fishing at all" law either.Again for many we would not feel that we were doing anything morally wrong despite a general uneasyness about having to break a law.

 

Seems quite clear and simple to me.

 

I would now like to add the second "what if?" scenario.

 

For the sake of this disscusion forget any scientific research that has been made or any conclussions that practical experience has lead you to.what would you do if fishing was proven to cause "pain","distress","suffering" to fish,would youu still fish ? how would you feel about such a thing?

[Andy Macfarlane]

In my mind any such terminology smacks of anthropomorphism. We tend to take a sympathetic view that animals similar to ourselves, such as mammals, have a similar physiology to ourselves and therefore must feel the same we do about pain, distress and suffering. That's no great leap of imagination but to start making the same leaps with fish, is purely speculation. Humans and fish are so far removed from each other, to start using such words is living in Disneyworld. Unless we somehow succeed in communicating directly with fish, we'll simply never be able to make that kind of leap. In this day and age, we hear more and more that we should eat fish and as long as that message takes hold, more people will simply accept that fish are there for us to eat. It's widely accepted that we are omnivores. We were designed to eat animals but that doesn't mean we don't have to lose respect for them. Native American Indians understood that idea perfectly.

[Dick Dastardly]

I totally agree Andy but in this case as the title of the thread says "What if?"

[gozzer]

If I was presented with absolute proof that a fish did feel pain as we know it, then as I've said before, I wouldn't do it, unless maybe it was for the 'pot'.

 

 

Sorry Budgie but I've got to add that, despite reading several studies that seem to indicate that captive specimens are capable of this kind of feeling, my own experiences tell me otherwise. So it is going to take some very hard evidence to convince me to change my mind.

 

John.

[tincatinca]

Having thought long and hard about the questions, I would like to think that I would continue to fish as long as I could get away with it but out of personal choice, I would not kill any fish caught unless it was in such a state that it would be the humane thing to do or possibly if the prescence of a species in a given water was a great threat to the ecology of that water. I have no problem with people taking fish for the table but as I personally am not a great lover of eating fish then my initial response would be to return them to the water. If for any reason it became impossible to carry on in this way then I would probably stop fishing in the UK but would continue when possible through overseas trips. Hopefully I will never have to make these choices.

[Vagabond]

How would this work in regard to match fishing Dave?

 

Not being a matchfisher I hadn't given it any thought, but I'm sure they would take steps to look after their own interests!

 

Perhaps they would want a special dispensation (like they have for keepnets at many commercials), but if the same size, slot and bag limits applied to everyone without exception, match organisers would have to rethink the rules of engagement - any scheme that incorporated such limits would require a lot of stewards!

 

I honestly don't know enough about the current match scene to comment, but no doubt our match-fishing members will have something to say!

[Andy Macfarlane]

I totally agree Andy but in this case as the title of the thread says "What if?"

 

Then I'd say, nature designed me to eat animals, regardless of their feelings on the matter. Nature is a battle of fittest. In this battle, I win. Sorry to be blunt but I wasn't designed to live on plants and rocks.

As long as I can put a fish on dry land, I'll take this view. If enter their world and get eaten by a shark, that's the same battle, only the fish win, on their terms.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Andy Macfarlane