What if?

[Anderoo]

I see I'm in the minority of people who claim they'd stop fishing if it was made illegal. I wonder, though, how many would follow through and continue to fish if this actually happened...

 

To answer Budgie's next question (I wrote something similar in the keepnets topic), if it was proved to me absolutely that catching a fish caused it terrible physical pain, I wouldn't fish again. I don't think it does though (and there's been enough personal anecdotal evidence to convince me I'm right).

 

Why would I want to cause terrible pain to creatures that I claim to respect and admire? It would be like knocking birds out of trees with stones just to have a look at their feathers.

[Andy Macfarlane]

That doesn't make sense at all. So the Native Americans talk to 'the Bear' just to make themselves feel better about wearing it's skin were they? I think you'd find they'd have an awful lot to say about that.

[Anderoo]

That doesn't make sense at all. So the Native Americans talk to 'the Bear' just to make themselves feel better about wearing it's skin were they? I think you'd find they'd have an awful lot to say about that.

 

Sorry Andy, I don't follow?

 

We're talking about fishing for fun aren't we, not for food or any other resources.

[Andy Macfarlane]

You revere the fish you catch, yes? You take pictures of them, yes you do. You've just said as much in your perch report. You didn't eat that perch did you? So what are you doing if you aren't taking it for food or other resources. Explain to me why you'd catch a fish, take it's picture and then and you've answered you're own question.

[gozzer]

I think the difference is that if the fish felt pain like we do, then I would only hunt them if I had a need to, not for recreational purposes. If that was the case I would try to catch and despatch them as quickly and as humanely as possible, not impail them on a hook and play them.

It would be like putting a bait out for a cat or dog, with a hook attached and then waiting.

 

If it was a desperate situation, where it was, 'kill them or we starve', then I feel that any method would be justified.

 

John.

[Vagabond]

It seems our love of the sport would allow us to "feel we knew better" and carry on regardless of breaking the law.

 

There is a well-known cliche, often quoted by the self-righteous, that "Nobody is above the Law"

 

As Professor Joad would have said, "it depends upon what you mean by the Law"

 

Many here broke the law over the poll-tax issue. Justifiably, according to one political party.

 

Many loyal French people broke the laws of Vichy France. Justifiable, from the point of view of the Allies. The same in Norway against the Quisling government.

 

...and for those across the pond, the Boston Tea Party, "No taxation without representation" and all that.

 

If a law is unreasonable then I would submit "Everybody is above the Law"

 

As to your second question, Budgie my answer would be I would still fish for the pot, killing my intended meal as humanely as possible (as I do now) and returning (again, as humanely as possible, as I do now) anything that was "too small" "too big and valuable breeding stock" or "inedible species caught by accident" - much the same as my response to the ban on catch and release. The one difference would be that I would deliberately target edible fish so that any "accidental captures" would be genuine accidents.

 

As a meat eater, I know my prey would rather stay alive than provide my supper. That doesn't bother me at all. Predators have "rights" over prey - its the way nature works.

 

I have just had some cold pheasant for my lunch - what was left from the two roast pheasants, with stuffing, potatoes, and three other veggies, served on ashets at last night's family dinner.

They died quickly (the guy I get them from is a good shot) and relatively painlessly, but they did not die in vain.

[Anderoo]

You revere the fish you catch, yes? You take pictures of them, yes you do. You've just said as much in your perch report. You didn't eat that perch did you? So what are you doing if you aren't taking it for food or other resources. Explain to me why you'd catch a fish, take it's picture and then and you've answered you're own question.

 

Sorry, I'm lost now! I didn't think I'd asked a question. I fish because I have a natural compulsion to do so, because I love being in and exploring nature, and because it's challenging, difficult and (occasionally!) rewarding. I don't think my angling hurts fish (which is not the same as saying fish cannot experience pain, by the way). If it was a legal requirement to kill all fish caught, I would find loopholes to avoid that. If it was illegal to fish at all, I would take up wildlife photography. If it was proved to me that in fact my angling did cause fish pain, I'd stop. That's as plain as I can make it!

[tincatinca]

Rightly or wrongly, my own personal view would echo that of Anderoo and until such a time that it is conclusively proven otherwise will remain so.

[Andy Macfarlane]

Sorry, I'm lost now! I didn't think I'd asked a question.

 

Yes you did, that's what question marks are for. Besides, you answered me and that's all I asked for, so you did answer you're own question. If it satisfies you it satisfies me.

[gozzer]

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

 

If you put heat to a plant it will twist and wither, does it feel 'pain'?

 

Don't confuse 'pain' with instinctive reactions. I could cite plenty of examples I've witnessed that make me feel the way I do.

The one that springs to mind was a chub attacked by a pike. I was stood on a bridge feeding the shoal when a pike (about mid teens) attacked a chub of about 2lb. It caught it just behind the dorsal fin. The struggle was lost to me in a cloud of silt that was thrown up, but the chub somehow escaped and sped to the rest of the shoal, which scattered. After a few minutes the shoal came back together and started feeding on the free offerings I put in. This included the one with the large gaping wound between dorsal and tail. As I watched, it started to rise and take the bread off the surface with the other fish.

Try that on a dog and see if it feels like feeding 10mins after the event. (only joking, before the dog lovers unite against me).

This plus many incidents of repeat captures, and obviously injured fish being caught, have made my mind up over many years.

So my experiences have led me to more than just an assumption that fish don't feel 'pain'. It's up to others to prove to me that they do.

 

John.