Fishing.

[Ereiam_jh]

What you wrote was that people who fish are getting sport out of harming them. That's total and utter rubbish and you know it. Now you're unable to back up such a preposterous claim. It's as ridiculous as saying that horse riders indulge in an activity that harms horses because they enjoy making them suffer. It's nonsense.

Horse riders enjoy riding horses, fihermen enjoy catching fish, that's all there is to it. You Accuse people of getting plesasure from harming animals then you can't back it up. You should retract such offensive drivel.

 

[flying_change]

"fihermen enjoy catching fish"

Is the fish harmed, injured, or killed during this process ?

 

[Ereiam_jh]

In some cases yes,

If:

a) Fishermen enjoy catching fish

and

b) Catching fish causes them pain

does it follow that

c) Fishermen enjoy causing fish pain.

 

[flying_change]

Did I ever said that they did ?

It strikes me that you're really scraping the bottom of your barrel if you have to pretend that I've said something in order to make an argument against it.

By the way, 'yes' was the right answer.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I'm asking you a question RS and you're comming up with a load of stuff about scraping the bottom of the barrel so you don't have to answer it.

If:

a) Fishermen enjoy catching fish

and

b) Catching fish causes them pain

does it follow that

c) Fishermen enjoy causing fish pain.

If you don't want to answer why not just say so?

I think you implied fishing is people making a sport out of harming fish.

 

[flying_change]

Whereas you tend to pretend that I've said things and then argue against them.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

My impression was that you had said that coarse fishing was people making a sport out of harming fish and that was why you think it should be banned. Wasn't that what you said?

Can you answer my question? If not why not? I'm just curious that's all. If you can't or won't just say no and I'll stop asking.

If:

a) Fishermen enjoy catching fish

and

b) Catching fish causes them pain

does it follow that

c) Fishermen enjoy causing fish pain.

 

[flying_change]

'Coarse'... when did I say 'coarse' ? There you go, imagining things again. There's no discussion if my supposed words are really coming out of your head.

Not that I'm really bothered, you've answered the question that was important to me, after all.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

well from what I understand it's coarse fishing you disagree with. That's the type where the fish aren't for food but are put back. I made that assumption on the basis of you saying: "Yes, should be banned unless done in order to catch food. "

Can you answer my question RS? Think of it as a little riddle if you like.

If:

a) Fishermen enjoy catching fish

and

b) Catching fish causes them pain

does it follow that

c) Fishermen enjoy causing fish pain.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

What I find rather frustrating and disingenuous about you is that you refuse to debate your arguments. I've stated my interpretation of what it is you are saying then you accuse me of all sorts of unjustified things and refuse point blank to answer any of my questions.

If I have interpreted you wrong why don't you just correct me rather than posting in such a juvenille manner designed to stifle any debate?

From what I understand you are saying that fishing (not for food should be banned as it invoilves people making a sport out of harming fish. Isn't that your position?

 

[flying_change]

Well, as you've asked again, I'll answer your question. The answer is..... no.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

What that it isn't your position or to the a) b) c) question?

 

[flying_change]

It's the answer to your riddle. Items a) and b) are statements. The question is whether item c) is correct. My reply is 'no'. c) is not correct.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

Well the question is whether c follows from a and b being true.

So IF

a) fishermen make a sport out of catching fish
and
b) catching fish harms them

does it follow that

c) fishermen make a sport out of harming fish.

 

[flying_change]

Well you've gone one step further there old buddy and you're now answering your own posts and telling yourself that you find yourself frustrating and disingenuous.

But whatever....

Please dont think that I am unwilling to debate my arguments. What I dont care to debate is your incorrect extrapolations of them. Or, to put it another way, I dont wish to continually have to say 'that's not what I said'. I do try to make my statements in such a way that their meaning is clear, and they should not require interpretation. If you do wish to engage with my statements, concentrating on the meaning of the words that I do use will be of greater benefit than trying to read between the lines.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

mm I've just had a go at threaded mode, I never use that so some of my answers get jiggled up.

All I do is try and express what I understand you as saying in order to develop the debate. Plese see my next a) b) c) question if you want to continue.

 

[Fantasy_World]

Will you two stop arguing lol
Right back to the fishing in the case of coarse fishing yes imo it is a worthwhile sport due to the benefits that the countryside gains from the sport.
Rivers and lakes and ponds are policed by the river and waterway authorities. Much of the revenue that funds such checks is payed for from the licence fee that coarse and river fisherman pay.
Rivers and lakes are stocked with healthy fish.
These waterways which are primarily stocked with fishing in mind also benefit other wildlife who can use the fish as a source of food. eg herons, cormorants, otters, minks and other predatory fish, birds and wildlife.
Fisherpeople are in a constant look out for signs of pollution be it naturally ie dipping water levels and raised toxins in the water caused by lack of oxygen due to nitrites and raised temperatures. Or unnatural causes such as toxins escaped from commercial plants and industry.
Catching and releasing fish may seem unecessary to some but the process is actually very good for the fish. Catching, weighing, measuring and inspecting fish is an invaluable method of checking for disease, parasites, pollution, stunted growth etc.
Wild fish populations can be properly managed particularly if the reason for any decline is due to man eg pollution. You could argue that scientists are the people who do such research but it is from information gathered by people who fish which is invaluable.
Information which is given freely ie they are not paid for this like scientists are.
Also if there are concerns raised by people who fish in a particular stretch of water then the authorities can take time to investigate such matters.
Time is therefore managed very well and not wasted. Time = money and besides those that fish who else pays for such research? the public? companies ?
Both most probably and in the case of industries and companies we as the public are still funding it as we are being charged via their products.
Therefore any costs that can be saved by diligent fisherpeople not only makes sense but it makes financial sense too.
Fishing also provides revenue in this country.
Tackle, and shops provide employment. Tackle manufactures provide jobs. Equipment hire shops such as tackle, boats etc again the same.
Companies that provide bait materials such as boilees, worm farms etc all provide jobs and revenue.
The list is endless and I have not even mentioned sea fishing which in the case of certainly the west country, wales and the south provide added interest and tourism.
Take a look at the harbour next time you visit one of these places and count how many boats there are to charter for fishing?
Sea fishing provides jobs, via equipment, wormeries, bait suppliers etc and boats to hire.
Tag and release which is becoming commonplace amongst boat fishing is a great idea and is one which I very much welcome being an environmentalist myself.
Some fish species which are caught by rod and line are measured, weighed and checked over before being tagged and then released.
When that fish is again caught be it around the uk or in its surrounding waters information is then taken and supplied to DEFRA

here are some details about tag and release
Cefas (Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science) and other European scientists tag fish in experiments to record migratory behaviour, growth and fishing catch rates.
Most of the commercial species have been subject to tagging on all of the major fishing grounds, so there is always the chance of finding a tagged fish wherever you are fishing.

Types of Tag

A whole range of tags are used from simple button "Petersen" discs to different types of electronic tags. Although conventional tagging experiments can give us a lot of information they can only tell us about the location of the fish at the time of release and recapture. Data Storage Tags (DSTs) are electronic tags which record and store detailed depth, light and temperature information that can be used to reconstruct the movements of the fish between release and recapture in addition to shedding light on behavioural characteristics. Satellite and acoustic tags are also utilised to track movements of fish.

Current tagging programmes

1. Population dynamics of basking sharks in UK waters.
2. Tagging of bass in waters around England, Wales and Ireland.
3. Movements of thornback rays in the Thames estuary.
4. Migration, distribution and spatial dynamics of plaice, and sole in the North Sea and adjacent areas.
5. Dispersal behaviour of North Sea cod.

Reward

Reward payment from Cefas of £6 for conventional tags and £25 for data storage tags, plus the market value of the fish and any postage incurred.
1. For DSTs an additional £25 is paid for the return of the carcass.
2. For the return of data storage tags entry into the Cefas annual lottery draw for the chance to win a further £1000.
3. Details of the release.

Return of Tag

Please return the tag, and if possible the fish, with details of where and when caught:

Preferably your local Defra Marine Fisheries Agency (MFA) office
or complete a pdf form which can be downloaded from www.cefas.co.uk/fishtagreturns/default.htm and send with the tag to Cefas Lowestoft Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK

 

[Tempi]

i take it all the 'anti fishing' people are vegetarians then and dont eat fish either (some vegetarians do before anyone jumps down my throat at that)

 

[maxebraith]

My fella is a v keen fisherman and i have told him countless times if they can ban hunting fishing will be next but hes having none of it. The only thing that will keep fishing going is the fact that a lot more famous people do it.

 

[metalmare]

There is actually NO proof as yet that fish feel pain - scientists are still debating whether the relevant parts of their brain are large enough. We do however know that fish feel stress (as anyone who keepd them in a tank will vouch for). But I think this is far outweighed by the fact that any one fish very rarely leaves the water (don't underestimate how many fish live in a lake) and that they are very well cared for, protected from cormorants, fed, etc. The vast majority of fishermen treat their catch with great respect. Many people keep bonjella which they apply to non-fishing related wounds. This clears up infections. Many fisheries are also retreats for endangered species such as water voles.

Yes there are a handful of fish that get damaged amongst the many thousands that an individual person catches. Yes there are a few fishermen who do give the sport a bad name. Btu I suspect that most people who think fishing is cruel have never spent a day on the river bank.

 

[flying_change]

You could make many of the same points about training gladiators for the Roman Coliseum or breeding bulls for the Spanish bullrings.

 

[moocow]

Gladiators were human beings, often slaves and a direct comparison cannot be made with a fish!

Bulls are mammals and have a higher developed nervous system so the suffering of a bull in a bull ring is not comparable to a fish being pierced by a hook. Fish have been shown to feel pain but as the pain receptors are not as developed as higher evolved organisms it is not the same

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm

Bacteria respond to stimuli so does that mean I should be anesthetising all the bacteria I work with before I sterilise anything?

Someone else posted the question "do you ride horses?" do you do that for fun? Well you are exposing your horse to dangers that a wild horse would never be exposed to and you do it for fun.

Worms respond to stimuli so does that mean you can't worm your horse as you are inflicting pain and death on lets face it millions of creatures every year?

If your horse gets ill do you call a vet? Well every product and treatment that your vet performs on your horse has been rigourously tested on animals for years before it gets licenced and by the way, all the animals used are sacrificed and incinerated following the experiements. Basically so we can have healthy animals for our enjoyment

We are human and we are omnivores. We eat fish and meat. We have been hunter gatherers since humans evolved
Fishing with a rod and line and killing for the table with a smack on the head is quick and humane and a hell of a lot more humane than trawling or net fishing but again, we are fishing for food.

People enjoy fishing and catching their dinner as its a through back to a simpler time. The same satisfaction people get from growing and eating their own veg. A fish hook is a piercing it is not a major injury and if correctly removed, will not cause the fish any harm. If the fish is released immediately then stress is kept to a min. and the fish can grow up to reproduce and be caught for the table when its a suitable size.

Think about these things the next time your dose your horse, or the next time you load him/her to go to a show. You do that for fun!

 

[flying_change]

My point being that you can take aspects of an activity and make positive statements about them, even though the activity is bad / undesirable / immoral / harmful.....

 

[moocow]

yes you can. in other words there are positives and negatives to most things in life it just depends on your view point.

So why have such a drive to impose your anti hunting view point on those that have a different view?

I fail to see why it appears impossible to accept that some people are pro and some people are anti and thats just that.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

No that's wrong one should decide whether an activity is bad by weighing up the good and the bad points about it.

You seem to be taking an absolutist point of view by saying that because people enjoy it and it causes harm to animals it must be immoral.

 

[flying_change]

"So why have such a drive to impose your anti hunting view point on those that have a different view?"

The opening post on this thread asks for people's opinions and whether it should be banned. I'm giving and explaining my opinion.

 

[flying_change]

No that's wrong one should decide whether an activity is bad by weighing up the good and the bad points about it.

If that's how you wish to form your opinions and beliefs, that's up to you.

You seem to be taking an absolutist point of view by saying that because people enjoy it and it causes harm to animals it must be immoral.

In a way. I'm saying that I dont think the positives outweigh the immorality. If we want, we can have the benefits of the positives without the immorality.

 

[moocow]

I work in research, some of my work, although i don't directly do animal work, harms animals. Am I immoral?

if i am, the development of a single vaccine for worms rather than regular worm doses is immoral?

 

[smilincow21]

"The opening post on this thread asks for people's opinions and whether it should be banned. I'm giving and explaining my opinion."
From what I have read on your posts, flying change, yes you have gave your opinion that you disagree with fishing,but you have failed to explain your opinion!

 

[nickcordery]

Anglers and other country sports people do far more conservation work,with benefits both to the environment and other species than a lot of those opposed to their activities. They will manage the countryside to encourage the sustainability of their prey species.