Hunting vs. Fishing

[duffgirl]

Oh look another uneducated anti!!

Off shore fishing brings millions of revenue into this country!

If you are going to ban hobby fisherman, you would have to ban professional off shore fisherman.

Why argue a point if you know nothing about it and just make silly uneducated snide remarks.

 

[redthing]

duffgirl - Sorry, but calling someone uneducated without knowing them is a bit snide in itself. Try to make your point without flying off the handle. Besides, Eagle's spelling and grammar seems to be a bit better than yours...

Also, if you check Eagle Day's previous posts, you'll notice that you're hurling insults at a fellow pro. D'oh!

 

[flying_change]

In the same way that fox hunting differs from killing animals for food, so sport fishing differs from fishing for food.

RS

 

[metalmare]

Duffgirl wasn't talking to eagle day - she was talking to monkey magic. Ignore the name at the top of the post - I never click on the specific person I am talking to, therefore my posts are always addressed to the previous poster, before me. But I am not neccessarily talking to them!

 

[flying_change]

Hmmm, that's a tad confusing.

Anyway, my comment *was* a reply to Duffgirl, specifically to the item "If you are going to ban hobby fisherman, you would have to ban professional off shore fisherman. "

RS

 

[metalmare]

But fishing for sport does still generate huge revenue! I can't remember how many people in this country fish but it's A LOT and fishing tackle is expensive, therefore fishing is a big money maker. But perhaps not on the great scale of money making things!!

 

[flying_change]

Maybe.

But my issue is that banning sport fishing does not automatically also require the banning of food fishing.

And I have the feeling that the amount of money involved in sport fishing is tiny compared to food fishing.

RS

 

[metalmare]

Yes, true. TBH, it would be a brave government that banned fishing because a ot of people in this country fish. They would be getting a lot of peoples' backs up! A lot more than they did with the hunting ban. But then, they went to war despite annoying most of the country so what wouldn't they do?

 

[KJI_Lover]

This argument has probably been raised before.

Anti's (at least some) argue that hunting is wrong as it's a sport (though some accept a pest control element). Now some may accept a fox has a sense of fear (as opposed to a natural instinct to run) so a plausible arguement could be made to ban hunting on these grounds. I don't agree and nor did Lord Burns from what i'm aware.

However i think this argument is fallicious with regard to fishing. Fish neither have sufficient brain capacity to fear their own mortality (borderline a fox does at best) and as i'm aware fish do not feel pain in the same sense we do. Therefore, humans fishing for sport i see no reason on grounds of cruelty to compare fishing with hunting.

Stiffens self for sub-GCSE level arguement to be torn to shreds.

 

[flying_change]

I never said that cruelty was my main objection to hunting.

RS

 

[metalmare]

Ace_of_spades - I said something very similar to you about fish feeling pain earlier in this post and got torn to shreds!

 

[severnmiles]

So what is your main objection RS?

 

[flying_change]

But you already know !

It's immoral to make a sport out of killing or harming animals.

And before anyone sayt things like... the fish feels less pain, is a lower animal than man, cannot feel fear.... it's the man fishing who has the mind that can be moral or immoral.

RS

 

[metalmare]

BUT here is the question - does fishing harm the animal? They get fed masses, protected from predators such as otters and cormorants, they get admired and shown respect (generally) when caught, and in my case they get bonjella put on any existing sores. Add to that the waters are usually clean and safe and pleasant. their chances of being caught are probably once every few months, if that? Probably less. they do admittedly get a little stressed but then swim off as if nothing ever happened to enjoy the luxury of being a 'stocky'.

Not a bad life for a creature such as a fish I don't think. Incidentally do you know just how valuable a carp of around 20lbs or more may be? Well, there are a hell of a lot of fish in the 4 and even 5 digit range in this country.

 

[duffgirl]

My point about being uneducated was merely inregards to this topic and the quote about fishing not bringing in revenue.

I work for the government so i know about revenues. My point was that the country relies heavily on fishing 'for food' as mentioned.

And if a ban on fishing came into effect purely from a cruelty to fish point of view, then how could they justify banning hobby fisherman and not sea fisherman. Surely all fish would then deserve to be free from 'cruelty' as opposed to just those hobby fisherman catch!

 

[flying_change]

"does fishing harm the animal?"

Maybe, maybe not.

But killing or harming animals for sport does harm humanity.

RS

 

[Eagle_day]

RS, so your objection to hunting is based on morality rather than any cruelty issues but what is the moral difference between killing animals for sport rather than food or clothing? I don't see one.

 

[flying_change]

"so your objection to hunting is based on morality"

That has been the basis of my objection as I have expressed here for the last 3 years or so.

"what is the moral difference between killing animals for sport rather than food or clothing"

I need to eat in order to stay alive. I dont need to chase animals for fun in order to stay alive. That's the moral difference.

RS

 

[Eagle_day]

You don't have to eat meat to stay alive. There is no moral difference.

 

[flying_change]

"You don't have to eat meat to stay alive." True, though medically speaking, humans have evolved as omnivors, meaning that meat is an important component of a natural diet. People who do not eat meat have to be careful for the components that they otherwise would miss. Since I have read time and time again posts from pro-hunters who tell us that killing is a normal part of nature, I do not have any problem with the idea of killing for food. Of course, I hope that the animals that I eat are kept in good conditions, treated well, and killed humanely.

However, there is definitly no need to kill for sport, and that's why it is morally wrong.

RS

 

[Eagle_day]

There's definately no need to kill for food; that's why it's morally equivalent to hunting.

 

[flying_change]

Good try.

Doesnt hold water though.

RS

 

[CARREG]

Good try....."Doesnt hold water though".....
Why doesnt it, you are prepared for animals to suffer for weeks if not months so you can stuff your face with their flesh because you ENJOY it, yet you call hunters immoral because they chasing the odd fox about for a few hours on a saturday because they ENJOY it....Hypocrite.............Carreg

 

[flying_change]

"chasing the odd fox about for a few hours"

I never did that for no reason.

RS

 

[flying_change]

By the way.

When I discuss things on here, I try to be polite. Or at least, not rude. If you dont want to show me the same courtesy, I wont much want to talk to you.

RS

 

[KJI_Lover]

TBH this is essentially a philosophical debate. Whether fishing is moral or immoral pertains only to the human not the fish - that has no concerns of that nature.

So to my mind if the fish isn't harmed and i severely doubt it is, there is no need for humans to add a layer of concerns on top of morality that the fish doesn't have itself.

Human constructs of morality or fear are not shared with all animals. It seems to me antis in a wider sense apply these human sensibilities to animals. I see no harm to humanity from fishing - morality is not an issue.

 

[flying_change]

So stealing money is morally OK because the cash has no sense of ownership ?

 

[KJI_Lover]

Nope but money isn't sentinent in even the remotest form.

Again money is in itself a man made construct. We own money so taking money is removing something another human owns - a violation of trust.

A fish isn't owned by anyone. It feels no sense of community to us. Shares no values we would recognise so to catch a fish for fun harms no humans. The fish cares not one way or another as it's beyond it's capacity to consider the human emotions of fear and pain.

They may display phsiological stressors, but being an intelligent bloke you know there is a world of difference between that and conception of 'self' required to experience pain or fear.

If we are willing to catch a fish to eat then our only reason not to catch for fun is human "morals". The fish feels the exactly the same whatever our reason for catching it.

Note in my original argument i never mentioned "ownership" as a by the by. Only we shouldn't put human concept of morality onto a creature not capable of feeling these emotions.

Since i'm not aware of a cruelty aspect then it's okay to fish for fun. It would make us less human if cruelty became the focus of the sport. Not that the fish would understand that concept. But as you said or at least implied it's the harm to society that matters and i agree that cruelty for crueltys sake would be a backward step.

So i still contend there is no moral reason not to catch fish for sport as i believe that sport fishing has cruelty aspect so is acceptable.

Sorry it's so long a reply. I lack the gift of sharp retorts.

 

[KJI_Lover]

Oh Good - no RS reply. I win by default :grin:

 

[flying_change]

No you dont.

RS's replies went the way of so many other in the Great Wednesday Crash.

But I'll repeat them for you.

RS