- Apr 11, 2015
How is hooking a maggot, worm or slug really any different to hooking a small roach as a bait? You could argue that they are all live baits? Just a thought
I have only just begun with my answer commencing with live baiting is only banned in Scotland by "misguided" politicians. When people are faced with facts, they rarely want to continue listening, swiftly leaving in the belief their view is correct without any consideration they may be wrong.Ever considered a career in politics? You didn't answer the question
I'd ask you to check you maths first!I have been asked several times from non-anglers regarding cruelty to fish from anglers and angling. The question of live baiting ethics I begin with that I cannot speak on behalf of the misguided Scottish politicians who have banned the practice throughout the country. I then generally embark on lecturing the person/people starting from the beginning with fish spawn, fertilisation and predation, even prior to the fry hatching from other fish showing zero sentience to their fellow species. Numerically only 5% of a single spawning with an average of 20,000 eggs will survive to adulthood naturally. So 19,900 received no rights to life from the outset. I then move on to cannibalism of the predatory species that anglers target.
Most people get bored by now, so do I need to go on?
Honestly mate there's worse things out there then a fish chomping on a hook. I'm 24 and couldn't give a monkeys about other people of my generations views or ideas about most subjects. My views are my own and love fishing. Its the break away from work life and the wife and kids (pleased she won't see this) it's the stress relief and something to look forward to after weeks of constant work. But each to their own. If you want to go fishing get yourself fishing lad.Hi, I am 28 and I have been following this forum since my mid teens (under different names). I last went fishing about 5 years ago. Since university I started to feel guilty about hurting animals so stopped fishing and have flirted with vegetarianism and veganism since then. I still want to go back to those great times of my youth where fishing gave me so much happiness, but i've been influenced by so much stuff since then. I'll be honest and say that I am worried about being seen as a bad person for 'abusing animals'. I've began to hate the concept of 'using' animals in any form. Yet the spark for fishing never died; it was a part of my childhood.
Recently i've reached the point where I want to start fishing again. I still remember the thrill it gave me and nothing will ever remove that. I'm wrestling with the animal rights issues and fishing still though. A lot of you older gents (or ladies?) will say its all nonsense, but please look at it from the perspective of someone who is in their twenties and the kind of ideas that are commonly held among us nowadays. Can any of you help me with this?
And what was the answer?Philosophy, the science of providing answers to questions that dont exist
a mate of mine went to uni, when uni's were uni's not just a toss off before the idea of working for a living hits home
we met up in the pub to watch a band when he came back to town, he had a couple of his philosophical question asking friends with him
after about a half hour listening to thier bool sheet, I asked a question, it was
"Woulda smack in the mouth offend you ?"
Theres 100's of pictures on the net showing the purse ends of factory ship fishing trawlers netsI was thinking the same. I'm on the fence with live baiting to be honest.
Yes it gives the antis more ammo.
Even if the OP is a wind up, the lad clearly has an issue. This subject is good to be brought to the fore and should not be swept under the carpet as if it doesn't exist. From some of the contributions by others put on here, he should gain something from reading them. Indeed, we all should gain something from them. Open and sensible discussion is healthy.Read the first post, thought it was a wind up. Still not convinced it wasn't.
whattttt !!!! omg man ,your telling me nemo's not real ,damnIt's simple really, you either accept all the science that fish don't feel pain etc and continue fishing or you acceptt the disney ideals that fish all have names, families, have lessons etc and give up fishing.
Don't take it to heart mate, over the years I spoken out about things I believe are wrong within angling, and I've been called troll, anti, and many things that I wouldn't repeat on open forum because of it. It's just part and parcel of posting on line.Why would it seem like a wind up? Even after I clarified that it wasn't. I don't get how considering different perspectives constitutes a wind up.
why zanderI look at the issue from a few perspectives.
First is my experience over near 60 years of fishing. I catch fish that have terrible injuries caused by natural predators, avian and aquatic. Yet these fish are still feeding and acting as if there was nothing wrong. A similar injury in a mammal, particularly Homo Sapiens would have that animal prostrate with pain. When a hooked fish feels no pressure from the angler trying to land it it acts pefectly normally. No panic, no signs of distress and again, it still eats. We catch fish carrying hooks having broken off when hook previously.
This experience leads me to believe that fish do not feel pain as we would understand it.
Many predators eat fish. We cannot prevent that nor should we (except for cormorants and zander). We eat fish, many if not all fish are a source of food in the food chain. Whether we fish or not that will continue. But we do try and minimise any distress and loss of fish life by returning our catch alive and the use of "fish friendly" parts of our tackle.
People eat fish. Do they really care how those fish are caught and treated? Dragged out of the water with no free will about their capture. Dumped on the deck of a ship and then either left to die a slow death or gutted while alive. Compared to the care most anglers take with their catch most of the time the practice of trawling, drift netting and other commercial fishing methods are barbaric as weell as being non selective killing many other species in the process. Yet I am willing to bet that many who condemn us for fishing will happily eat their cod & chips on a Friday night without a thought of the treatment of their meal.
The fish we catch are not, in the main hunted. The fish have a free choice whether to take a bait or not, and most don't. Compare that to hunting where the prey has no option.
Many fish woukld not exist if it were not for being bred and stocked into waters. Anglers have, for decades, been the conservators of our waterways. We are guardians of the environment in a way that most non anglers are not. We have fought for maintained or improved habitats habitats, cleaner rivers, a better environment while most non anglers had no idea about such matters. But those people now benefit from our stewardship.
As an "animal lover" I have thought this matter through many times in 60 years and still come to the conclusion that I do little damage to, cause little distress to and kill few fish. Should we stop driving cars because of road kill? Man, as with many animals, has sought fish as a source of food for as long as we and the fish have existed side by side. Today angling is a development of that hunter gatherer instinct. But one that is, in the main, practiced as humanely as possible and IMHO causes no pain as I know it to our quarry.
P.S. I rarely eat fish.