# An article on the animal rights threat to angling



## Peril

http://www.freshwateranglers.com.au/Ado ... Rights.pdf

The article makes clear the distinction between conservation based threats and animal rights based threats. For example, C&R is good for conservation, but so is banning fishing. C&R is antithetical to the animal rights groups and is likely to be a battleground in the coming decade. It is already banned in Germany


----------



## PeterJ

Yep , Peril .

makes for interesting reading










Sorta throws the catch and release argument straight out the window


----------



## hairymick

Heya Pete,

That is a bloody classic, coming from a nation that allmost singlehandedly wiped out 6 million Jews and other untermensch in the 30s & 40s.

I just wish these animal rights activist maggots would get a life or perhaps, even a, gasp, job and leave the rest of us to get on with ours.


----------



## justcrusin

Good post Peril

*EVERYONE* of our members should read the above link in your post

What if we start to answer these questions now ourselves if we can get at least half the forum to respond that would be a good cross section of Australia wide anglers views.

QUOTE "In articles and essays by many animal rights campaigners the writers donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t ask Ã¢â‚¬Ëœwhy should anglers be allowed to fish?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ but rather, Ã¢â‚¬Ëœwhy do anglers think they should be allowed to fish?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢." END QUOTE

After reading the article the question we should all answer is:

*WHY DO ANGLERS THINK THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FISH?*

I'll start it off my answer:

Fish are a stable part of the human diet as we are carnovores and consume meat to live as do many other animals in the wild. In the food chain we are the top predators, using our skills and itellegance to outsmart our prey. The fact that we are a society based animal research shows that this increases our brain capacity and that has a consciousness (spelling) level above other animals simply means we are at the top of the chain.

Can we be killed by other predators. yes of course big cats, crocodiles, sharks and many other animals can kill and consume us as part of the food chain.

Fish and what we call recreational fishers are simply hunting for food as carnivores all over the world do in the wild. We enjoy hunting for our food because when it all boils down we are animals to and it's in our instinicts to hunt.

Cheers Dave


----------



## hairymick

Heya Dave,

While I agree with what you have said, with respect mate, I think you have missed the point.

As I see it, the point is this.

[/quote]WHY DO ANGLERS THINK THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FISH? 


> The question in itself is offensive.
> 
> Who do these parasites think they are?
> 
> How dare they even ask such a question?
> 
> Who appointed these people as the guardians of anything, let alone gave them the authority to impose their minority will on the rest of us.
> 
> Be very clear on this. Fishing is a right of us all. It is not a privelidge to be bestowed upon us (or withdrawn for that matter) least of all by these self appointed guardians of what is good and rightious and what is not.
> 
> If I do nothing else in my lifetime. I really, really want to look one of these maggots in the eye, up close while they attempt to justify their outragious stance on this.
> 
> I will not validate their BS question with a response. it is their question, let them justify making it.


----------



## Jake

hairymick said:


> That is a bloody classic, coming from a nation that allmost singlehandedly wiped out 6 million Jews and other untermensch in the 30s & 40s.


A trifle harsh there Mick I should think. Im sure they have changed their ways a little since then.

Also, Im not entirely sure I disagree with the point they are making. Now I love a good C&R, only last month I posted a fishing report when I caught about a dozen Bass in 2 days on 2 different stocked impoundments. You may recall I mentioned in my posting then that I mentioned crushing the barb on my spinnerbait. This was the result of the damage that I was doing to the Bass.

I found that every second Bass I caught had the hook through an eye, sometimes I struggled to remove this hook due to the barb so I crushed it to make it easier. 
Still the hooks were going into their eyes. I have no idea why this was so, but it was rather distressing I can tell you. I usually only fish for a feed, and many times come home empty handed, not usually fishing for Bass.

So, we can get all uppity about the greenies and the lefty pinkos that apparently dont have jobs - because you cant possibly hold down a job and care about animals - but there are definitely 2 sides to the story and it wont do anybody any good if we start name calling.

I say all this with all due respect Mick, as you are a most admired member of this forum, and no doubt have much more extensive knowledge of yaks and fishing than me, but mate, try ripping a hook out of the eye of a native Bass, time after time, and tell me you dont feel something for them.

Personally I am going to stick with salt water mainly now because of this, really whats the point if you are not after a feed?

Cheers,
Jake


----------



## andybear

Well.....I read it and I take it on board that we have a serious problem looming. It worries me that I cannot even answer the questions, even the "why do you think that....."? Perhaps we can put it down as a culture thing, or a birthright perhaps... I dont know. In reality, the only birthright my ancestors ever had was now here is your great chance to go and die for your king! and no, you cant have any of the kings land, so sod off and die!

A few years ago, I cut up my guns... and that really hurt, but I will not do the same to my fishing gear. I just hope there is something in the constitution that gives us some rights.

Thanks for the heads up anyway......but we do need a bold and cunning plan

Cheers all Andybear :?


----------



## hairymick

Hi Jake,

mate I call a spade a spade.

re the harshness thing, perhaps. However it does seem somewhat hypocritical to me that Germany now sees fit to care so much about what happens to fish.

Perhaps the few survivors of such places as Buchenwald or Auschwitse (spelling) and countless others would be more qualified to pass judgement on this. Time passed does not make it acceptable IMHO.

Your sarcasm is not lost, neither is it without some merrit and I will concede the point that some of these peta types hold jobs. However nothing gives them the right to try to inflict their values and morals on everyone else. They don't have the exclusive right to care about animals.

As for name calling, mate, I am only just getting wound up 

It would seem that they have allready achieved one of their initial goals, to divide us and start us squabbling amongst ourselves. Man they are slick.


----------



## Dodge

hairymick said:


> It would seem that they have allready achieved one of their initial goals, to divide us and start us squabbling amongst ourselves. Man they are slick.


Mick

I don't think they have caused division among us, and will not in the future; there have always been differing points of view on this subject within the forum, but we all remain keen kayak anglers and practice our individual beliefs regardless of other opinions in the green quarter.

My own angling has been a mix of C&R and Catch and Fillet for some years and will remain that way


----------



## JD

This is a very hard topic to address. I'm into the crushed bards, keeping the fish in the water if possible, no net, only keeping what I want to eat, but really what arguement do I have. It's a sport, it would be interesting if golf balls had feelings! I used to do a bit of shooting, no catch and release there. Guess I outgrew that. Of course if there was no rec/fishing would there be stocking of all our impoundments? So is it ok to catch and release fish that were only bred for that purpose? Today I caught and released around 14 nice healthy bass. As far as I know they're all still ok. I think one smiled, but maybe not. If C&R is banned, do we join the Kill-em & grill-em crowd. Ah! to much for Xmas eve.

Merry Xmas to all.


----------



## Peril

JD said:


> This is a very hard topic to address. I'm into the crushed bards, keeping the fish in the water if possible, no net, only keeping what I want to eat, but really what arguement do I have. It's a sport, it would be interesting if golf balls had feelings! I used to do a bit of shooting, no catch and release there. Guess I outgrew that. Of course if there was no rec/fishing would there be stocking of all our impoundments? So is it ok to catch and release fish that were only bred for that purpose? Today I caught and released around 14 nice healthy bass. As far as I know they're all still ok. I think one smiled, but maybe not. If C&R is banned, do we join the Kill-em & grill-em crowd. Ah! to much for Xmas eve.
> 
> Merry Xmas to all.


JD, stocking is irrelevant to the animal rightists. Their argument is that animals have fundamental inalienable rights that humans, as sentient beings, are bound to honour. They don't distinguish between wild fish and stocked impoundment fish.

Yes, their first position is that C&R is cruelty without reason, so should be stopped first. But it is a mistake to stop there because their fundamental belief is that it is wrong to kill to eat. If they win the C&R argument they will simply move on the restrict the means by which creatures can be killed for food.

They need to be challenged at the base of their beliefs. Animals cannot have inalienable rights because it is only possible for humans to accord them rights. Why should we do so?


----------



## JD

Yeah Peril, I agree, but it's always the same, we, the fishos, tend to wait to see what happens. While the greens, always seem to be active and talking in someones ear. As I've read there is talk of closing a lot of our Moreton Bay, and I know there has been some action and petitions but then it all dies away. Not that I'm any different to most. Guess this forum keeps us thinking.


----------



## Jake

Dodge said:


> I don't think they have caused division among us, and will not in the future; there have always been differing points of view on this subject within the forum


Well said Richo. No divisions here as far as Im concerned. I just have a different opinion. 
As a self-confessed "greeny" you must realise that I took up kayaking because it IS green, I didnt want a stinkboat with its 2-stroke fumes and all that.
I fish from the yak as a recreation and with the chance of obtaining a nice feed now and then. And I do release a lot of fish in the process.

[EDIT] And I have to add that I am actually trying to justify C&R to myself at the moment, which is hard becasue I enjoy it so much, but see no point in blinding all the Bass in Lake Baroon.

Anyway, Peril has a point but I think there is a lot of paranoia being fostered on some websites, particularly in regard to the apparent imminent closure of Moreton Bay. It is not about to happen - that is MY opinion. I could be wrong, but there you go.
Unfortunately if you dont agree with the masses on Ausfish then you are not really welcome to discuss it. I cant recall too many pleasant conversations there about it.
Its a good thing AKFFers are not like that lot.

And Mick, there is nothing, absolutely nothing in modern times that can be compared to what happened in WW2. It really isnt a fair argument, and to try and draw parallels belittles the atrocities, in my mind.

Kindest regards to you all for the festive season. 
(Im stuck at work but in port which is better than out in a cyclone.)

Jake


----------



## justcrusin

Guys i think the authors point is that this is just what we would do instead of taking a step by step approach to stopping these activists in there tracks.

I don't believe the author of the article supports them but I was feeling if we started with all of answering the question to give us some direction. If it turns out the activist movement is a farce then so be we are just enlightened for ourselves if not then we may be taking the first steps to understand our members point of view and be able to stop them or at least put up decent fight.

Cheers Dave


----------



## Red Herring

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not to sure what fishing holds for the rest of you but for myself itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a past-time that allows me to connect with the environment and put things back into perspective when life gets tough. Having grown up with fishing IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve learnt to respect the effects my actions have and I try to minimize any impacts. In-fact, respecting the environment has defined my career path. So with the Animal Rights Lobby wanting to ban fishing on the grounds of cruelty I have to ask Ã¢â‚¬Å"what effect will this have on the next generation of kids already spending too much time in front of the TV?Ã¢â‚¬


----------



## Peril

Red Herring said:


> IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not to sure what fishing holds for the rest of you but for myself itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a past-time that allows me to connect with the environment and put things back into perspective when life gets tough. Having grown up with fishing IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve learnt to respect the effects my actions have and I try to minimize any impacts. In-fact, respecting the environment has defined my career path. So with the Animal Rights Lobby wanting to ban fishing on the grounds of cruelty I have to ask Ã¢â‚¬Å"what effect will this have on the next generation of kids already spending too much time in front of the TV?Ã¢â‚¬


----------



## Jake

Peril said:


> It is pointless to talk of logic...Remember, everytime you support them on matters like mulesing, live animal export, fur/leather, battery hens, intensive pork farming you are making them stronger and increasing their credibility with the wider public. Thus you are hastening an end to our sport.


Dave, if this is your "logic" then it is deeply flawed. I understand what you are saying, but I am dead set against some of these things, particularly battery hens. But I am not about to NOT support the abolition of battery hens just so I can keep C&R fishing.
I fail to see any tangible logical argument there or indeed connection between the two issues, and feel that emotion is too often getting ine the way of commen sense when people start talking about their "rights".

No doubt PETA (and Im not a member in case you are wondering) etc appeal to people's emotions when rallying support, but the emotional rantings of the I-fish-and-I-vote crowd is at times bordering on fanatical.

YES, I believe we should have the right to fish. But NO I dont believe we should have the right to aimlessly harm and mutilate animals for no signifcant reason.
Unfortunately there are too many people who, when practising C&R, dont actually give the fish a terribly good chance of survival. Just because it swims away does not mean it will live. And Lip Grippers are one of the worst offenders, although I am sure they are almost always wielded with good intentions.

I think this is good healthy debate by the way!

Cheers,
Jake


----------



## Peril

Jake said:


> Peril said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is pointless to talk of logic...Remember, everytime you support them on matters like mulesing, live animal export, fur/leather, battery hens, intensive pork farming you are making them stronger and increasing their credibility with the wider public. Thus you are hastening an end to our sport.
> 
> 
> 
> Dave, if this is your "logic" then it is deeply flawed. I understand what you are saying, but I am dead set against some of these things, particularly battery hens. But I am not about to NOT support the abolition of battery hens just so I can keep C&R fishing.
> I fail to see any tangible logical argument there or indeed connection between the two issues, and feel that emotion is too often getting ine the way of commen sense when people start talking about their "rights".
Click to expand...

Jake, I think you've missed my point here. It is in no way about logic. PETA and their cohorts never make logical appeals. They only make emotional appeals. They are strong and getting stronger. Just look at the coverage they get in the mainstream press. Their strategy is to build credibility to increase their leverage in the press and their funding. As they get stronger they take on more issues. They do not just find single issues of possible cruelty and try to rectify. They have an agenda to impose animal rights on us all and pick issues that are designed to succeed and further their agenda. It is a mistake not to see the connections.


----------



## hairymick

> As an example of what we're up against, one of the godfathers of the animal rights movement, Tom Regan, was asked in 1989 which he would save if a boat capsized in the ocean: a dog or a baby. He replied "if it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog" (Q&A session following a speech entitled "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs" at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, 27/10/89)


If that is not a statement from a maggot, then I don't know what is.


----------



## hairymick

Not you Dave  sorry.

Merry Christmas guys.


----------



## Peril

Jake, I'm not saying you shouldn't support the causes in which you believe, just because you want to fish. What I am saying is that we all should think carefully about our fellow travellers when we do support causes. I'm sure from your comments above that you would not consider working with the National Socialists in promoting any cause, even if you were on the same side. In the same vein, I could not countenance working with PETA


----------



## hairymick

heya Jake,

Another point that might be worth considering is that you have made a choice not to target bass because of damage you may be doing to them in the C&R process. That is definately your right and I commend you for it.

The difference between you and these others is that while you have made a decision not to pursue a practice that you feel you can't justify you still are making no attempt to impose your values and beliefs on others.

These zealots, as Dave calls them, are something else entirely. While I respect their right to their beliefs and values, what I cannot abide is their single minded determination to impose those beliefs and values on the rest of us.

Some of us fish for food, some fish for sport and some fish for relief from the ever mounting pressures of daily life. I suspect most of us fish for a combination of all three.

Most kayak anglers are keen conservationists in their own right. I have seen no posts of massive fish kills by kayak anglers here or in any other kayak fishing forum for that matter. Compare that to some of the posts in the mainstream fishing forums. I think you may well be preaching to the pretty much converted. 

peta and other like minded groups are at least subversive organisations.. Granted, many members may well be well meaning and their intentions honourable. The driving forces behind them are not however IMHO, and I suspect may be pursueing an agender other than what is espoused in their stated lofty ideals.

My point is that these groups have no more right to impose their values on us than Christians or Muslims have the right to impose their beliefs on 
not believers.


----------



## Guest

I'm with Jake on this one I think, in more ways than one. I too am a self-confessed conservationist and try to be fairly contientious about what I eat and where it comes from. Thats one of the very reasons I fish as much as I do. I don't like the term 'green' though, because like the term 'gay', it has taken on new meaning. In the same way that being gay no longer means being happy and jovial, being green no longer means caring about the environment. Now it means you're a pot-smokin, tree huggin catweasel with nothing but a doll check and socially extreme ideals. And the sad part of that is that greens have only themselves to thank for that perception, by allowing their ranks to be populated and aligned by libbo extremists. That's precisely why so many people can't bring themselves to vote for the greens. Their credibility falls down as soon as that hint of extremism is sniffed. Someone previously said here the greens are highly organized. I beg to differ: if they were so highly organized, they'd be far more politically advanced than the major opposition. To date, the disorganisation of the greens has been their achilles heel, and likely will be for some time to come.

In any case, I see the real clash of ideologies being between rec fishoes and groups like PETA. Not the greens per se. I've cornered a lot of green reps and asked about their policies and intentions to ban rec fishing, and it's always news to them. Bob Brown is a trout fisherman even.

As for the C&R thing, animal libbos should be damned happy the 'art' is practiced, because in my experience, C&R anglers are far better at returning fish to the water relatively unharmed (the C&R guys I know are fanatical about this). C&R angler or not, this is an art worth continuing, because all of us are C&R fishoes on most occaissions, by law. Undersized or untargeted fish go straight back, after all.

I'm cool with C&R... but admittedly, if I wasn't going out with the intention of a rewarding feed at the end of it, I'd probably just go out without the rods. I do understand the logic behind the libbo stance on this, and tend to agree. Be that as it may, I return far more fish than I keep, and I'm greatful for the experiences I've had fishing alongeside C&R guys.


----------



## bazzoo

i believe you are 100% on the ball fifth, i found myself reading your post and nodding in agreement. Its a difficult line to walk , between c and r and keep ,or not fish at all, i dont for one minute believe that the non fishing option should be on the table, but unfortunately a lot of people do, i am in a position where i release ALL fish caught regardless of size , and i would be happy to spend more of the hard earned if i thought a new piece of equipment would guarantee 100% of fish released would live. , it sounds incredible , but a lot of people are inclined to" humanise" our animal and fish friends and endow them with human feelings and emotions and nervous systems, this is the zealot line that claims we are inflicting great pain on the species, i dont believe this is correct, and carried to its zenith would see us protecting flys mosquitos and cockroaches and all living creatures, unfortunately i am not smart enough to know the answers , but will continue to fish and catch and release in as humane a manner as possible, only taking a fish if i feel it is badly hurt , and will not survive, hence i fish only with artificials and never use live bait


----------



## Peril

5/11 and bazzoo, I'm sorry but the point is not whether C&R is a good thing from a conservation perspective. The challenge we will face has nothing to do with conservation. The animal rightists simply make the claim that C&R is cruelty for no reason other than our amusement. If we respond to this by talking about methods of C&R or success rates we will lose the argument and C&R will be banned.



> In June 2005 a private members bill was introduced into the Australian Parliament by Senator Andrew Bartlett of the Democrats. Titled the Ã¢â‚¬ËœNational Animal Welfare Bill 2005Ã¢â‚¬â„¢, it stated that one of the
> purposes of the Act would be following:
> Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ(b) provide standards for the care and use of animals that...
> (ii) prohibit the capture and killing of wild animals for the purpose of entertainment or sport;Ã¢â‚¬â„¢
> The bill was referred to a Senate committee for further consideration. If such a bill became legislation, it would effectively ban recreational fishing.


The animal rightists hate that we catch fish. They say that it is both cruel and an unnecessary breach of the fish's right to live without harassment from us. They say that all animals enjoy such rights as much as we do.

This is a serious threat. I was talking to someone last night about fishing and she was convinced that fish feel pain. She also thought that trees feel pain and got confused when I pointed out the carnage her horses were causing the grass. The point is that there are very many people out there who are easily persuaded that we are cruel to fish. PETA and co will also argue that they have nothing personal to gain from opposing fishing (they are merely doing the right thing) while our claim that fishing is not cruel is borne entirely out of self interest. How will you respond?

If we keep missing their point we will lose our right to fish.


----------



## Guest

Well Dave, when I read those policies you've highlighted there, I'm no where near as alarmed as you are. I tend to take those words for what they mean, as opposed to what they might mean. I agree that this policy is open to interpretation and I do get your point. We definitely don't see eye to eye on that though.



> The challenge we will face has nothing to do with conservation.


Some would argue that this has everything to do with conservation. Prohibiting capturing and killing of animals for whatever reason is, after all, an attempt at conserving life.



> (b) provide standards for the care and use of animals that...
> (ii) prohibit the capture and killing of wild animals for the purpose of entertainment or sport;Ã¢â‚¬â„¢


As I said, I'm not of the C&R fold, although I do respect the practice. But the reason I'm not a C&R guy is that I actually agree that catching fish simply for fun is probably a form of cruelty, if not harassment. Call me a tree-hugger if you want to, but I'm not at all convinced that fish don't feel pain. Every single fish I've ever caught acted like it was hurting and had no intention of going quietly... but lets debate that one another time. My point being, that I wouldn't mind seeing some standards introduced to make people aware that there is a right and a wrong way to go about fishing. I was reminded of this recently when looking at the Vic rec fishing guidebook. There's a photo of the minister responsable for rec fishing with his daughter holding a baby trout in just such a way as to reduce it chances of survival if released. And this fish wasn't table sized either, so it left me thinking that instead of having a 'minister responsable for rec fishing' what we need is a 'minister for responsable rec fishing'.

I'm not a buddhist. I believe life feeds of life, so I have no problem eating meat (always aiming for free range or bio-dynamic produce) and love eating fish. I don't think catching a fish for a feed is morally bad anymore than a bear catching a fish is. I also do a bit of bowhunting for time to time (only ever targeting rabbits). This is the way it should be and that's where I differ from groups like PETA. I'd prefer to see more people catching and hunting their meat instead of consuming the factory farmed shit that magically appears on supermarket shelves. PETA would rather us all eating mung beans instead and that is both ideologically and even logistically ridiculous.

Being a bit of a conservationist at heart though, I do actually agree with many things that the greens stand for and even some things that PETA stand for. I'm not the same as these people ideologically, but I do have an aversion to injustice and cruelty. And thats why although I'm not the kind of guy who does the C&R thing, I have the upmost respect for the ones I know that do. I might not agree with what they're doing, but I can't ignore that they are at least doing what they do in a highly responsable fashion.

As for the threats to the legality of recreation fishing, I honestly think you're giving way to much respect to the political clout of these guys. Going against the might of corporations, what hope do you think they have of winning hearts and minds of our political leaders?

The recreation fishing industry is massive. From retailers to tourism, media and more. There is no way this industry is going to collectively lie down for the death of rec fishing for the benefit of rabid animal libbo groups. Any political group trying to hammer home such a draconian policies would be commiting eternal political suicide. It's just not going to happen.


----------



## justcrusin

Gday Guys 
Thought i'd just try to summaries some of the points so far to give us some perspective. There have been some very good points rasied so far that will enable us to start formulating a response.

I know everyone won't agree 100% with this but i am trying to take everyone's points and put them together:

* kayak fisherman care about the enviromnent and support C & R
* Kayak fisherman started in the sport to get closer to nature 
* The organisation trying to ban rec fishing are enviromental extremists and are hypocritical in some points
* The organisation doesn't believe in C & R as they perceive this as torture
* The organisations final goal is for fishing to be banned all together
* Fish are part of the natural food chain for all animals including humans

Some points weve touched on that could help:

* C and R is current government policy and for undersized and some oversized fish is law.
* Fishing in this country is a huge boost for the economy. Millons of Austrailans are employed by fishing related jobs from Hospitality accomodation providers and resturants / markets, Fishing supplies and supply manafacturers, boat manafacturers and sales, Fishing tours and guides
* Rec fishing is enjoyed by a huge populas of Australia including politicians and famous identities.

Lets not forget:

* That sir walter grass wish's it had legs to run away from munching horses :lol:

I hope that provides some clarity so this healthy debate can continue.

Cheers Dave


----------



## Dodge

Peril said:


> If we respond to this by talking about methods of C&R or success rates we will lose the argument and C&R will be banned.
> 
> If we keep missing their point we will lose our right to fish.


Dave I believe your are right on the money here..C&R is not the issue with those opposed to fishing as they totally oppose it... fullstop, whereas eating of fish they find difficult to argue against because they don't detect a torment factor involved.

I feel to protect our sport we have to fight their arguments from their perspective [with any flawed points of view] and show that responsible anglers are also interested in conservation as much as they are


----------



## justcrusin

Guys to give you some idea of what were up against i wen to peta'a fishing website http://www.fishinghurts.com
These people are fanatical in there FAQ section there are questions answered on c&r and the fact attack the fact that Jesus ate fish in the bible so they really arn't scared who they take on.
http://www.fishinghurts.com/FAQ.asp
Have a look there arguements are only logical from a certain point of view but they are definalty organised.

Cheers Dave


----------



## andybear

Yeah, like trawling and siene netting and long lines dont hurt fish either, especially since we started dumping lignocaine into the oceans, so that nothin' cant feel nothin' anymore......
No seriously, I intend to go on taking my six or seven fish a year, and doing it the way I do it. I feel that I'm not going to get any greener than I am, but I will try to eat more fish..... so that I can justify it. I must admit however, the concept of fishing being both amusing and entertaining, had never entered my head. Perhaps it is a normal *instinct *for our human condition, which will breed out in about 4000 years? That timeframe should suit us all quite nicely.

Cheers all Andybear :lol:


----------



## Scott

Personally I am not too concerned by these anti fishing fruitcakes. They have been trying to ban game fishing for over 20 years and live baiting for the same amount of time. As long as all amateur fisherman stick together and are not divided into meat and sports fishing groups we will be OK in this country. Think of how many recreational anglers there are in Australia. Do you really think either Labour or Liberal will ever have enough of a majority to alienate a couple of million recreational anglers?

I also consider myself an environmentalist. This is why I practice not just C&R but sustainable fishing in general by targeting fish species and sizes for consumption that can best handle the angling pressure. I also attempt to not target them as much as possible while breeding.

Jake if you want to C&R bass, use medium size HB's with the barbs squashed. You will injure less than 1 in every couple of hundred fish. I only ever had to kill one bass out of many thousand caught and released during all of my time bass fishing the Hawkesbury and Nepean systems.

Catch ya Scott


----------



## Jake

Scott said:


> Jake if you want to C&R bass, use medium size HB's with the barbs squashed. You will injure less than 1 in every couple of hundred fish. I only ever had to kill one bass out of many thousand caught and released during all of my time bass fishing the Hawkesbury and Nepean systems.


Thanks Scott, sounds like good advice.  
I'll give it a go.
Cheers,
Jake


----------



## PeterJ

> Do you really think either Labour or Liberal will ever have enough of a majority to alienate a couple of million recreational anglers?


Scott ,yeah unfortunately i do. 
There is a greens party and they give preferences to the major parties to take them into power or keep them there, there is no anglers specific party.

The big two will always keep the greens happy, one more and one to a lesser extent. We could have millions of anglers in the country but most don't give a fat rats clacker and in the past haven't till it's too late.

If the government of the day decides this is in the best interest for them then they will do it As the greenies get stronger , the vocal minority get louder, totally drowning out the insipid majority.


----------



## Jake

PeterJ said:


> [ there is no anglers specific party.


Actually, and at the risk of advertising their existence, there is a party in qld, The fishing Party Qld, TFPQ. You will find plenty of their rants on ausfish Peter.
I agree with Scott, there is no way on earth that recreational fishing will ever be banned. Its easy to be cynical and paranoid and think that it could happen, but get real, how many people fish? Most people fish, the overwhelming majority of Australians enjoy wetting a line, including many influential people.

There really is better things to worry about.

Cheers,
Jake


----------



## Peril

PeterJ said:


> Do you really think either Labour or Liberal will ever have enough of a majority to alienate a couple of million recreational anglers?
> 
> 
> 
> Scott ,yeah unfortunately i do.
> There is a greens party and they give preferences to the major parties to take them into power or keep them there, there is no anglers specific party.
> 
> The big two will always keep the greens happy, one more and one to a lesser extent. We could have millions of anglers in the country but most don't give a fat rats clacker and in the past haven't till it's too late.
> 
> If the government of the day decides this is in the best interest for them then they will do it As the greenies get stronger , the vocal minority get louder, totally drowning out the insipid majority.
Click to expand...

This is happening in NSW. Recreational angling is being restricted in Marine Parks set up to protect biodiversity when there is no evidence that rec. angling has an impact. It is driven by the greens and labor has acquiesced in a preference deal.

The simple fact is that while there might be 1 million anglers (overwhelming majority occasional) in NSW they are not organised to make a difference at the polls. This is reasonable because most believe that there are more important concerns on which to decide their vote. This leaves the door open for the major parties to bargain away our rights to the minor parties.

Democracy does not serve the wishes of the majority all of the time!


----------



## bazzoo

am inclined to agree Jake, recreational fishing is seen in this country thank God as a right of the individual to a pastime to be freely enjoyed by everyone, the mental image of the father teaching his son how to fish is something we consider our birthrite and part of the growing up process, i also think , that voters are becoming better educated and more aware and becoming more and more fed up with the small splinter minority groupes threatening their way of life and pushing the exremist barrow


----------



## Cuda

Hi folks. Some very good salient points on this topic so far  
In my personal experience and viewpoint, I have never practiced C&R specifically with the intention of catching a fish and then releasing it, rather I have made a point of catching a feed and releasing any undersized and unwanted species whilst keeping bag limits in mind.

I understand Peril's point that groups like PETA main agendas in relation to fishing are to have the pastime outlawed basically (never mind that scientists to my knowledge have 'theorised' at least that fish don't feel pain) and that having C&R banned is the first step in their diabolical plot against us fishos :evil: Yes, we rec fisherpeople need to show these misinformed zealots that we do care about the environment and that we are not barbaric hunters out to exterminate and inflict pain and suffering on the poor hapless fish that we harass and victimise in the minds of these loopy fanatics :lol:

Unfortunately the minority few who go out targetting trophy fish to kill and hang off a gantry so they can have their photo taken with a "grander". or those who think nothing of running a net around an entire school of fish and wiping it out entirely tend to ruin the reputation of fishing as a 'sport' and a hobby. In my view, groups like PETA jump on such acts - including catch and release, where the skilful angler plays a fish for hours on end to the point of utter exhaustion on the lightest line possible and then expect to release the seriously distressed fish so it can fight another day :?

To my knowledge, there are conflicting points of view on how well fish fare / recover after being put to the test by a skilled light line C&R angler, which may well give our mortal enemies like PETA more ammo :!:

All we can do is try and prove to them that we are do consider our target prey (fish) as things to be tortured and mutilated - rather that we try to inflict as little pain on them as possible and that we release fish not because we get some kinky thrill out of the act, but because we respect them and want our kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy the same satisfaction that we do getting out on the water and being at one with nature. Hmm, maybe I'm starting to crap on a bit, maybe we need to form the AKFF Party and flex our political muscles :shock:

Cheers

Cuda


----------



## PeterJ

Jake , there is also one in Vic but they have less than 500 members so cannot run as a party ,does the one up there have more than 500 ?

If so then they are a political party if not they are not considered one. Another problem is that these parties need other policies to match other parties and be able to deliver , until this is achievable I'm afraid they will be fringe dwellers . I guess the greenies were at one stage though.


----------



## rawprawn

You will never convince these people that fishing is ok so donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t waste you breath. The only way we will beat them is at the polls.

I will run for parliament and I need you all to vote me in. Once IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m in IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll create a dictatorship and for once in this country the majority will have a voice, well I will anyway.

Vote one Rawprawn :twisted:


----------



## Dodge

PeterJ said:


> Jake , there is also one in Vic but they have less than 500 members so cannot run as a party ,does the one up there have more than 500 ?


Peter they have stood at the last two senate elections in Qld and distributed their second preference votes for a while before being eliminated from the count.

They are getting stronger each year and are playing a minor part in the debate on fishing issues and their major strength will be in lobbying more fancied candidates by the intended use of the fishing party second preferences.

Like all parties views are polarised up here as to their benefit or otherwise but at least they are a voice


----------



## Scott

Guys, personally while apathy may reign with us amateur recreational fishos at present, if we feel threatened enough we will become a cohesive force to be reckoned with come election time. Many recreational fisherman agree with marine sanctuaries. (I do for one). While I am disappointed that I can no longer fish there, as long as the pros can't either I am prepared to lose favoured fishing grounds to further the future fishing stocks and thus the future popularity of recreational fishing for future generations. I firmly believe that the wild fish stocks belong to all of us including the generations yet to come and as such try to be sustainable in all of my fishing practices.

This is only my opinion and is of dubious value regardless it defines my personal ethics in regards to fishing.

Catch ya Scott


----------



## Guest

Admittedly, I skipped a few comments in my haste to add to Jakes comment:


> There really is better things to worry about.


Man, I couldn't agree more. And this has put me at odds with certain circles in the Fishnet community, but stuff it. I fish, yeah. I vote to. Big deal. My votes are almost NEVER cast with my fishing thoughts in mind. I do put some thought into it at state level, but come national election time, I have only one mission: to get that compulsive liar out of office. And my thoughts are rarely focused on fishing, if at all. I'm always more concerned about international relations, economic relations, current employment status (both full time and otherwise), illegal participation in invasions of sovereign nations... you know... the kind of stuff that effects everyone. These are the issues that draw me to the election table, and rarely any other.

Jake is dead right. There are simply bigger things to get out knickers in a knot over. Don't even get me started on the current war. Sure, there are political issues with which we, as anglers, should carry into any election. But Im not so sure any of us (at this stage in social history) should be putting any of that first.

Whether that makes either perspective wrong or right is irrelevant. And by saying this, I'm not copping out. I stand by what I said. I'm merely saying now that very little or none of it will matter to me come national election time, and I'd be dismayed if a good many here didn't agree with me.

Fishing is a hobby. Living a full life is something else altogether, and as easy as it would be for me to confuse the two, I refuse to base my votes around fishy related matters when in fact life and death matters should be much more prevalent at the forefront of our minds.

Not saying protecting our rights ain't worth fighting for. Just saying that compared to other worthy fights right now, this barely ranks of my radar. For someone who goes fishing about 3 times a week( minimum), I think you can safely say that that means something. This is probably why I'm often heard chanting 'vote with you dollars' while trying to convince someone that they don't need to buy that packet of pilchards.


----------



## Guest

And Scott, it's good to see you being bold enough to come out and state your stance (considering you position here). I agree with you in principle. I've seen enough info on existing marine parks in other countries (such as NZ) to know that there's merit in it. What I witnessed in Mexico convinced me completely.

It stands to reason that well-thought out conservation parks will do what they are set up to do: conserve life. I've heard all the nay sayer arguements on this (so lets not go there now) but the proof is in the pudding on the examples that exist to demonstrate what can happen if you think it through.

The shame of it is, however (and Im sure few will disagree here) to date, many of these parks have been concocted with a view for best political outcome, as opposed to best overall outcome.

And this is where I think we need to be working with whoever is conjuring these marine parks, as opposed to trying to work against them at every turn. The Vic marine parks is a good example. Many of them are very questionable. And this may not have been the outcome, had the representative angling community played fair with their ideological opponents. The scary thing about 2 parties hoping for 100% but pushing for 200% is that one of them might have their wishes come true, even if they didn't anticipate it. And what happens then, when one party disagrees?

Exhibit A, Victoria

No closer to a solution, with a shitfight barely even beginning...

As for my response to many of the other comments, well, I'll say it again. PETA aint the greens. They're just another lobby fighting for green affection, like many others. There's a lesson in that I reckon.

Here's a question I would pose to those who staunchly disagree with me (be warned... its a pandoras box for which I have few answers):

What would you prefer to support: a world with rampant commercial fishing and no regulations, or a world with reasonably strict limitations on fishing wholesale (emphasizing the word reasonable)?


----------



## justcrusin

5th the problem with the question is it takes the same stance as PETA it's an all or nothing question.

This isn't about Marine Parks working or not and i too believe they are a good thing but lots are in the wrong spots or simply not policed, in fact of the restricted fishing zones that i know of i have never seen them policed not to say they arn't just never seen it.

This thread should be about fisho's amounting an enlighted an factual responce to PETA's threat to our hobby.

I don't believe either that votes will do the job, our polies are to worried about who's going to pay them the most when they leave politics and what one of the boys they went to school with they can help make richer.

I believe it would be better if we could come up with realevant and factual information that refutes what people like PETA are preaching.
I agree that we should be working with the marine park people so what our members that fish areas under the planning stages for marine parks should have a look at breeding grounds and get invovled in the planning. EG: anyone that fish's the Port Stephens area in NSW.

Cheers Dave


----------



## Guest

Cuda, well said. Some interesting food for thought there.


----------



## Peril

justcrusin32 said:


> This isn't about Marine Parks working or not and i too believe they are a good thing but lots are in the wrong spots or simply not policed, in fact of the restricted fishing zones that i know of i have never seen them policed not to say they arn't just never seen it.
> 
> This thread should be about fisho's amounting an enlighted an factual responce to PETA's threat to our hobby.


Spot on Dave.

PETA are campaigning against fishing. It might be low intensity in Australia for now, but Andrew Bartlet's bill shows it is happening.

This is not about voting at this stage. This is about being prepared to answer challenges on the grounds of cruelty and denial of animal rights. When your friends/colleagues/acquaintances/relatives challenge your right to fish, how will you answer?


----------



## Guest

Peril, good question. I get challenged on this often. My better half is vegetarian and a good deal of her friends are the same, or worse. Its probably fairer to say I challenge these people on their beliefs more than they do mine. Without being completely buddhist about it, it's impossible to live the kind of lifestyle PETA advocate. And in some ways it's hypocritical, and when reminded of that (by saying so) I'm always surprised at the response.

Most of the 'can't kill anything because its cruel' crew will own a pair of leather shoes. Point that out. Most of them will drink beer happily (thus consuming live yeast) point that out. Many will refuse to eat meat as they know it, but won't grasp the hypocracy of ordering prawns at the chinese shop. Point this out.

In any above mentioned scenario (or similar) I practically guarantee a revelation in the making for your philisophical opponent. If that doesn't work, I start raising examples of nature in motion: bears taking fish: foxes taking rabbits: lions takion antelope... it's the circle of life. For thousands of years, man has been hunting his food. For thousands of years, fathers have handed spears, bows and daggers to theiir children, saying 'go forth and hunt my son'.

This stuff is innate. Its archetypal. And thats why we'll fight to protect our right to do it until our dying breath.

Where some of us differ with you on this right now Dave, is that not all of us believe the 'conspiracy' to ban fishing outright is as serious or progressed as you believe.

Yep, I do think C&R rights are in doubt based on those policies... IF... they come to fruition. But not only do I doubt they will, even if they did, all a C&R guy would have to do would be to say 'nup, wasn't targeting Bass' or otherwise keep a single fish to give to the neighbours, and theres no problem. 'What C&R?'


----------



## Guest

> I believe it would be better if we could come up with realevant and factual information that refutes what people like PETA are preaching.


Dave, I agree this would be a good idea, if it weren't so precarious to be tackling opponents on these grounds. I guess it depends on how its tackled, but trying to convince these guys that fish don't feel pain is stupid. Im a fisherman (of nearly 30 years), and you won't convince me, so you'll NEVER convince hard core libbos.

What they can be convinced off with relative ease, is a few facts grounded in reality. Such as:
- Man has been eating meat since well before Christ. it aint going to change. Deal with it.

- Of these meats, fish is most nutritious, and most often easiest to harvest

- Rec fishing is far far less destructive than commercial fishing

- Whilst C&R fishermen may not agree with you ideologically, they are in fact the most humane of anglers.

You will never convince these guys that hooking and skull-dragging fish into shore or boat is humane (and sure, you might not skull-drag, but most do) for any reason. You won't even convince them that bow hunting rabbits is for the betterment of native species. PETA are too idealistic to get that. Not the greens though. And that point has to be made.

I'm a big fan of knowing ones enemy, and I truly believe that as rec anglers, the real enemy is extremists from PETA. I'm yet to see anything from the greens to convince me they pose any threat. And in the grand scale of things, PETA are but a piss in the pool, so I remain relatively unalarmed.

PETA are fairly big in the UK, but don't seem to have made much impact in other places where the majority bulk of the population doesn't live in big cities. The most hardcore of animal libboes are those that would barely know what most ainimals even look like.


----------



## troppo

I have been wanting to post to this topic for ages: but a fly was sitting on my mouse and I didn't want to kill it or scare it by shooing it away. It has now flown onto a nice piece of organic watermelon I cut up for it. So now I can make my post.

Point A

Around the world, too many waterways and watery places (along with their fishy citizens) are in decline for many reasons. For example, the use of explosives on reefs to capture fish has destroyed many areas in South East Asian waters. This decline can be seen in many places. Even the clear-water creeks I used to fish in as a kid are now dirty and scummy - not that you can get to the water as they are mostly overgrown with rubbish plants. Our waters are hurting and something needs to be done.

Poing B

Intervention is often the only way to ensure sustainability. Typically, intervention comes at a cost, there is conflict.

Even in Rockhampton, when the barrage was built across the Fitzroy River, there was argument about the need for a fish ladder. They put one in. Then there was argument as some said the fish ladder was not working for barra. Eventually something was done as it was recognised barra were not making it up the fish ladder. The ladder was changed. [I think I have the story right.] If crabbing laws were not enforced, those crab pot pirates who steal from every one else's pots would get to keep their stolen catch and no one could do anything about it. Rarely does anything happen without some type of conflict. To try and improve our waters and the fishing, there is going to be some conflict somewhere.

Point C

The squeaky wheel gets oiled. We may believe in equity but the world is not equitable. If it is only anti-fishing folk who communicate, persuade, argue, present their case, to the POWERS-THAT-BE, then those powers will eventually move in that direction. What eventually gets done to our fishing will be done by those who have power and those who have the ear of those who have power.

Point D

I am sure we all agree that we don't want our fishing grounds to be depleted of fish or become waste areas. The problem, I believe, comes from two different basic views on what should be done about the problem. I'll try to explain how I see it, though I apologise for making a complex subject simple.

Some people appear to want to treat animals almost as if they are people - and 'exploited people' who need their rights protected by law and might. While others see animals as not being 'people', and, while needing adequate management, should not have the 'same' rights as people. Thus, one group will be constantly attacking anything that they see as taking away what they believe is the fundamental 'right' of every animal, to live in peace and harmony (possibly). While the other group will be constantly trying to justify that they don't give animals the same rights as people. The big picture is about animal rights, not fish C&R. If all fishing was banned tomorrow then the animal rights fight would move to another topic.

Point E

The genius (mad as it is) of the anti-fishing/pro-animals group is that it is a blend of logic and emotion. It is mostly a sentimental argument which can sweep up public opinion in a most illogical fashion. But history has many cases of the same, so we can not discount it.

They even try to draw to their side those interested in spiritual matters. For example, I quote from one of the links above:



> The Bible clearly says that our bodies are temples and that we should take care of them. Yet itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a fact that all fish flesh today is contaminated with heavy metals and other toxins. In fact, fish flesh is just about the most polluted thing that humans put into their bodies. On that basis alone, Christians should not be eating it.


I am a radical, fanatical, fundamentalical Jesus believer (and loving it), but even blind Freddy would recognise the false argument in the above quote. Since when are "all fish" contaminated? Since when has fish flesh become "about the most polluted thing that humans put into their bodies"? While the Bible does say, and rightly so I believe, that we should look after our bodies, the author's argument is not only weak in logic but insulting to Christians. But, I assume the author is not trying to be logical but is trying to persuade using sentiment and emotion.

In conclusion, I believe Peril has made a good point by posting this topic. While we probably can't convert the opponents of fishing to fishing, we can at least think about presenting our viewpoint to the other 80% or so of society who, if fisherfolk do nothing, may ultimately be persuaded by the animal rights fundamentalists. How we do that, I don't know, but discussing the issues amicably here as we have been doing is a good thing.


----------



## justcrusin

Well said Troppo,

Perhaps a way to start would be to compliment this discussion with a couple of other threads posing questions to first of all find out how our members feel about these issues. (straigth q&a not a debate post).

Then a group of members need to put there heads together to:
1. Accumulate the responces to the questions into some type of statistical data
2. Research our oppisitions view point and find logical answers to counteract them
3. Develop our own view points from the members answers to the questions.

Cheers Dave

or

Vote 1 troppo for PM :twisted:  :lol:


----------



## evarn

You know.. Where I come from, these animal rights people woulda been killed and eaten by now... but alas, that's all very taboo now...

Seriously though, I have been a keen fisho since I was a toddler, and ever since then I've been conscious of doing my best to look after fish when I catch them, especially if I am to release them. But fish are not intellectual beings that face psychological problems from being stressed or abused.

Other animals do, such as dogs, cats, cattle and pigs etc. and it's fair enough to give them protection (even if i do believe that the only good domestic animal is one that can be worked or eaten). I mean, we've all probably heard the saying that a "Happy pig is a tastier pig", but fish just don't fit in that category.

I think the most important thing here is to make sure that the majority of people understand that we fishos are not out to cause harm to fish and certainly not out to wipe them out... afterall, what would we do if there were no fish to be caught?

Ivan

P.S. Hairymick, the Germans are nuts for implementing such this fishing law, but to be fair, they at least acknowledge the wrongs of Holocaust and ponied up some dough for it... Think of what the victims are now getting away with... Think of all the nations (ours included) that deny any past wrong doings to it's citizens...


----------



## Cuda

Further to this thought provoking thread, would it be fair to say that fishing "bans" are already in place in many areas of Oz in the form of marine parks and closed seasons for example? These measures seem to be more widespread with every passing day, as our Fisheries Department's make the claim that finfish (and other) stocks are at critical levels i.e. on the verge of collapse from overfishing by both commercial and recreational fishing?
I would be more concerned about this trend than ignorant groups like PETA on this basis.
Modern technology has certainly made it easier to locate, fool fish into taking our offerings and reel em in through such gadgetry as GPS, fishfinders and hi-tech lures, hooks, lines etc. The poor critters don't stand a chance up against a skilled angler, although mugs like me will never be a threat to any species of fish (just like the way Bass are safe from Dodge)  
As Troppo has identified also, the seas and waterways are being seriously polluted, which has a huge negative impact on fish stocks and everyone should be focusing more on these issues than whether C&R is cruel or not :roll: 
Our argument should be that we are being responsible by releasing fish that come from threatened fish stocks. We don't catch the fish and then release them because we enjoy inflicting pain on the poor critters, rather we are not needlessly slaughtering them  
When you think about the number of people who fish recreationally in this country, there should never be a threat from such minority groups as PETA. Our biggest threat will be our own apathy when it comes to actually doing something 

Cheers

Cuda.


----------



## Dodge

Cuda said:


> (just like the way Bass are safe from Dodge)


 :lol: :lol: It's the thrill of the chase that counts Mark 8)

However one day......


----------



## hairymick

heya Evarn,

My post was merely to highlight the hypocracy of the German law.

I just wonder if these peta types mow their lawns or prune their fruit trees. If they do, i wonder if they care about all the little bug and critters they are killing and harrassing. Or even if they think that all of their food magically just appears on the supermarket shelves.

I know these maggots have to be taken seriously. I just hate the thought of having to justify what i choose to lawfully do to such as these.

PS. I will continue to refer to them as maggots until someone can convince me that they are otherwise.


----------



## Peril

Here are some more debating points:

* How many animals are disturbed in their idyllic lives by agriculture? You can't accord animals rights then shove them aside to feed yourself

* What do vegans feed their pets?

* Fish and other wild animals do not lead an idyllic life anyhow. They live with the constant expectation of being attacked by another creature. If this were to be psychologically scarring for them they would be basket cases, unable to function (just like Marlin in Finding Nemo - no it is not a documentary)

* What functions does a fish brain have? Nobody knows. There simply hasn't been enough study. While a hooked fish undoubtedly responds to its situation, there is no evidence of any lasting ill effect on the fish. To put it another way, there is no recorded case of a bream becoming foetal or going postal after release. These are human responses and we have very different brains to fish. How many fish go to the cricket?

* Selective statistics are simply that. C&R survival rates are generally very high. It does depend on species and treatment. For example, whiting death rates in live wells are very high but they survive immediate release very well. Where competition survival rates have been low, there is likely to have been a failure of the tank.

* The E in PETA stands for Ethical. Yet their websites are full of lies and selective truths. Do they have the slightest understanding of the word?


----------



## evarn

Mick

I actually believe that maggots have an undeserved reputation. I mean, in the old days they (and leeches) were an important medical tool...

So let me get back to you on a new name for the unethical folks at PETA.

For those requiring more information on PETA I suggest watching South Park Series 8, episode 8. It's very eye opening to see what PETA really hav planned for the world.. 

Ivan


----------



## hairymick

> I actually believe that maggots have an undeserved reputation. I mean, in the old days they (and leeches) were an important medical tool


Take all the time you need mate. 

For what my opinion is worth, I also believe calling these peta types maggots is doing the maggots a dis-service. However, in my culture, to call some one a maggot is the second biggest insult available, and I stand by it.

They may well have the right to believe in what they choose. They do however, have no right to impose their beliefs and code of "ethics" on me or mine.

I have very strong beliefs and faith but I go to pains not to try to subject others to them. This, I believe is the 'ethical" way to be. PETA, on the other hand, is a subversive organisation, dedicated to corrupting our way of life and freedom as we know it, all to impose their code of "ethical" conduct on us.

Many of us, I would go so far as to say, most of us respect each other's right do do with the fish we catch legally as we choose. be it Catch & Release of Catch & Fillet. This, I would call freedom - something our fathers fought and died for. peta seeks to subvert this freedom and impose its will on the rest of us. In this, they are a subversive organisation and need to be treated accordingly.

A quote might be in order here. 



> Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.
> Yoshimi Ishikawa


----------



## andybear

Quite right on all counts Mick...

and the other really scary thing is, (I could be wrong here but) we actually have no freedom of speech in legislation. We merely perceive that we have that right. I seem to remember reading that the courts no longer acknowledge Magna Carta as being relevant to Australia, which although very old, had a lot going for it..

Cheers Andybear :lol:


----------



## sam60

It is a sad state of affairs when groups like the one mentioned attempt to foister their views on everyone else. If they had their way we would all be vegans and then what would happen? We would not need animals to eat and so they would no longer be bred, but then the wildlife would then eat all the extra crops we provide and there would be a population explosion of pests and because we cant possibly take their life we would be outnumbered and we would become the endangered species and all along this nameless group would be saying we did right. this may be a simplistic view but is it their ultimate aim


----------



## troppo

Re the quote on the anti fishing website that said fish flesh is highly polluted so we should not catch fish and eat them:

If that is the case we need to mount a rescue mission. Millions of birds and other animals are eating polluted fish and we need to stop them as it would be hurting them. Well, maybe not us stop them, the PETA people should be as they are the ones complaining about the polluted fish flesh. Think of the pain those poor creatures would be suffering from eating that polluted fish. It's tragic.

The few fish caught by fisherfolk (such as myself who rarely catches anything) is totally insignificant in terms of pain to animals compared to the tragedy unfolding before our eyes of cormorants, seagulls, pelicans, dolphins, sharks, crocodiles and other creatures who are forced by hunger to eat those disgusting filthy fish that PETA says are polluted.

If those PETA people are fair dinkum, they need to be out there on the seas and up the creeks, hand feeding vegetarian food to those hungry beasties so they don't need to eat that rotten fish. That would stop the horrible unnatural and heart-breaking pain caused to those creatures eating that polluted fish.

Given PETA's statement that all fish flesh is polluted and given PETA's deep concern to reduce the pain which animals suffer, and given that animals eating bad fish is a much bigger problem then fisherfolk catching a few fish, then it is only reasonable that PETA forthwith put their resorces into, not trying to stop people fishing, but into giving crocodiles sharks etc the opportunity to eat healthy vegetarian snacks and main meals. Now that is logical isn't it?


----------



## Freckles

I look at the problem of C&R in a different light. No one and I mean NO ONE is going to stop me from C&R or from fishing. Fishing is a right to be preserved forever. No ignorant selfish scumbag animal rights do-gooders will ever take away or stop my fishing rights. Why? Because I believe every word that is written in the Bible and accept it as total truth. It states that Jesus went fishing and told the fishermen to drop their nets in the water after the fishermen failed to catch anything. The nets were breaking apart from the sheer weight of fish that were hauled in. If its good enough for God to catch fish in a net, its good enough for me to catch fish with a rod and line. 
He (Jesus) also told his diciples to throw a line into the water and open the mouth of the first fish you catch. In its mouth you will find a coin to give to collector. This would be (I think) the first detailed report of C&R in fishing history. If C&R is good enough for my God (Jesus Christ) to practice, then its good enough for me to do also. If I should be forced to go to any court in this land I will stand up and repeat the above word for word. Furthermore. if my God given rights are refused, I will NOT pay any so called fine, they can chuck me in jail but I wont pay a fine for a God given right!!
If any animal rights scumbag declares that eating any form of meat is cruel then he/she should consult the facts as laid down by God (Jesus) when He said "all flesh is given to you to eat"
Ok. Some animal rights do exist and rightly so, these people should stop the export of sheep to the arabs and the raising of chooks in battery banks. They should also stop the slaughter of the whales by the Japs and the long line fishing for tuna as this is wiping out the Wandering Albatross. And what about the methods used to sex newly hatched chickens? I could write a book about the cruelties that new chickens suffer. What a mob of hypocrites!
The problem in Germany and everywhere else is that, "They worship the creature and not the Creator". Rom 1:25
I will practice C&R, I will eat fish and no one will tell me otherwise and I dont care what anyone thinks of my faith in God. And no, I am not religious (?).
Freckles
8)


----------



## Guest

Freckles said:


> I look at the problem of C&R in a different light. No one and I mean NO ONE is going to stop me from C&R or from fishing. Fishing is a right to be preserved forever. No ignorant selfish scumbag animal rights do-gooders will ever take away or stop my fishing rights. Why? Because I believe every word that is written in the Bible and accept it as total truth. It states that Jesus went fishing and told the fishermen to drop their nets in the water after the fishermen failed to catch anything. The nets were breaking apart from the sheer weight of fish that were hauled in. If its good enough for God to catch fish in a net, its good enough for me to catch fish with a rod and line.
> He (Jesus) also told his diciples to throw a line into the water and open the mouth of the first fish you catch. In its mouth you will find a coin to give to collector. This would be (I think) the first detailed report of C&R in fishing history. If C&R is good enough for my God (Jesus Christ) to practice, then its good enough for me to do also. If I should be forced to go to any court in this land I will stand up and repeat the above word for word. Furthermore. if my God given rights are refused, I will NOT pay any so called fine, they can chuck me in jail but I wont pay a fine for a God given right!!
> If any animal rights scumbag declares that eating any form of meat is cruel then he/she should consult the facts as laid down by God (Jesus) when He said "all flesh is given to you to eat"
> Ok. Some animal rights do exist and rightly so, these people should stop the export of sheep to the arabs and the raising of chooks in battery banks. They should also stop the slaughter of the whales by the Japs and the long line fishing for tuna as this is wiping out the Wandering Albatross. And what about the methods used to sex newly hatched chickens? I could write a book about the cruelties that new chickens suffer. What a mob of hypocrites!
> The problem in Germany and everywhere else is that, "They worship the creature and not the Creator". Rom 1:25
> I will practice C&R, I will eat fish and no one will tell me otherwise and I dont care what anyone thinks of my faith in God. And no, I am not religious (?).
> Freckles
> 8)


I thought I had understood everything up until the 'I am not religious' comment, and now my head hurts wondering what you meant by it all :wink:

I'm with you in spirit though mate! :lol:

I'm also sick and tired of the opinions and moral standards of the minority being pushed onto the majority.......

I do believe that minimising the pain or suffering of any catch, kept or released, is very important. And I am all for sustainable fishing practices, both recreational and commercial.

But banning C&R fishing altogether on the grounds of it 'harming' fish is ridiculous......we cant have it both ways........and C&R is an important part of the total equation for sustainable fishing IMO.

Love to see how they would suggest enforcing a ban on C&R........if seen releasing a fish by fisheries, on the spot fine? A simple 'Not my target species officer, sorry for the undue pain to the fishy' would seem a fair defence?.......


----------



## bazzoo

Frekles, i wholehartedly agree, could not have said it better , and yes, i AM religious, and anyone who tries to stop me fishing and c and r which i do to all fish caught will have to do so after the fight, the only exception to this, and the area of greatest vulnerability is LIVE BAITING , i dont agree with this and i am sure the fun police dont either, i believe we are on much firmer ground when we use artificials to catch fish and can dem onstrate that most fish are mouth hooked, and these same fish seem to have no trouble cracking oysters and mussels with their mouths without discomfort. However , i also believe that no matter how hard we try or how much evidence we present to prove we are not hurting fish or fisheries, our efforts will be in vain , because we are not dealing with logical human beings, but ZEALOTS, and zealots have proved over the centuries that they care little for common sense or logic


----------



## Guest

I'm not religious in any way (although I am well-studied on religion) so I don't see it as my god-given right to fish. I do, however, see it as a birthright and like others here, if fishing was banned outright (haha, right) it wouldn't stop me doing it. Just because something is law, doesn't make it right.


----------



## troppo

I guess you could call me a "Jesus freak", although people often just call me by the last part of that name. From my perspective, as a believer in God, we have been given responsibility for looking after the earth. I see the implication with fishing as being we can fish but responsibily.

In other words, if our fishing is making further fishing unsustainable, I think we must change. So, I abide by catch sizes and don't fish in protected areas or use illegal methods (such as explosives).

Whether or not that makes my fishing sustainable I don't honestly know, but I think it does. I believe not fishing will neither stop "pain" for fish nor be sustainable for ex-fishos who are seeking some kind of healthy outdoor activity. So, in the long run, my opinion is that the most positive way forward is for us to enjoy our recreation but to also be aware of what needs to be done so our children's children can also enjoy fishing. My opinion.


----------



## Cuda

Further to the comments and issues raised on this thread, I thought that the following scientific article may be of interest to some. Hope this link works - http://www.amonline.net.au/FISHES/faq/pain.htm

Cheers

Cuda.


----------



## Peril

Still think PETA is not a threat?

Anglers fear ban on 'cruel' live bait will spread


----------



## bazzoo

Dave, there is no doubt in my mind that these people are a threat, however i can see their point with live baiting , as its in a fishes instinct to escape from that which is about to harm or kill it ,when tethered to a line as in live baiting , we do in fact deny that fish the exercise of its natural instincts and ensure that it will undoubtedly die a most unnatural death , as opposed to an angler catching a fish for either food or to release to live unharmed


----------



## Peril

bazzoo said:


> Dave, there is no doubt in my mind that these people are a threat, however i can see their point with live baiting , as its in a fishes instinct to escape from that which is about to harm or kill it ,when tethered to a line as in live baiting , we do in fact deny that fish the exercise of its natural instincts and ensure that it will undoubtedly die a most unnatural death , as opposed to an angler catching a fish for either food or to release to live unharmed


Barry, if I was to accept that argument I'd have to give up catch and release fishing. Fish don't feel pain so C&R and live baiting are not cruel.

Do you think that PETA will stop once they've stopped live baiting?


----------



## troppo

A quote from the article Peril linked to:


> Last summer saw a spate of attacks on fishermen.


Obviously, fishermen don't feel pain so animal lib people don't have any problems attacking them (I assume it was physical attacks, not mental or emotional, though the article was not specific.)


----------



## justcrusin

Guys we have to stop talking about c&r and live baiting these aren't the issues.

The issue is that these people want to stop fishing altogether!
If we argue about minor points that even anglers can't agree on they will win and we won't be able to live bait or c&r.

If they get a couple of nutters on either wing in the senate who intruduce this bill and the major parties need there votes for some other agenda fishing will be shit canned just like that over night.

They will argue that fish feel pain, we cannot argue these points or we will lose.

We need to argue on points like:
* we fish to feed our families.
* fishing is part of our cultural pastimes and a way of feeding ourselves since the first humans stood upright catching fish with spears
* Humans are carnivores and eat meat to live

Cheers Dave


----------



## bazzoo

Dave , there is not a doubt in my mind that these people would stop if live baiting were prohibited, as i said in an earlier post , i believe these people to be zealots who are beyond the art of reason and they are an integral part of the fun police who will endeavour to outlaw anything that gives pleasure to people, all they succede in doing is stuffing up anything they become involved in and claim victory in the name of conservation and preservation , i do however not agree with your premise that fish do not feel pain , i wish i could, i think they feel pain in a diminished form , and not in any way that we can equate to human pain , they dont have the complex nervous structure for this. I dont fully understand this myself , but believe its tied in with the instinct of flight or fight , as i said Dave i wish i could believe that they were completely devoid of the sensation of pain , and i would love to have this proved to me, it would make my fishing more enjoyable


----------



## Peril

justcrusin32 said:


> Guys we have to stop talking about c&r and live baiting these aren't the issues.


I disagree. See below


justcrusin32 said:


> The issue is that these people want to stop fishing altogether!
> If we argue about minor points that even anglers can't agree on they will win and we won't be able to live bait or c&r.
> 
> If they get a couple of nutters on either wing in the senate who intruduce this bill and the major parties need there votes for some other agenda fishing will be shit canned just like that over night.


I agree with all of this. Animal Rightists want to see an end to the eating of animals, among other things. So their end game is the stopping of all hunting, fishing, animal husbandry and agriculture.

However, they are picking off the easy targets first. C&R fishing in Germany and now live baiting in Scotland. If we argue amongst ourselves over the merits of these activities we will be easily picked off.


justcrusin32 said:


> They will argue that fish feel pain, we cannot argue these points or we will lose.


We must argue this. It is already being lost.


justcrusin32 said:


> We need to argue on points like:
> * we fish to feed our families.


This opens the way for the C&R and live baiting wedges. You seem to be arguing that we should concede these to PETA.


justcrusin32 said:


> * fishing is part of our cultural pastimes and a way of feeding ourselves since the first humans stood upright catching fish with spears


They will simply respond that we have outlawed other barbaric practices like human sacrifice and that banning these fishing practices is part of the process of civilisation


justcrusin32 said:


> * Humans are carnivores and eat meat to live


They will ignore this point for now. Besides it still doesn't stop them getting C&R and live baiting banned.


justcrusin32 said:


> Cheers Dave


How do you eat an elephant? One mouthful at a time.

PETA is building credibility and attacking us at our weakest points. It will be extremely difficult to undo any wins they have. As you point out, they will have wins by exploiting balance of power positions when they get them. We cannot concede the weakest points because then we will be forced to fight for what has been a basic right, one enshrined in the Magna Carta.

Fishing is not cruel. Fish don't feel pain. Yes they have nociceptors and respond to being hooked or rigged as live bait. But they immediately get on with their life, even when rigged. We must be prepared to support this position. We must be prepared to convince those around us not to support fringe parties, such as the greens, that can be manipulated by PETA.

If everyone voted for only the major parties, fringe issues like this would never have a chance. But whereever there is a balance of power involving the greens or their fellow travellers, there is a risk. Just look at how Brian Harradine, one man without a party, was able to get some of his agenda implemented by the government to secure his vote on vital pieces of legislation


----------



## hairymick

I agree, with Peril here.

We cannot afford to concede ANY points to Peta. There will be no compromise from their side, neither can there be any from ours.


----------



## Peril

A scholarly rebuttal of a scientific paper claiming that fish feel pain: http://www.about-flyfishing.com/library ... 60706b.htm

And the quality of the response when reported in the popular press: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/ ... 83181.html


----------



## troppo

Peril, you are a legend.

Nothing like reading the first article in your post above to hearten oneself. I couldn't have said it better myself, as the good doc said,


> In contrast to this conscious experience of pain, the unconscious detection, transmission and response to noxious stimulation by lower levels of the nervous system is and defined as nociception - not pain.


Yup, 'nociception', now that is a very useful scientific word and about time we heard about it in this debate.

Great stuff. Very interesting. Also very disturbing the way the general press came across as giving support to the "fish do have pain" crowd.


----------



## Jake

troppo said:


> Also very disturbing the way the general press came across as giving support to the "fish do have pain" crowd.


Umm....did you read the same articles as Peril posted Troppo?

Seemed remarkably unbiased for a newspaper if you ask me.

Anyway, there was one very interesting point in the paper that Peril linked to. But I guess if you were intent on convincing yourself that fish DONT feel pain then you would simply ignore it, also it was down near the bottom and there are a lot of big words above it....

"Fish are capable of robust, unconscious, behavioral, physiological and hormonal responses to stressors, which if sufficiently intense or sustained, can be detrimental to their health. "

Lack of pain does not mean harmless, which leaves C&R with a cloud over it as far as Im concerned.


----------



## Jake

Someone has told me via a PM that I had been disrespectful in my previous post.

Troppo, the "you" in my sentence was not aimed at you, just people in general. But in any case I meant no disrespect. I can see how it may have been taken the wrong way though... 

Perhaps I should have used some smiley faces? 

My point though is that we can all be clouded by what we want to believe.


----------



## troppo

Jake, I took on offense.

What struck me about the article, and this is my own opinion (as told to me by my wife), was that when I finished reading it, the words left in my mind were the last sentence which refutes the findings of Prof Rose. I can't recall what this effect is called (no, not senility) but when I did train-the-trainer and the like, we were regularly told that the last things said are the ones that tend to stick. That's why at the end of training, we shove in a summary or at the end of a letter we make sure we repeat key info.

So, my personal and biased impression once I read the article, was that while Prof Rose was impressive, it was basically dismissed by the final sentence. And believe me, in many arguments, she/he that gets in the final word is the winner.

-------------------------

On another note, and not trying to start an argument about 'right and wrong', I understand your point as being: Whether fish feel pain or not is not the issue for you but the way fish are handled is an issue because poor handling with say C&R can still be killing fish even though they may not feel 'pain' as we know it. Am I understanding you?


----------



## hairymick

Here is peta's response to the learned professors findings after 30 years os study.



> Despite the findings of Professor Rose's study, a spokesman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which has invested heavily in an anti-angling campaign, said: "We believe that fishing is barbaric. Of course animals can feel pain. They have sensitivity, if only to avoid predators."


My response to this nonsense would be something like this,

"Guess what knucklehead, humans are predators and we just happen to be at the top of the food chain. It is the natural order of things. If you wish to subsist on mungbeans and tofu that is your right but don't try to inflict your hippy vego wanker values on me"

Note that peta has clearly stated that they believe ALL fishing is barbaric. This talk and bickering amongst ourselves about C&R and what ever else is irrelevent to the issue. The basterds want to stop it alltogether.

If they have a win with this one, what is next? Outlawing dairy products perhaps?


----------



## Peril

occy said:


> What next? Could the very thing (beer) that features so prominently in Hairy's signature be outlawed as well? Beer relies on fermentation, which if I am not mistaken is some sort of micro biotic (bugs thing) isn't it. Oh please save us. :roll:


Nah, should be right on this score. They'd have to outlaw yoghurt and tofu as well


----------



## andybear

So then ..... they will want to ban antibiotics (translates more or less as against life)?

Cheers all Andybear :lol:


----------



## hairymick

Heya Occy,

Roll your eyes all you like mate. Here are a couple of links from petas own web site. I would encourage you to have a read than then perhaps, even explore a little deeper.

http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-releasefishing.asp

http://www.fishinghurts.com/fishPack.asp

I will say it again, these maggots ae a subversive organisation, who are seeking to take away all our rights and freedoms to hunt and to fish (amongst others) . They are making absurd claims to back their arguments and we as recreational anlers cannot afford to concede ANY points to them.

Arguing the toss whether fish feel pain or not is playing in to their hands I think, and is problematic in that I don't believe it can be absolutely proven one way or the other.

The real issue here is petas attack on yet one more of our God given rights. Peta may well believe that there is no God and they will surely be called to account for those beliefs.

Many of us do believe in God however, and our Saviour was Himself a fisherman during His short stay here. In this manner peta is not only attacking our right to fish but is also attacking our right to relegious freedom.


----------



## hairymick

Heya Occy,

Still not convinced? Here is another link - specifically targeting dairy foods.

http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_Cows_Dairy.asp

The list goes on.


----------



## sitonit

I dont think the Govt will ever be interested in any ban on fishing due to the rights of fish, fish dont vote and fish dont pay taxes they may ban for conservation of fisheries but not because of fish rights. The fishing industry in this country both recreational and commercial generate masses of income, the main players such as Shimano etc also have massive resources to fund any action from groups like PETA so they have 850000 members worldwide that is nothing when compared to population, how many senate members do they have how many will they ever have the bloke that wrote the paper is scaremongering and stirring, I notice he is a member of groups which will benefit from increased membership and profile, his paper is not for generating increased awareness in threats to fishing it is to get more members (means money ) for his little group.


----------



## Salty Dog

Yeah, I think the whole greeny movement has been doing itself a dis-service by accepting anyone who comes along & supporting alternative media who are distinctly one-eyed & in most cases distinctly under-qualified to be spouting opinions.

Has anyone else seen a show called Bullsh!t with Penn & Teller? They did a segment on greenys & got a whole heap of them to sign a petition to ban water!!

That's the biggest problem - ignorance. The alternative media just helps spread the ignorance to other well-meaning people as well. Some of the rubbish you see published as scientific fact...I reckon that if it's to be published as if it is scientific fact that it should be subject to the same rigours as the rest of the scientific community is!

I think that the whole movement has become rather subversive as it preys on people who don't know better, whips them into frenzy & sends them out into the world to do the same to others.

The really scary thing is that they have a political party that gets enough votes that the major political parties try & win their preferences by jumping on the Greeny band-wagon & trying to show that they will follow the Greeny agenda.

I just wish the Green movement would try & associate itself with pure facts, disassociate itself from the radicals & they would probably find some friends in people like ourselves who want our kids to be able to enjoy nature & have a nice life free from pollution, (& of course fish).

Seriously though, if they are going to be militant @$$holes & not listen to reason, then they can get right royally!!

I will be making a point of giving the Greens absolutely no preferences when I next vote.

Maybe we should start an alternative party called Rationalism in Nature or something. Unfortunately "I fish I vote" really appeals to the fishermen & the jokers amongst us but doesn't have the numbers in the broader community.

If you had a party pushing some green agendas like clean water, preservation of natural recreation areas, eco-tourism (eg recreational fishing & getting rid of commercial fishing), etc with a green sounding name, I guarantee that you would get votes.

It's all about marketing isn't it....after all sheep travel in flocks. :wink:


----------



## sitonit

PETA isnt an environmental or conservation group it is an animal rights group. 
The image of Green Groups that we get is supplied by the media, they sell more papers and get more viewers and get bigger responses by providing us with sensationalist views.
I know a number of people involved in Green Politics and they are well qualified to make the statements they make, the recruiting grounds for these organisations is our University Campuses so the people involved should know what claims are realistic and which arent and they should also understand the need for information which has been derived through scientific methodologies, I think most of them do. But the general public arent interested in DO levels in water, or the demise of another animal somewhere in South America, they are interested in militant groups outrageous claims and actions and thats what the media feeds them thats what sells.
Wheteher people think they are hairy armpitted hippies or not the ideas the Green groups push of trying to save the world from its own greediness are in my opinion generally the correct ones, ie use less and what you do use do so wisely with full knowledge of all consequences of its use.
The bottom line is generally Greenies arent here to ruin our day they are trying to make sure something is left for our kids, there will always be dickheads that go too far and say outrageous things and try to forward their own agendas, but it is the same in all groups. But I dont think there is to much wrong with Green message.


----------



## Peril

sitonit said:


> PETA isnt an environmental or conservation group it is an animal rights group.


Agreed. PETA is a very different beast to your average greenie. Of course, PETA find is fairly easy to exploit green groups to further their agenda so we can't always be sure that the passionate greenie aiming to save the wilderness doesn't have another agenda


sitonit said:


> The image of Green Groups that we get is supplied by the media, they sell more papers and get more viewers and get bigger responses by providing us with sensationalist views.


The greatest sin here of the media is laziness. They can easily, because these groups are well organised and available, get a quote from these groups when any related issue is in the news. They publish these quotes uncritically, no matter how outrageous.


sitonit said:


> I know a number of people involved in Green Politics and they are well qualified to make the statements they make, the recruiting grounds for these organisations is our University Campuses so the people involved should know what claims are realistic and which arent and they should also understand the need for information which has been derived through scientific methodologies, I think most of them do.


I have do disagree here. Yes the universities are fertile recruiting grounds for all activist movements. However the majority of recruits seem to come from the arts and humanities (more idealistic and unschooled in scientific rationalism) rather than the sciences (still tend to idealism, some understanding of the scientific method but politically naive) or engineering (very rooted in the real world but disinterested in politics. The result is that they will passionately spout crap. Just look at the green contribution to the marine park debate - a potent blend of emotion and fact quoted out of context. (BTW my credentials here are 9 years on campus studying and teaching science with five years as a student activist)


sitonit said:


> But the general public arent interested in DO levels in water, or the demise of another animal somewhere in South America, they are interested in militant groups outrageous claims and actions and thats what the media feeds them thats what sells.


Agreed


sitonit said:


> Wheteher people think they are hairy armpitted hippies or not the ideas the Green groups push of trying to save the world from its own greediness are in my opinion generally the correct ones, ie use less and what you do use do so wisely with full knowledge of all consequences of its use.


Their goals are usually laudable - they get the idealism right. Unfortunately their application in the real world can be way off the mark.


sitonit said:


> The bottom line is generally Greenies arent here to ruin our day they are trying to make sure something is left for our kids, there will always be dickheads that go too far and say outrageous things and try to forward their own agendas, but it is the same in all groups. But I dont think there is to much wrong with Green message.


They must be judged not on their ideals but on their effect


----------



## sitonit

Hey Peril always enjoy reading your posts, I cant say where all the members of the groups come from but I know that when I undertook my degree a large number of people studying with me (BSci) were very active in the conservation movement and that one of these people went on to head 2 of the larger green groups in this country, this person has a law science background and so should be rigorous with the scrutineering of informtion her groups publicise but as with the general media sensationalism sells, and lots of others I studied still work either with green groups or within environmental sections of other groups whether they be private or government.
Perhaps the Uni I completed my degree at (Griffith) is more active in this area, I know it was a different environment than QUT.
I wholeheartedly agree that groups/people should be judged on thier effect not thier ideals and the state of our fisheries and environment in general means I generally bat for the green team as the other team is flogging the place. This said I dont believe anything said by either side without critically analysing all that is said.
[/quote]


----------



## Jake

troppo said:


> I understand your point as being: Whether fish feel pain or not is not the issue for you but the way fish are handled is an issue because poor handling with say C&R can still be killing fish even though they may not feel 'pain' as we know it. Am I understanding you?


Yeah, pretty much Troppo. I really dont think they do feel pain, not like we do anyway. But Im sure they suffer a lot of stress from being mishandled, particularly with being held aloft for photos by a pair of lipgrippers.

Cheers,
Jake


----------



## troppo

Thanks Jake.


----------

