# Is fishing cruel?



## Peril (Sep 5, 2005)

Posting in this forum as the topic covers fishing politics.

This thread is to collect contributions on the topic of whether fishing is cruel.

First contribution is http://www.nt.ntnu.no/users/clabec/pdf/fishInPain.pdf


----------



## homemade (Jan 24, 2008)

I think these days most recreational fishers are humane in the way they catch and despatch there fish. We realise that a swift capture and despatch makes for better quality on the table. Also apoorly realeased fish is unlikly to surrvive to be caught again.
Personaly I have no problem with catch and release,fish for the table or a trophy of out an outstanding capture, lets face it how often do we catch something that good.
I do have a problem with commercial fishing practices ( damage to environment, disposal of by catch, seemingly different size regs to us,protien mass needed to fatten up farm fish,shark finning, it goes on and on.)
To my taste a wild fish eats better every time.
I also have a problem with the yobbo side of recreatinal fishing where there is no regard for fish at all its just a kill fest.This seems to be on decline though. 
Do fish feel pain....... logicaly I would say yes but I think a lip hooked fish experiences bewilderment in losing freedom more than pain.
I dont like to land a gut hooked fish but sometimes it happens,in which case i make no attempt to remove the hook but just snip line as close to fishes jaw as I can.If the fish survives which I hope they do, i believe the hook will rust out.
Wow you have realy got me going here I think I need a beer.
Seriously though this sort of thing is a can of worms just simmering away, there are some of a particular political persuasion who do not want any recreational fishing at all and especialy catch and release.
Thats my bit, bugger it I will have a beer.
Cheers Paul
By the way I did read your link.


----------



## Astro (Nov 27, 2006)

good article dave...thanks for posting

personally i believe there some cruelty in fishing since we are putting the fish under stress during the catching process. it is obviously a complex issue and look forward to see the contributions from members to this thread


----------



## Phonga (Feb 25, 2008)

You know what they say...it's a cruel world out there! I guess we are just lucky that we are at the top of the food chain. Sometimes it's easy to forget that we are still part of nature ourselves and and it's a dog eat dog world!


----------



## andybear (Jan 15, 2006)

And never forget...my young friends...The King George Whiting will have your leg off as quick as look at you.....so watch out for any food chains you see laying around on the beach!!!!

Cheers Andybear


----------



## Rick (Dec 19, 2006)

I am a person who enjoys fishing from a yak and eating fish. 
Granted I would not like having a hook through he lip or gut but hey. I do not feel guilty! Nore do I when I BBQ a steak or some lamb or pork chops! With that said, I totally miss the point of threads like this on AKFF. Why should anything slightly resembling a non fisho perspective be a aired let alone discussed. The aim must surely be to disrupt. There is no way I will buy the two sides to each story line! I found and joined AKFF as a result of searching for fishing links. I for one am not interested in seeing the non fisho's perspective taking any space on this forum. Plainly the ultimate aim is banning recreational fishing. 
Unfortunatly that will come soon enough so why should AKFF do anything to bring this about?


----------



## RedPhoenix (Jun 13, 2006)

Unfortunately, due to the change in ownership of this web site and the lack of response by the owners to my requests to remove my email address from all administrative-level notifications and functionality, I have decided to remove my posts on AKFF. Thank you for the great times, the fantastic learning experiences and the many many fish. If you are desperate for the old content of this particular post, it is available below base64 encoded and bzip2 compressed.

Red.

----

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


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

Rick said:


> I am a person who enjoys fishing from a yak and eating fish.
> Granted I would not like having a hook through he lip or gut but hey. I do not feel guilty! Nore do I when I BBQ a steak or some lamb or pork chops! With that said, I totally miss the point of threads like this on AKFF. Why should anything slightly resembling a non fisho perspective be a aired let alone discussed. The aim must surely be to disrupt. There is no way I will buy the two sides to each story line! I found and joined AKFF as a result of searching for fishing links. I for one am not interested in seeing the non fisho's perspective taking any space on this forum. Plainly the ultimate aim is banning recreational fishing.
> Unfortunatly that will come soon enough so why should AKFF do anything to bring this about?


Rick , its like having prior knowledge of an immanant flood , to face the facts that you are about to be flooded in the oncoming days gives you time to sandabag the river bank and make a defence against the rising waters and ward off the worst of it until the water is defeated , or you are engulfed , ignore the warning at your own peril.


----------



## Rick (Dec 19, 2006)

Hey guys don't get me wrong I am well aware the flood is coming and unfortunately there will only be one outcome (sand bags or not) 
Ultimately we will be legislated into non-existence. For any one to think otherwise I believe is naïve.
As for a self check does this mean sometimes when I use the spike I should in fact consider using the donger first? With respect surely you are not suggesting either method would be acceptable to those I believe should not get a forum on AKFF.

Sorry mate no amount of spin can alter the fact fishing involves pain & killing. My point is why do anything to promote the other sides arguments. For this reason IMHO I feel on this subject the navel gazing would be better done in private.


----------



## Peril (Sep 5, 2005)

Rick said:


> Hey guys don't get me wrong I am well aware the flood is coming and unfortunately there will only be one outcome (sand bags or not)
> Ultimately we will be legislated into non-existence. For any one to think otherwise I believe is naïve.
> As for a self check does this mean sometimes when I use the spike I should in fact consider using the donger first? With respect surely you are not suggesting either method would be acceptable to those I believe should not get a forum on AKFF.
> 
> Sorry mate no amount of spin can alter the fact fishing involves pain & killing. My point is why do anything to promote the other sides arguments. For this reason IMHO I feel on this subject the navel gazing would be better done in private.


The point is not to promote the argument of the other side but to test and practise our own. Going into battle unprepared is a good way to lose


----------



## L3GACY (Sep 2, 2007)

I think on the whole fishing is a cruel practice. C&R moreso than catch to kill (depending on how you dispatch the fish of course). For me the fact is i am fishing for a feed all the time and it is no worse than my dad shooting a rabbit, missing the head and having to walk over and break its back. I dont know how cattle and sheep are killed but imagine they go through similar amounts of stress / pain as a responsible fisho that kills the fish as soon as he lands it. Being a catch to kill person 99% of the time i dot see an issue with it, this is what we have evolved to do (not with rods and reels of course ). We werent meant to go and buy plastic wrapped packages from stores, we built to hunt.

On the legislation side of things. Given the amount of yobbo stink boaters out there, if the government ever made fishing difficult / banned they would face a lot of angry australians. I dont think it would be a very smart thing to do at all. Whether they will do it or not, i dont know.


----------



## anthropomorphic (Sep 27, 2007)

As usual, with most publications of this type (basically poorly disguided anti fishing propoganda) they miss one major point.

Do fish feel pain? Without doubt, as they have all the mechanisms and brain structure needed.

_Do mouth hooked fish feel pain?_ In my experience, no. Fish have mouths designed to eat things with scales, spikes, claws and exeskeletons, deal with sharp bits of rock, shell and twigs as they feed. As a daily process their gobs get spiked and sliced by all manner of things without any negative consequences. Evolution designed them to deal with such things.

I've often hooked fish and they do not react at all to being hooked. If hooking caused pain, they would. They only react when enough pressure to turn the head is exerted.

Reminds me of that PETArd campaign with a mouth-hooked dog and the slogan "you wouldn't do this to a dog" It may have escaped them that fish and dogs are *slightly* different and have evolved in *slightly* different habitats.

Cheers,
anthropomorphic


----------



## water_baby (Oct 26, 2005)

good topic Peril. know yourself, then fight. no point in fighting if you dont know your weaknesses.



L3GACY said:


> I dont know how cattle and sheep are killed but imagine they go through similar amounts of stress / pain


umm, the cattle are herded into a holding pen, then one by one go into a corral (sp?) where one bloke pats it on the head to calm it, while another guy "knocks"it. not the way i would like to go..

as far as fish and pain, i would agree closely to anthropomorphic.

[soapbox] Many of these good points seem to be lost on the non-fishing minority who, it seems, would like to shut down all hunting. Perhaps if they cared as much for their fellow humans, their energies would be at least in the right direction. plenty of people on this planet go through their lives in extreme pain and poverty, never knowing freedom, food or friendship but somehow the fish (a foodsource since time immemorial) are getting a bad deal from fishermen. absolutely ridiculous. [/soapbox]


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

Y'know, I've been thinking about this stuff for quite some time now. I recognise it's hypocrytical, but I can catch a fish, but find it difficult to kill a spider. I could never hunt anything, but I can catch fish. Why? I think it's simply because I fished ever since I could walk. There's no other form of rational justification.

Having said I couldn't hunt, I have no problem at all with hunting. I have a friend in Alaska who runs an animal shelter. He and his wife can't stand cruelty to animals, but they have no problem at all with people hunting. In fact, they would far prefer to eat game (caught or shot by others) than eat from a store. Why? Because it's all about the quality of life BEFORE the animal dies. Animals die, they get hunted, they hunt, its all natural. What isn't natural is sitting in a cage, or a pen, or a pond, or.... I know it's rediculous, but felt sorry for cows the other day because I realised they never got a holiday; a change of scenery. Will they ban farming? I don't think so.

Do fish feel pain? I'll leave that to the experts. All I can say is if I had a hook in my mouth, I'd be heading TOWARDS what was pulling on it, not away from it. Not very scientific I know, but I just can't see them feeling pain in the way we do. There is no doubt they are distressed, but how distressed do they get each day when some bitey or another is heading their way?

What I do know is that I'm a fisherman and I'm not a bad or cruel person; far from it. I'm a lover of animals and nature, fishing being a great way of appreciating it. It's not for everyone, that is completely understandible, but it brings ME great joy and does little to impact on the joy of others, so I can't see that as being a bad thing.

As for jet skiing, ........ :lol:


----------



## justcrusin (Oct 1, 2006)

From my point of view all sports humans engage in involve some sort of pain for the particpants,eg: boxing, karate, football (all types), running, iron man, skiing and it would be state of origon without the big hits and we all love to see people getting crunched no mater what the sport.

Its life and the greenie extremist freaks just need to get over or it an get a life, feel some pain it can to a point be invigorating.

In saying that I try to use methods that result in lip hook ups and never use bait anymore. It may be discomfort but they will live after being released.

Would I like it done to me. I have been shot with a nail gun on more than several occasions over my career, an yes it hurts but I am still very much alive ( I hope). The fish have regularly managed to hook me back and anyone who has been spiked by a flaty or rock cod will atest that all is fair in love an war.

My sister is a do gooder hippy type and there is absolutly no reasoning with them no mater how good your argument is, it will come down to shear weight of numbers and the publics perspective that will dicide and unfortunalty political decision.

Cheers Dave


----------



## yankatthebay (Dec 14, 2007)

of course it can be considered cruel. Killing cows is cruel too, but that is accepted in society so that we can eat red meat. caged chickens laying eggs for us is cruel for sure, but it is perfectly acceptable to most people to continue this process to give us cheaper eggs.

it all boils down to what you perceive is cruel. Catch and release is probably more cruel than catching the fish and killing it right away, since the fish doesnt then have to struggle to survive afterwards, and ultimately some fish that are released will die as a result of exhaustion after release.

ultimately society will have to decide what it thinks is acceptable cruelty and what is not. I think it is probably less cruel to catch fish one by one as we yakkers to, rather than on large drift nets which could literally drown the fish before they get to a boat.


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Is fishing cruel ? If you cant go it is, damn cruel :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Redfin60 (Nov 30, 2006)

Fishing is cruel, just ask my wife. She thinks its cruel when I tell her I need new gear, and she will have to go without! Eg: my fishing rod just broke, so now I need to upgrade to the latest high modulus graphite, fuji encrusted $300+ rod, so you can't buy a new pair of shoes this week! :twisted:


----------



## anthropomorphic (Sep 27, 2007)

yankatthebay said:


> of course it can be considered cruel. Killing cows is cruel too, but that is accepted in society so that we can eat red meat.
> ultimately society will have to decide what it thinks is acceptable cruelty and what is not.


I take issue with the above statements as it is playing into the hands of those that seek to ban fishing. This is how the animal libbers/anti-everything brigade are winning the battle: the notion that killing, in any form whatsoever is a form of cruelty.
If you read any of the emotive dribble put out buy these types the underlying theme is that all killing is cruel. If you get engaged in such a discussion with these types targeting that underlying untruth should be the first step. You cannot win a debate once you have accepted and agree to a base notion that is inherently false.

Do not buy into the semantics of the debate about degrees of cruelty in killing.

Of course you can kill in a cruel an inhumane manner if you really want to. (i.e. are a sick freak)

You can kill without cruelty quite easily. A good example is the clubbing of baby seals. Sounds inhumane and cruel on the surface but the fact is baby seals skulls do not have fully knit bones (same as human babies) and a good whack to the noggin is effective and painless. Not so to adult seals of course. Fish, or any other protein snack should be dispatched humanely.

Humane/Inhumane is another term you may wish to examine as it sets the undrlying theme and tone. (definition stolen verbatim unashamedly)
lacking and reflecting lack of pity, kindness, or
compassion; as, humans are innately inhumane; this explains
much of the misery and suffering in the world; biological
weapons are considered too inhumane to be used. [Narrower
terms: barbarous, brutal, cruel, fell, roughshod, savage, vicious
; beastly, bestial, brute(prenominal), brutish, cannibalic
"Killling fish is inhumane" .... reply.... "I disagree, I feel affinity and compassion for these magnificent beasts which is why I dispatch them quickly and cleanly"

Don't ever argue with the floral undies brigade on their own terms.
Cheers,
anthropomorphic


----------



## hairymick (Oct 18, 2005)

Nup, Fishing is not cruel.

These hippy,pinko skinny armed, peta type maggots can make all the absurd claims they like.

They are attempting to impose there own set of values upon you and me with theories, that is all they are boys and girls - theories, on whether the fish feel pain. How the hell can they tell if it is pain that the fish feel as you and i understand it or an instinctive reaction to having something in their mouth that is pulling them in a direction other than the the one in which they want to go?

Simple answer is they can't. They are bloody guessing.

Not all of us are happy to eat only freaking mung beans and the like.


----------



## Brownie (Aug 15, 2007)

hairymick said:


> Nup, Fishing is not cruel.
> 
> These hippy,pinko skinny armed, peta type maggots can make all the absurd claims they like. ..............
> 
> .......... Not all of us are happy to eat only freaking mung beans and the like.


And who knows if mung bean plants don't feel pain on some subversive level when their bean is pulled... :shock: :lol:


----------



## AndyC (Feb 29, 2008)

Why is it that I constantly read self defeating comments? Why do even fisho's assume that our beloved pasttime will someday be banned and its only a matter of time? Does that mean that we deep down believe that it SHOULD be banned? Do we all expect to be living on Soylent Green in a few years, because killing anything more complex than algae is 'cruel'? And yep, I will become an activist for the rights of the mung bean plant!

And another one is the notion that our yaks will have to be registered .... only a matter of time because the pollies can't resist a revenue opportunity!!

Seems to me, laws are about the only commodity that is constantly being manuafactured and added to, rather than replaced. We are reaching a point where we can't break wind without a licence and we actually expect our politicians to take away more of our freedoms. Surely it doesn't have to be that way?

The 'system' in a democratic society is supposed to protect the values and rights of the majority. The reality seems to be that minority groups run the world because the majority is too apathetic to protect their own rights. And I am beginning to think that the majority is already programmed for defeat.

Obviously, the 'Crusader Rabbits' have been much encouraged by defeating the smokers but recognise that the drinkers are too tough for now ...... but you fishos ........... Now there might be some sport.

I think we had better start preparing to protect what we love instead of preparing for defeat. Writing a post on a forum where all are friends is less effective (although much easier) than writing to your politicians.

Those people can have my fishing gear when they either stop their shameless cruelty toward the Mung Bean or when they can wrest it from my lifeless fingers. As for registering my yak? Pee on that! You better get ready to register your kids' floaties too!

Cheers all,

AndyC


----------



## Astro (Nov 27, 2006)

andy some good points..but personally i don't think fishing will be banned...rather it will be so controlled that the aspects of what we now enjoy will not be there...

was discussing this over a couple of beers with mates who have travelled OS and some of the rules and regulations are crazy..ie if you catch a fish..any fish...then you have to kill it and keep it and if you are fishing a one fish limit you then have to pack up and leave....

considering that some European countries have banned C&R fishing reflects a growing trend in the treatment of animals in general...it's the question of using animals for sport and/or food and methods used that are the issue...

while there is a very strong fishing culture in oz we will have some protection of our beloved sport/hobby/recreation we have to be weary of potential attacks from those who disagree with us....pity they seem to very organised and fairly effective in achieving their goals...

steps off soapbox...


----------



## yankatthebay (Dec 14, 2007)

anthropomorphic said:


> yankatthebay said:
> 
> 
> > of course it can be considered cruel. Killing cows is cruel too, but that is accepted in society so that we can eat red meat.
> ...


ok, most killing of fish is not done in a cruel way. It is quick and therefore not prolonging any pain caused to the fish.

At least we arent killing them slowly with poisons or something like that. If we are worried about the animal-lovers brigade, they should be more worried about the inhumane and no doubt painful killing of animals, pesticides no doubt cause more suffering to animals than all the fishing in the world. If anyone is trying to ban fishing (because they think it is cruel or inhumane), they should first ban fly spray...otherwise they should get off their high horse and stop with their neverending hypocritical speeches about how we should do things differently.


----------



## surfingyaker (Jun 18, 2008)

I beleive that the people who say this is cruel are right as well as wrong.

Of course fish feel pain, every other living animal does so why wouldnt they. And yes they are ofcourse stressed out and in pain with a hook in them.

But on the other hand its the circle of life. Eating meat and fish in not wrong, its simply fulfilling our dietery needs.My grandfather had often told me about when he and his friends would just catch and kill everyfish they could (always to eat), Nowadays there are very few people who do this. Most of the time it is catch and release and keep the monsters.
All of my freinds who fish, catch and release and only eat when there parents tell them to bring something home or they feel like fish for dinner.

Lochy


----------



## HoldYourHour (May 6, 2008)

There is a fair bit of research that suggests fish do not feel 'pain' in anything like the same way that humans do and that you just can't compare them. Have a look here for a quick write up:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/ ... 83181.html

m.


----------



## petanquedon (May 27, 2008)

To survive all organisms have to respond to their environment in a manor that gives them some sort of advantage.

This requires some way to react to stimuli that may be very subtle.

Honeybees have language for instance.

Bacteria can migrate towards a source of nutrients.

Perhaps the question should be is it cruel to take a course of antibiotics because millions of bacteria may die?

Personally I would sooner it was them than me.

Or is every thing going to die eventually and we are only arguing over the details?


----------



## ausbass (Feb 15, 2007)

To be honest fishing has it's 'cruel' aspects though it has to do with the respect the angler has for the fish and the environment. 
eg. ive seen how a drunken (not necessarily) yobbo rips his/her rod into the fish to set the hook, deathdrag it to the boat/shore and then lets it flop around on the rocks/floor until it asphixiates (sp?) and dies, sucumbing to rigor mortis or having a knife thrown at it.

Now thats cruel, nothing deserves that treatment (maybe the angler, but I don't want to advertise vigilante action), now compare it to someone who cares for the environment and the inhabitants (not just fish).

eg. the angler hooks using a slow, steady pressure to set the hook, than allows the fish to fight the drag/rod pressure until it is settled down without unneccesarily prelonging the fight (prevents baratrauma in deep water angling) (there are certain circumstances where a heavy fighting style is needed; GT fishing or in snags) then lifts/nets/lip grips the fish supporting the whole weight of the fish to prevent spine elongation onto a suitable bench/flat area. A quick and careful unhooking (of a debarbed hook for lures/some bait hooks) using pliers/dehooking device or hands, a measure/photograph (if releasing) and then a careful release or quick dispatch using the iki jimi/hit on the head (using a suitable tool; wooden/metal priest).
After dispatching the LEGAL sized fish, the catch should be stored in a box/esky full of ice/ice slurry or coolpacks.
This example takes around 1-2min after bringing the fish boatside/shoreside.

Thats how I see the matter, and when I see young kids/teenagers down the pier/river throwing knives at fish they have caught or kicking fish, I bring it upon myself to tell them where to go (like a long walk off a short pier) and what they are doing is wrong. Usually the response is a disgruntled "get f*cked" though sometimes it seems to sink in, so they dispose of the battered fish/animal in a bin and move off.

This subject has its various veiws on the matter, usually depending on how the angler has been brought up with caring for their catch, and people are entitled to that veiw. Though the presence of negative veiws on CMPR (catch, measure, photograph and release) has me worried about the future of our sport with Greenie groups being taken notice of by the wider public and media.

Overall my veiw is that fishing can be cruel though only because a few people make us look like a bunch of 'eco-terrorists', although CMPR and limted catch and keep fishing it the best way to conserve our fish stocks for the future generations.


----------



## Scouse (Aug 1, 2007)

This gave me a great udea for
flamin doogooding Hippy's......






Enjoy

Ian


----------



## Greybeard (Mar 17, 2008)

I agree with rick this is a public Forum and if you write it and it suits the cause they wil use it to their benefit, they are not experts, in the beginning we had smart people and they wrote their thoughts and ideas into books and then taught these things to people with good memories who now think their smart after getting a uni degree using someone elses ideas.As for them winning the smoking debate I will challenge anyone to sit in their car with a 2inch pipe from the exhaust into a window while I sit in my car and chain smoke with the windows up and we'll see who comes out alive anyone that drives a car and is critical of smoking is a hypocrite. My opinion
Greybeard.


----------



## Astro (Nov 27, 2006)

Greybeard said:


> As for them winning the smoking debate I will challenge anyone to sit in their car with a 2inch pipe from the exhaust into a window while I sit in my car and chain smoke with the windows up and we'll see who comes out alive anyone that drives a car and is critical of smoking is a hypocrite. My opinion
> Greybeard.


sorry lost me here....how did we get from fishing to smoking...

got my brother here from Germany atm, if he wants to fish he needs:
licence
permit, to fish one particular part of a river/stream
must kill and keep first "legal" fish any undersized must be released
after first fish caught must pack up and go home

why are these rules, rules??
because the greenie, tree hugging, peta people got it into peoples heads, fishing IS cruel...no other reason

btw asked why don't they ocean fish...no more fish was the answer....


----------



## Greybeard (Mar 17, 2008)

Astro


> [/quObviously, the 'Crusader Rabbits' have been much encouraged by defeating the smokers but recognise that the drinkers are too tough for now ...... but you fishos ........... Now there might be some sport.
> 
> cheers Greybeard


----------



## redman (Jun 5, 2008)

No more fish in Germany in the Oceans - Ouch. If the beuracrats decide to act like beauracrats and ban fishing I for one will be telling them where they can stick it and continue to fish anyway. If fish can hunt other fish then we certainly should be able to hunt the fish - the way I see it is that if a fish decides to bite my lure it had in mind exactly what I have in mind for it  

Cheers,

Redman


----------



## Astro (Nov 27, 2006)

Greybeard said:


> Astro
> 
> 
> > [/quObviously, the 'Crusader Rabbits' have been much encouraged by defeating the smokers but recognise that the drinkers are too tough for now ...... but you fishos ........... Now there might be some sport.
> ...


i saw that but can't see the connection since my understanding was the driving force was health issues...not peta

yes smoking was a easier target only about 30% of the population smoke, 99% of adults drink from my experience


----------



## Swamp (Nov 20, 2007)

Is fishing cruel? Maybe

Am I going to stop fishing? No


----------



## liquor box (Jun 4, 2007)

There are aspects of fishing that do cause pain and stress to the fish, but that is the order of the world, we are top of the chain so that is how it goes.

For any animal activists I have a simple question- Is it better for me to catch and kill a fish to eat, or for my family to be crying from hunger pains?

I think the issue is very Dependant on the person catching the fish, Carp can not be returned to the water after catching, but I still kill them with a spike through the brain to put them out of misery. I have seen people who leave them to suffer of even kick them through the air as they see them as a pest, this type of behavior gives all fishermen a bad reputation, and if Karma and reincarnation exist, then these people will suffer in the long run.


----------



## wopfish (Dec 4, 2006)

Life is cruel.......... unfortunately or fortunately we have got to our high plain of thinking / ethics and moral society through death and destruction through war and imposing the wills of one race / nation and peoples over the other... sheet .... and we call ourselves civillised... well maybe but its come at a price.

I'm happy to catch my 25 edible fish for the year.... my sport has a low impact on the environment... in fish stocks and my approach. Most of my bye catch goes back safely to live another day...... The animal kingdom especially below the waves is a hunt or be hunted kind of existence...

Is fishing cruel ????? As cruel as the Orca when it seperates a calf whale from its mother only to kill and eat it for its jawbone and tongue.

Is fishing cruel ???? Only as much as a school of tuna will rip into a bait ball of 5,000 pilchards and just leave scales glinting as they fall into the abyss.

Is fishing cruel ???? As only as much as the angler fish tempts his pray with a faux lure from its head only to engulf it in its huge jaws.........

Its a cruel cruel ocean out there and my part that I play is a very small part in it... and if I was to be denied the right to feed too in the oceans then surely I would be deniying what it is to be human - to feed myself and family through predation of other species.

Life IS cruel........... but I tell you what I should imagine that many fishermen have an honest and vested interest in the health of fish stocks....... and rather seeing the ocean as a free larder to help oneself to - I revel in it as my church and the fish and creatures that dwell in it I respect and am in awe of. The ocean is pure in its simplicity and its way... it doesnt suffer fools gladly and once in it or on it you are either on the hunt or being hunted and more often than not you are both !!!!!!!

Respect to the ocean and fuck anyone who tries to stop me communing with it !


----------



## blaggon (Jan 14, 2008)

wopfish said:


> Respect to the ocean and fuck anyone who tries to stop me communing with it !


Amen to that..


----------



## Dave73 (Dec 3, 2006)

surfingyaker said:


> I beleive that the people who say this is cruel are right as well as wrong.
> 
> Of course fish feel pain, every other living animal does so why wouldnt they. And yes they are ofcourse stressed out and in pain with a hook in them.
> 
> ...


Well said Lochy, and showing Zen like abilities to recognise there can be good and bad in everything...


----------



## Astro (Nov 27, 2006)

wopfish said:


> Respect to the ocean and fuck anyone who tries to stop me communing with it !


gee the krauts could have done with you mate...

my brother and co will have any and every opportunity to indulge when with me....hope we hook up...


----------



## Big D (Apr 28, 2007)

Genesis 1

Vs 24 God commanded, "Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life, domestic and wild, large and small" - and it was done. So God made them all, and he was pleased with what he saw. ...........

vs 26 Then God said, "And now We will make human beings, they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals, domestic and wild, large and small"...............

vs 28 God said (to Adam and Eve) , "I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals."

So we have charge of all the fish, birds and animals. Does that mean all we can use fish for is to train them to sit, roll over, and beg??? :shock:


----------



## fishydude (Dec 30, 2007)

G'day folks. I'm not a veg head :shock: (Oafish for vegetarian ;-)) Something must die so that I can eat  . I like to vary what I eat and I like to eat fish 8) . I imagine fish struggling in a net wouldn't be all that stoked so I might as well go get them myself and dispatch them humanely :? . If people ban the eating of animal flesh then I will have to get meat from somewhere :shock: ....best they look out :twisted: . The catch and release side of things I have only really started recently as I used to stop fishing and go to the pub once I'd caught enough :? . Now I don't drink :lol: . Probably pretty cruel but life in the ocean is pretty nasty really :shock: . Everything is looking to feed, fight or fornica... :shock: ....get snuggly...lol ;-) . Some critters train by mauling and repeatedly nailing other critters :shock: . To those folk who would try to stop us fishing...good luck...'bout the biggest sporting pastime in the world surely? ;-) Cruelty is making someone who fishes go through life unable to fish.....Bet the do-gooders bet on the Melbourne cup...Breaking a horse to force it to let you ride it ain't cruel...lol.......Oops...just fell off my own high horse..lol. :lol: 
Cheers
Mike


----------



## DGax65 (Jun 7, 2006)

Cruelty is defined as the deliberate infliction of pain or suffering. That is a broad definition with no context, so it doesn't really help us with this argument. Here is some context...................
Fish eat fish. Fish do not administer a sedative and then a lethal injection to their intended meal. Fish rip each other apart; tearing out chunks of living flesh as the 'victim' frantically struggles to escape. Fish also swallow other fish whole and then crush them to death. Fish swallow living fish; sucking them into their gullet and digesting them. Great white sharks have been known to tear the heads off or disembowel swimmers. WOW, that all sounds cruel. Maybe the animal rights activists could swim out to the local reef to protest the cruelty of fish. When I spike a fish I am giving it the quickest, least painful death that it could possible expect (if fish had the mental capacity to ponder their mortality). I reject the very notion of cruelty. Fish is food. Fish are killed and eaten by other fish. Fish are killed and eaten by me. I just happen to do the job more quickly and with less pain and suffering.

Cruelty is not an absolute value; it is subjective. A person's definition of cruelty is often inversely proportional to their exposure to the realities of life. A teenage university student who has never payed rent, has never seen a farm (because they don't have farms in Grand Theft Auto IV) and has only a sneaking suspicion that those trays of neatly cut meat in the supermarket might not come from 'some sort of factory, or, ya know, like a packaging plant', has a deeply warped sense of what cruelty might be. That slacker, and millions of other city dwellers, who have never been exposed to the realities of life are likely to think that any killing of an animal is cruel. Even if they are not vegetarians or vegans, they will probably still think that killing animals/fish for food is cruel. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of life and death among those who have never had to provide their own food. The only 'experience' that these people have had with animals is in a completely different context; pets, Disney movies, sterile packaged meat from the market that Mommy cooks. They do not understand one of the few constants of life: animals die so that other animals may live. That is not cruelty; it is life.

Maybe I'm just tilting at windmills, but I have never liked seeing ignorance win out over logic. I detest the notion that some idiot vegetarian, ignorant of the very nature of life, is going to force his fairytale world view on me. I don't tell vegetarians that they have to eat meat and I don't expect them to tell me that I can't. Likewise, if they aren't comfortable with the practice of fishing, they don't have to fish.......but they sure as f**k better not tell me that I can't fish. I have a mouth full o' teeth and more than half of them are meant for cutting; not chewing. Millions of years of evolution equipped me with teeth whose sole function is to cut through meat. Who am I to deny millions of generations of slowly evolving Dgaxmonkeys from realizing their full evolutionary potential? I will go forth, kill and eat fish (humanely and with minimal cruelty) to honor my great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great grandmonkey; Dgax01. ;-)


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

Here we go...
I think super-seiners and trawlers/large-scale production/processing boats are what's cruel; to Mother Nature. The technology is getting too good in identifying and harvesting. There's no way to recover or even hide from all that technology. My hook and line fishing isn't cruel.

If it was so painful how do I catch fish twice? They have enough brain power to feel and process pain, but no room for memory of the barb or torn cartilage? No way I say.


----------



## Davey G (Jan 15, 2006)

Doug. Well said and I couldn't agree more. 8)

You crack me up, you big monkey.... :lol:


----------



## feel the sting (Aug 8, 2006)

Now isn't this a headstrainer of a topic. A can opener of worms.

Fishing is cruel. No doubt about it.

But I'm still going to do it, because I enjoy fishing. The hunting and gathering aspect appeals to me on a intrinsically human level. Which is something I don't want to lose.

For me it'll be about finding the balance between supposed socially acceptable behaviour, and being a man.

The sting


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2008)

Life in the animal kingdom is cruel...

Humans are animals (albeit a little more intelligent, but animals nonetheless) too, and I don't quite see the problem with us killing for food. Obviously there is a line which should not be crossed as to killing with the absolute lowest level of pain and suffering, but in my mind suggesting we as humans should not kill other animals for food is completely contrary to our very nature.

The tree hugging animal rights people have no issues with other predatory animals killing for food (and often in ways much more traumatic than us knocking a fish on the head) yet they protest against us practicing the same.

The fact is, we humans are at the top of the food chain, and I don't wish to relinquish my place there for some tofu eating hippy who is in denial as to their place in the world. Making me eat veggie burgers and meat made of soy beans is far more traumatic to me than anything I might inflict upon a fish!

Now, I'm hungry and its lunch time......i'm going to go eat something made from some sort of dead animal and enjoy my place in the food chain 8) ......


----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

i think its unfair when there is so much technology to target fish. i love trying to work out the puzzle of where in a patch of water the fish might be. catching a fish after observing the flows and currents and signs of shade and light and snags etc is what is really interesting to me.

gutting and beheading something that to me is really beautiful doesnt give me much of a thrill so i really only bring home fish if a family member or friend puts an order in. i dont kill flathead as i think they are the most interesting estuary fish and they dont occur in big schools and are too easily targeted. that said a bloke on a trawler admitted to me that baby flathead get caught in nets due to very prominent headspikes and they kill thousands so they should clean up their act

as for cruelty i dont think pain is so much a concern as sustainability.i dont mind a bit of pain it reminds you your alive. i dont think rec fishing makes as big a dent in the fish numbers as the impact of people who really dont care. as an example the numbers of big (over big) stink boats creating a constant wash and killing weed beds with silt do far more damage than a bloke in a kayak could ever do. would like to see more research done on the subtle effects on the environment. eg i believe that dugong in moreton bay keep a certain type of weed at bay and allow another weed type to grow and this weed is very important to nurturing prawn embryos. so when a moron on a jetski clobbers a dugong he is affecting prawn and therefore bream populations in a very complex cycle. whilst i think most greenies are just negative hypocrites (who often drive big cars) it would be good for members of akff to understand marine biology so we can be rational in how we promote fishing


----------



## justcrusin (Oct 1, 2006)

Of Course fishing is Cruel, anyone fishing around Sydney will attest to this, It has been absolute TORTURE the last few weeks not being able to get a decent fish.

I'm beginning to now how Davey G feels :twisted: :lol: :lol:

Cheers Dave


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

Although I do think there is such a thing as a cruel fisherman (and that their per capita numbers are decreasing constantly), I don't think fishing - if done responsibly - is cruel in any way. I don't know whether fish feel pain but either way, sure, I suspect that being hooked and reeled in causes discomfort at least and in many cases, stress or trauma. Regardless, it's a moot point to me because any animal that is farmed or hunted for food is going to go through some level of stress/discomfort/pain (take your pick) any way, full stop.

That being the case - and understanding that no amount of lobbying will ever convince any society or government to ban consumption of meat - the efforts of PETA and groups like them would be much better served targeting wholesale harvesting (and farming) methods for investigation. That's where the biggest difference can be made by far and that's where they should be spending their energy. It can never be about eliminating pain or discomfort, but for sure, it should be about minimising it.

The Aussie meat, fish & poultry industries aren't going to just sit back and be lobbied out of existence. Nor is the massive boating industry and it's various off-shoots. Nor the rec fishing industry. And nor will the critical mass of people who have eaten meat all their lives. Boating and fishing is in no danger of being stamped out whatsoever, although sure, heavier regulations look likely. But that's as far as it will go I reckon.

There are plenty-o people who are vegetarian or vegan and some of them rampantly so, preaching it like gospel at any opportunity. But speaking of gospel, I seem to recall that - according to the bible - on 2 occasions, Jesus fed several thousand people with just a few loafs of bread and a couple of fish. Yes, fish. I'm not a man of the church myself, but knowing a thing or two about the bible, I've used this example a few times now to silence people who criticise fishing. How many thousands of people would have died if Jesus didn't have those trusty fish handy? I don't take the written word of bible as gospel, but most people are pretty cautious about upsetting the religious status quo.

What I do believe in is the 'cycle of life' concept (mentioned by others earlier in the thread), which is exactly what my avatar symbol represents, and why I use it here and on my website. The Oroborous symbolises many things actually, but for many societies, religions and civilisations, the snake eating it's own tail is a symbol of the cycle of life. That cycle is how nature rolls. Messing with that is just crazy, and it's a point that's just too easy to argue. Lions hunt antelope. Dogs hunts cat, cats hunts mice. And cute little fished get pounced upon and literally torn apart by larger fish every single day, and in mind-boggling numbers. So my contribution of a few fish kept a week is no more than a drop in the ocean.

Unfortunately, in today's modern world there are many people are so anethatised to reality that they truly think it's super market shelves that provide for them. I suspect that's likely to change in the not too distant future. The collective mass will get smart again, and hunting and fishing for food, as well as growing food in backyard vege patches will get much more acceptance. Given the price and quality of many foods that can be bought from super markets, etc, I'm amazed there isn't more people doing it now.


----------



## Greybeard (Mar 17, 2008)

Astro wrote


> [btw asked why don't they ocean fish...no more fish was the answer/quote]
> What oceans abute Germany
> Just arrived Home from Minnesota Holiday with lations and a local state resident paid $18.00 for a licence and I as A non resident had to pay $46.00 for a licence and $10.00 for a trout stamp the state has 10,000 lakes. They know how to manage their resources as I caught good quality fish the whole time I was over there and there is 250 million people in America. I dont think there is a problem if you know how to manage the resource properly and use the correct data for the benefit of everyone.
> The point being whats overseas fishing rules Got to do with the situation here *And PETA*
> Cheers Greybeard


----------



## AJD (Jul 10, 2007)

Yes fishing is cruel. Particularly when the fish won't bite.
MUM those nasty fish are being cruel to me!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Deepsouth (Feb 17, 2008)

fishing hunting is all cruel, but we try to minimise the impact of that cruelty by using good gear and knowing what we are doing. Studies have shown that the fish do feel pain from the hook, what degree dunno, but it does hurt them.
Same as a big deer who gets shot in the lungs, I bet thats gotta hurt till it drops dead, however the lung shot other than the head shot gives you the best chance of bringing the animal down. But by using bigger bores, better impacting bullets and such its possible to minimise if not totally take the cruelty out of it. 
When fishing, circle or octopus hooks are the best to use to prevent gut hook ups, not to say its not going to happen but you try to minimise the impact. 
Unfortunately the people who jump on the cruelty band wagon still buy their processed foods, and neglect the stress and anxiety alot of the mass slaughtered animals are more than likely facing. 
The first time I went rabbit shooting was an eye opener, it took me a while to pull the trigger but it was a kill shot and I felt better afterwards. Occasionally we made a shot that was a little low and you have to break the rabbits neck, but once the shot is made you are over there pretty quickly anyways. The satisfaction of shooting, cleaning and cooking up something you "hunted" is pretty good, and the same goes for fishing. 
Unless you are like those vegans that only eat food that has fallen of the tree or plant, you're kidding yourself if you think arent inflicting some sort of cruelty on an animal or plant.


----------



## andybear (Jan 15, 2006)

Slightly off the subject, 
but notice we don't use the word slaughterhouse anymore. Sounds so much nicer when you say "A BAT Twuh". Even words like "put down" are frowned upon, and euthanased said instead. Used to be that horses got "Shot" or even "destroyed". I guess in thirty years or so, the word euthanasia will be replaced with some other gobbeledy **** relating to some sort of life extinction process without pain. Who are we protecting anyway? Last time I had anything to do with that ummm process where you use a knife to turn a live animal into bits of meat that you can put into a fridge, the process was arranged almost in secret, and the animal lead to spot "x", and before you could wink, there was about 20 kids sitting on a log, on ringside seating waiting for the blood!

Cheers all Andybear


----------



## Astro (Nov 27, 2006)

Greybeard said:


> The point being whats overseas fishing rules Got to do with the situation here *And PETA*
> Cheers Greybeard


GB, peta are a global organisation and if they have been successful os then it stands to reason that they would like to do the same everywhere. consider the sheep farmers and mulsing...farmers thought that the practice that caused short term pain/discomfort for long term health of the beast was a good thing. peta have been very effective in their targeting this practice, so much so that farmers now have to change their farming practices to maintain their sales market os. as for how other countries manage their own fishing rules i think we could do better to adopt some practices rather than closing down large areas to fishing which is what is currently happening.


----------



## AndyC (Feb 29, 2008)

Don't you just love these 'can of worms' threads? I reckon my first response would be, if you have to ask the question then you certainly shouldn't be fishing! Who knows what future guilt scars you might have to bear, AFTER you conclude that, yes ... it is cruel!

The dictionary definition of cruelty seems to indicate that it is BEING INDIFFERENT TO or taking pleasure in the pain or distress of another.

My support is with the folks who argue that we have our own place in creation and that we have as much right as any other creature to exist and to therefore predate upon other creatures to support that existence.

That inevitably raises a far more important issue ..... Is Catch and Release fishing defensable? And at that point, I can see no valid choice but to say a very resounding NO ... No no no! Hurt-for-fun fishing, when you have no intention of turning your victim into dinner, simply can't be justified. Anyone who wants to argue that catching a fish doesn't subject it to pain, distress and a very real probability of injury (occasioning further pain, suffering and distress), simply isn't facing facts.

I do believe that when our sport comes under attack (and it certainly will), it will be the practice of catch-and-release angling that will prove to be its 'Archilles Heel'.

Personally, I have no axe to grind regarding my angling brothers who choose to pursue catch-and-release. I don't agree with them, but I respect their right to make (AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR) their own decisions. What really annoys me, is the odd catch-and-release fisho who comes across as if he sees himself as being somehow morally superior to me .... a lowly meat fisherman!

See, he might think that I am some kind of primative hunter gatherer who hasn't quite made the leap into the current century. But in MY eyes HE ..... is just plain CRUEL!!! He is a hurt-for-fun person.

Cheers all,

AndyC


----------



## wopfish (Dec 4, 2006)

Some very interesting points there Andy C - indeed food for thought ;-)


----------



## Peril (Sep 5, 2005)

AndyC said:


> Don't you just love these 'can of worms' threads? I reckon my first response to the person who started this thread and who chose its title would be, if you have to ask the question then you certainly shouldn't be fishing! Who knows what future guilt scars you might have to bear, AFTER you conclude that, yes ... it is cruel!


Did you bother to read the original post or the article linked to it?


----------



## justcrusin (Oct 1, 2006)

Andy C - Do you keep undersize fish??

If the answer is no then your a catch an release fisherman, and by your own definition cruel. If you don't then your breaking the law. catch 22 :?

I catch and release, I also keep one or two fish for dinner.

the orginal article was about wether fish feel pain the same way we do. It is quite interesting. The article talks about how fish feel pain. Then about catch and release and its merits. Worth reading

cheers Dave


----------



## AndyC (Feb 29, 2008)

Hi Peril,

I did read the article when it was posted back in March. I'm very sorry if I caused you to feel personally affronted at the way I presented my recent post. There was certainly nothing remotely personal intended in the comment. I was responding to the title of this thread.

I thought the article was excellent and anything that leads us to thoughtfully consider our actions, our motivations and our morality can only be a good thing. I will edit my post to remove any wording that might have offended. Sincere apologies.

Dave,

I agree with you completely. There is a difference though, I reckon, between compliance with the law (which implies limits on one's freedom to choose) and how one chooses to behave when not constrained by the law. So I still would see a difference between returning an (legally) undersized fish and returning one that is large enough to be legal.

I did read Peril's article, both when it was posted and again today (incase I had missed something) and I agree that it is an excellent read.

Before I get drawn and quartered over the views that I have stated in my post, let me state publicly that I have certainly practiced C&R myself on occasions. I do return undersized fish to the water .... even Redfin which others consider to be 'pest fish'. (So no legal requirement to return them ... just want them to grow for the future) No doubt, I will practice C&R in that sense, for as long as I fish. It is simply not the basis upon which I would normally CHOOSE to fish. I have no criticism to make whatever, of my friends who are catch and release anglers. I know many of them and feel privileged to enjoy their company.

For my own part, I can only say that, if there was no prospect of being able to catch a feed, I wouldn't feel like I had any reason to continue angling.

Cheers,

AndyC


----------



## onemorecast (Apr 17, 2006)

AndyC said:


> See, he might think that I am some kind of primative hunter gatherer who hasn't quite made the leap into the current century. But in MY eyes HE ..... is just plain CRUEL!!! He is a hurt-for-fun person.


I don't quite understand why you seem to go out of your way to say you respect the angler who practices C&R yet you end with this last statement :?

In your eyes are all C&R anglers cruel, or only the ones who critsize your philosophy of fishing? If you want to hop up on your holier than thou pedestal and call people "Hurt for Fun people" then the notion that you respect their opinion is pretty weak.


----------



## Astro (Nov 27, 2006)

AndyC said:


> I do believe that when our sport comes under attack (and it certainly will), it will be the practice of catch-and-release angling that will prove to be its 'Archilles Heel'.
> 
> For my own part, I can only say that, if there was no prospect of being able to catch a feed, I wouldn't feel like I had any reason to continue angling.
> AndyC


i tend to agree on these points

these types of arguments are common between C&R and C&E fisher persons

whilst all C&E fishers do practice C&R with undersized/protected species the main aim is to put food on the table. whilst i see myself in the C&E camp i have practised C&R once i have got a feed if the fish are still biting. to minimise the damage/pain caused to fish i only fish single hooks and if C&R i will also remove barbs as well

it is important that all fisher persons stick together and work as a single group to protect our sport as divisions will weaken any arguments we present.

C&E is harder to restrict since there is the underlying motivation of supplying food for the table and would impact on farming and the supply of all meat products in our supermarkets etc

even had someone say to me the other day that they thought fishing was cruel. this was over dinner as they were happily eating their steak....it's funny how people are losing the connection between the food on their plate and how that animal has been raised, killed and processed for them. needless to say that that person was not comfortable when i went through the time line from farm to their plate for their dinner that night. especially considering a fish living in a free range/organic environment compared to a 500 - 600 kg cow that is kept in locked paddocks with it,s nuts cut out (for steers)


----------



## fishydude (Dec 30, 2007)

I have begun to practice catch and release recently, meaning I will return a legal fish to the water if it is not just right. I only keep flathead between about 45 and 55cm as before 45cm they don't really make a feed so you need more than 1 and after 55 they have earned the chance to go that little bit longer and breed I think 8) . Salmon I like to be at that stage where they have nuggeted up and feel somewhat like a house brick in solidity :lol: . The only fish that I really target for sport ( and not too often ) are bream and strongies and I don't think I'd have too much trouble stopping that if it became law ;-) , but I would continue to put back fish that were too big or small by my own standards which are far less lenient than the law 8) . 
Cheers
Mike


----------



## Van (Mar 25, 2006)

I saw a program on commercial Buefin Tuna fishing onTV where the guy inserted a spike or needle from the front right in between the eyes of the tuna, which then immediately immobilized or killed it, so as to avoid the fish getting bruised as they get sold on the sushi/sashimi markets and fetch higher prices the better the meat. I gather that this must mean that they have a kill spot and would assume that this would be the same for most fist. Maybe someone can shed some light on this, as it does not seem to matter where you stab a Flathead, it does not die easily. I assume the spearfishermen would also know more about this, as I have always thought it cruel on vt shows when they leave the fish dangling at the end of a gaff while they give thier spiele.
Cheers Van


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2008)

Van, Its called Ike Jime

What you are trying to do is to insert a spike into the fishes brain to cause quick brain death. This kills the fish quickly and does not alow it to thrash around the floor and bruise the flesh and also prevents the buildup of lactic acid and adrenaline which can taint the flesh.

The exact area to aim for is actually the brain stem which is just below the main part of the brain. This is where the centres regulating the circulation and breathing (gills etc) mechanisms are found. Also the motor pathways pass through close to this area and destruction of these will cause paralysis.

Ike Jime is also often combined with cutting the gills or tail of the fish. This is especially important in pelagic species as bleeding the fish drastically improved the eating and keeping properties. Anyone who has tried eating unbled australian salmon will know what I am talking about.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2008)

Here is another interesting bit of trivia.

Normally any muscle needs an electrical stimulation for the nerves for it to contract. 
If we spike a fish in the brain stem and destroy the circulatory centre, or if we sever the spine and paralyse the fish, why does the heart still beat if the rest of the fish is paralysed?

The heart is the only muscle that can generate its own electrical potential. This is a principal known as automaticity. This means that the heart will still pump blood around the body so several minutes after the brain stem is destroyed. Eventually the lack of oxygen will cause the heart muscle to die and it will stop.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2008)

Van, X marks the spot for me. Insert blade, twist and it should be job done.


----------

