As a final note (in this post anyway) I linked in my OP here the thread from which this one derived, wherein I spoke up for the fish and wherein John Bambury abused me for my views.
I abused you because you intentionally hijacked and derailed my thread, not because of your views. You have now expressed your views in a new thread which is what you should have done in the first place.
I have owned a boat (several) over the past 40 years and I have been a recreational fisherman for over 50 years. I still own a boat but don't use it all that often as its hard work when I am only fishing for 2 fish and I prefer the tranquility and relaxation of beach fishing. My routine is pretty standard. I go and catch 10 live beach worms at 7 mile beach at Gerroa. I keep the worms alive with a special aerated bait container. They can live happily for several days in it but they only ever spend a maximum of a few hours in it. Depending on the wind I either fish at Bombo Beach, Werri Beach or Seven Mile Beach. I only fish one or 2 days a month as I try to coincide high tide about sunset. I go fishing to catch 2 fish and 2 fish only. One for my meal and one for my wife's meal. I have a self imposed rule where any fish I take home must be NSW legal size plus 3cm. I release any fish that I cannot eat. I release all breeding females irrespective of size, in order to sustain fish stocks. I go home after I have caught my 2 fish. If the first fish I catch is large enough to feed both my wife and I ( a school jewfish, a kingfish, or big tailor for instance) then I pack up and go home. I don't stay there another 3 hours, catch 8 more fish for fun and throw them back. I release back into the water alive, all of the beach worms I have not used.
Please see below an image of a diamond python and a joey.
The diamond python I found injured in the gutter about 7pm at night on my way home from work. It had been run over by a car. Bleeding quite a bit but still alive and able to move slowly. I figured "it might just make it back". I picked the snake up put it into a cardboard box in the back of my car and made a 100km round trip to take it to the 24hr vet in Dapto. I phoned the vet 3 days later and the snake had done well and was going to be released in a couple more days.
The Joey was rescued after its mother was killed by a car. It is sitting on my bed which is covered with the astronomy quilt that my wife made me. My wife actually made several pouches for the joey, for its carer to use, as it had no mothers pouch to use.
Don't dare be so blind, or ignorant, to presume that everyone who goes fishing is cruel and has no respect for the life and feelings of other species.
But John you're still missing the point. It's not just about the fish. It's about cruelty to any animal.
What about the worms you use for bait. Do you stick a big hook through them to keep them on the line? Without your interference would they have remained alive longer?
And you're still recreationally fishing by choice because you enjoy it. You just happen to eat what you enjoy catching.
Congratulations for helping other animals. That is great work too. But this discussion isn't about a ledger where kindness to some animals offsets cruelty to others. In fact you've rather proved my point that recreational fishing is cruel, that it's inconsistent with the way we feel other animals should be treated. That's not logical. Can you see that now?
I am truly amazed that you are still alive. What do you eat?
As Andrew Lockwood mentioned you are obviously vegans. But with your feelings towards all living things how do you bring yourself to eat a carrot, that was once a living thing, after it has been so cruelly pulled from its home in the ground and then had a knife taken to it to prepare it for the table. Or maybe you're a fruitarian, but then how would you eat a banana, or an apple or an orange after it has been so cruelly plucked from its home in the tree.
Perhaps the hunters and those who fish for the sole purpose of recreation...not because they are starving and need to hunt/fish to survive, can explain what pleasure it is they gain from the taking of another entity's life and why they think this is any different to the cruelty that's perpetrated upon other animals such as cats and dogs which society says is illegal.
Interesting point.
A large number of cat owners let their cats out. Cats kill for fun. A domestic cat will generally play with and kill about 3 animals per night.
Do you believe that the owner should be prosecuted for this, in the knowledge that they are allowing an animal under their control to go out and kill?
But John you're still missing the point. It's not just about the fish. It's about cruelty to any animal.
What about the worms you use for bait. Do you stick a big hook through them to keep them on the line? Without your interference would they have remained alive longer?
You do have a vaguely valid point. The problem is that you are applying human morals to nature, and nature doesn't work that way.
Every single animal is either killed/eaten alive by a predator, or by disease.
There are many animals that hunt for 'fun', not just humans. It is an evolved habit that is based on the fact that if you can find food when you are full, you can also do it when you are starving.
All food involves this. Whether it's locking up a pig for it's entire life in a tiny stall, or clearing a forest habitat to plant 'ethical' vegetables.
Personally, I agree that live bait is cruel, when there are other options available. But that's not a reason to tell others how to live their lives.
I suppose it begs the question: At what level or type of organism are we prepared to draw the line at it not being food? Humans, animals, insects, plants, ....? Even plants respond to attack at a chemical / molecular level, so even they can have a sense that things are not as they should be.
The most primal instinct is to survive, and for that, food is required, for which YMMV
Everyone has the right to put their point forward and i respect that, but really, Alex, letting mozzies and insects go, seems a bit much
I catch insects and spiders and put them outside. They didn't come inside to do me harm, so there's no reason to squash them. Live and let live.
Mosquitos on the other hand, came inside to attack me, so they get responded to in kind.
I think this discussion is more than anything else about our unique situation here on Earth.
It is a deep philosophical one. We love our families, kiss our kids, hug our parents. And then we turn around and do dreadful things at work to appease our corporate masters, or continuously consume, consume, consume.
How we respond to, and the consequences for everything else that shares this planet with us is tied up with this. We can just hand over our 13 pieces of silver to get our hands on whatever, or we hold back just a moment and pause to think about the consequences first. I am not for one moment advocating turning back the clock to stone age man. But rather appealling to the higher sense of thinking that we have evolved to and continue to evolve through.
Human emotions, gratification and consideration are often awkward bed fellows. Harder still is when we need to put everyone's and everything else into the same bed.
For example, with a little introspection perhaps big game hunters could be just as satisfied hunting with a camera.
Big game hunting actually protects animals. For the locals, an elephant is just something that eats their crops occasionally. When a poacher comes, they don't really care. They don't care if animals go extinct either.
But when some westerner is prepared to the pay the equivalent several
years salary and provide employment, those elephants are now crucial to the wellbeing of the local inhabitants, and they will help authorities stop poaching.
There are many examples of this being a very effective conservation measure.
"My point is that fishing and hunting require the destruction of a life which is very precious to the entity"
So does eating meat, fish and to a certain extent plant life. So do you think we shouldn't eat? Fishing and hunting can only condoned if the prey is eaten
Whilst I don't wish to get into this debate, I found it interesting to note that whilst working as a Dive Control Specialist I took many keen fishermen for their first ocean dives and their response was to dive more and fish less as they found a new enjoyment in watching the fish in their natural habitat.
Swimming at a depth of 20-30 metres the fish schools accept the diver and often enclosed us within the school......
No one likes to be accused of being cruel as the implication is there is evil intent.
The word implies a crime like act.
A crime once needed the ingredient of "mens rea" ... a guilty mind. The codification of many laws removes this aspect such that many crimes can be called those of strict liability where intent is not needed.
However once intent and the aspect of a guilty mind was the important consideration to establish a crime.
Larceny required the intent to permanently deprive the victim of the stolen item so the law could not deal with joy riders who took a car but had no intention to permanently keep the car.
The law required legislation to fix this aspect relating to intent.
If you kill someone make sure when arrested you say the magic words "I did not mean to kill him" because for murder intent to kill is what the crime turns on...
There was a case that went (from Australia) to the Privy Council in England (once our highest court of appeal) where a chap shot the victim when he answered the door. The accused pleaded that it was an accident and very nearly got off.
So consider the importance of intent.
Cruely implies for those accused they are guilty of evil intentions which I doubt is a reasonable claim.
So to call someone cruel when they perhaps do not even consider what they do may cause suffering is perhaps too harse.
But most people when their action is pointed out and they take time to consider may well understand that yes that creature would experience pain or suffering... And I suggest that rather than call folk who have not thought about how a "lesser" creature may feel perhaps should not be labelled cruel.... Uncaring would be a little less harse and even a more realistic way of describing their "cruelty".
We could reserve the word cruelty for those most evil characters who act deliberately and with the sole purpose of causing pain and suffering to another creature.
And sadly such evil folk are out there.
But I do think although an act may be cruel it is better to take into account the intent or absence of intent before we call someone cruel.
Clearly John is not a cruel man and his actions to save the snake is wonderful. And I think we need more people who look for babies in that road kill.
I suspect John realised fishing probably caused suffering given he has the decency to save a snake. But would no doubt be offended at any suggestion he was somehow cruel.
And although these things can generate hard feelings we should not allow that for what we do is presume that we have a right to judge another which I dont think we do and even if such a right exists I dont think we should judge another.
It is mostly wrong for us, the one judging, because you percieve a wrong which will upset you until that wrong is made right.
We cant always make things right so we must employ tolerance which is a form of kindness.
Well said Alex. You have a brilliant mind. Thank you for your contributions as ever. They are often very intuitive and clarifying.
What would the situation be then that once educated...for instance having participated in this discussion...a person continued with their actions with the understanding that it caused pain and suffering in another? If they accepted that premise, would that create intent? If intent then exists does uncaring become cruelty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
Perhaps we need a better word than cruelty.
No one likes to be accused of being cruel as the implication is there is evil intent.
The word implies a crime like act.
A crime once needed the ingredient of "mens rea" ... a guilty mind. The codification of many laws removes this aspect such that many crimes can be called those of strick liability where intent is not needed.
However once intent and the aspect of a guilty mind was the important consideration to establish a crime.
Larceny required the intent to permanently deprive the victim of the stolen item so the law could not deal with joy riders who took a car but had no intention to permanently keep the car.
The law required legislation to fix this aspect relating to intent.
If you kill someone make sure when arrested you say the magic words "I did not mean to kill him" because for murder intent to kill is what thecrime turns on...
There was a case that went (from Australia) to the Privy Council in England (once our highest court of appeal) where a chap shot the victim when he answered the door. The accused pleaded that it was an accident and very nearly got off.
So consider the importance of intent.
Cruely implies for those accused they are guilty of evil intentions which I doubt is a reasonable claim.
So to call someone cruel when they perhaps do not even consider what they do may cause suffering is perhaps too harse.
But most people when their action is pointed out and they take time to consider may well understand that yes that creature would experience pain or suffering... And I suggest that rather than call folk who have not thought about how a "lesser" creature may feel perhaps should not be labelled cruel.... Uncaring would be a little less harse and even a more realistic way of describing their "cruelty".
We could reserve the word cruelty for those most evil characters who act deliberately and with the sole purpose of causing pain and suffering to another creature.
And sadly such evil folk are out there.
But I do think although an act may be cruel it is better to take into account the intent or absence of intent before we call someone cruel.
Clearly John is not a cruel man and his actions to save the snake is wonderful. And I think we need more people who look for babies in that road kill.
I suspect John realised fishing probably caused suffering given he has the decency to save a snake. But would no doubt be offended at any suggestion he was somehow cruel.
And although these things can generate hard feelings we should not allow that for what we do is presume that we have a right to judge another which I dont think we do and even if such a right exists I dont think we should judge another.
It is mostly wrong for us, the one judging, because you percieve a wrong which will upset you until that wrong is made right.
We cant always make things right so we must emplky tolerance which is a form of kindness.
We need to be as kind as our situation allows.
Alex
Hi Les,
I had to edit my post that you included in your post as a quote to correct a few things.
Only minor.
Well strangely I am firstly pragmatic.
My efforts are best seen as trying to fix the problem I see before me.
Unfortunately I take a while to get to the point and although aware that I am plagued by verbosity it seems that I have no power to escape its hold.
And so it is easy to miss important points I make which can be lost amid my ramblings.
You in effect ask me to pass some form of judgement which I did suggest is not really a good thing to do.
I think you are a good man and I understand how you feel (I think I do but I always wonder can we ever feel what another really feels) but you probably cant take any more ground on this campaign.
You have offered your view and you know that some will accept it and perhaps act differently and some will reject it and forget this thread by the end of the month day or minute.
You need to be content that although you cant change the world you can make a difference. And I know you make a difference a d if you have moved only one heart to compassion and kindness such that one creature gains another minute of life you have improved things a little.
I dont think we should judge folk and say well now you know but you havent changed you are bad.. I dont think that is kind.. We can only hope in time they may change.
Change for the better will take thousands of years and I doubt there will ever be a time when things are perfect... What is perfect? What is truth? Why are we here? Where did I put my keys?
You know you have a big job but you should not fret because you cant change the world you just need to keep caring and have faith you really do make a difference.
I think everyone who reads this thread will think about what you raise and maybe some will change their action.
Don't dare be so blind, or ignorant, to presume that everyone who goes fishing is cruel and has no respect for the life and feelings of other species.
John, I understand that Les' input in (the other thread) was perceived as being inflammatory, however, I cannot help but feel that you have to some extent misrepresented his position.
In this thread he has explicitly made the distinction between hunting for food and inflicting unnecessary pain for the purpose of entertainment. Les also made that distinction in your previous thread (much of it now deleted) as well as pointing out that (in his opinion) the rules of conduct, such as they are, were routinely abused by most (not all) participants.
If memory serves me correctly, Les also made the suggestion that the act (of fishing) is cruel, as opposed to levelling the accusation that ALL fishermen are innately cruel, a subtle but significant difference.
fwiw) I don't necessarily need to agree with Les to argue for accuracy in how his words are interpreted.
(I am willing to accept that my interpretation may also be in error. If so, then I am happy to be corrected)
2c
Last edited by clive milne; 18-11-2016 at 10:50 AM.
Again Alex your thoughts are both educational and welcome.
You are correct that we shouldn't judge each other. I don't enjoy being judged and I know it's an emotional thing for most people. I don't mean to judge and for those who may have been offended and felt judged, to you my heartfelt apologies.
My main purpose with this thread is to generate discussion around inconsistencies and opposites in thought processes and activities that we all use to make ourselves comfortable with our actions. I'm sure I act inconsistently through my life as well. The previous paragraph discussing judgment is a prime example. These inconsistencies though once brought to light are powerful tools to move us individually towards internally unified actions.
In this thread those inconsistencies and illogicalities revolve around different standards of treatment towards animals. On one hand we protect our companion animals and at the same time we inflict needless suffering upon others. Sometimes for the joy of the action.
These same inconsistencies can also be identified in our treatment of each other.
The title of this thread is inflammatory. I recognise that. It not only arose from a former thread but I recognised that Its a vehicle to garner interest in this thread. It generates involvement in the discussion. And I think this discussion has been extremely illuminating. I hope it helps people towards a unified direction in their daily activities.
Thank you also Clive for your input. Again without the generous thoughts of others on both sides of the debate no exploration of alternative ideas is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
Hi Les,
I had to edit my post that you included in your post as a quote to correct a few things.
Only minor.
Well strangely I am firstly pragmatic.
My efforts are best seen as trying to fix the problem I see before me.
Unfortunately I take a while to get to the point and although aware that I am plagued by verbosity it seems that I have no power to escape its hold.
And so it is easy to miss important points I make which can be lost amid my ramblings.
You in effect ask me to pass some form of judgement which I did suggest is not really a good thing to do.
I think you are a good man and I understand how you feel (I think I do but I always wonder can we ever feel what another really feels) but you probably cant take any more ground on this campaign.
You have offered your view and you know that some will accept it and perhaps act differently and some will reject it and forget this thread by the end of the month day or minute.
You need to be content that although you cant change the world you can make a difference. And I know you make a difference a d if you have moved only one heart to compassion and kindness such that one creature gains another minute of life you have improved things a little.
I dont think we should judge folk and say well now you know but you havent changed you are bad.. I dont think that is kind.. We can only hope in time they may change.
Change for the better will take thousands of years and I doubt there will ever be a time when things are perfect... What is perfect? What is truth? Why are we here? Where did I put my keys?
You know you have a big job but you should not fret because you cant change the world you just need to keep caring and have faith you really do make a difference.
I think everyone who reads this thread will think about what you raise and maybe some will change their action.
but really, Alex, letting mozzies and insects go, seems a bit much 
