Recreational fishing is a cruel sport and should be banned

[bobson (Bob)]

[xelasnave]

Funny thing is mosquitoes never seem to bite me.
So I have less reason to swat them.

On a serious note I can understand the need to control mosquitoes who cause disease but its only the females who suck blood I am told so maybe the females avoid me just like the human females.

And I think that may be my high intake of garlic, ginger and chillies.

Probably makes the skin taste crook.

As to the legal position something so complex would require that we brief a barrister practicing in that area of the law, a specialist in all things relating to blood sucking, maybe a silk in tax avoidence but that requires someone pay a huge sum into a trust account to cover the fee.

That being the case I will play it safe and be careful to only release fully recovered creatures.

What would happen if I meet a lady and we spend the weekend together and she gets a cold.

Do I put her on the bus home thereby possibly exposing myself for a suit for negligence if someone on the bus contracts a cold sneezes drops their expensive phone breaking it and wants compensation from me...
Or do I try to keep her confined and risk kidnapping charges.
That does it no ladies get to stay the weekend anymore, except sick lady mosquitoes.

Alex

[alan meehan (Alan)]

Just my 2bobs worth I have been wanting to go fishing for a few weeks now I do enjoy fishing I have since I was a kid ,but some weeks back I brought some tropical fish to put in a old tank that I got from a garage sale it is interesting to whatch the fish as they socialize together and how they now me when each morning I go to feed them its a good expierance and has turned me off going fishing just for the fun of it .also for MATT I think horses do like running around a track I know as I owner of a x race horse that our jazz just loves getting up and running and not all race horses end up as pet food ours is loved by all the family
AL

[Kunama]

Originally Posted by alan meehan

Just my 2bobs worth I have been wanting to go fishing for a few weeks now I do enjoy fishing I have since I was a kid ,but some weeks back I brought some tropical fish to put in a old tank that I got from a garage sale it is interesting to whatch the fish as they socialize together and how they now me when each morning I go to feed them its a good expierance and has turned me off going fishing just for the fun of it .also for MATT I think horses do like running around a track I know as I owner of a x race horse that our jazz just loves getting up and running and not all race horses end up as pet food ours is loved by all the family
AL

I don't doubt that horses enjoy running, (our arab/tb gelding loved to run) just that they would not choose to run around a track.... Race horses don't really have much choice though, do they Alan.
They are fed such a 'hot' diet they take quite some time to adjust to normal. I am always glad to hear that an ex-racehorse has become a pet, many do not make good pets and can be rather dangerous in inexperienced hands.... but that is another thread altogether.

Studying fish in their habitat has been one the most enjoyable pastimes I have had, after hundreds of scuba dives, many of them within arms reach of sharks including 3m long tigersharks and schools of hammerheads, I have given up fishing.

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

I have to say that I'm disturbed by how members are reacting to trivialities.
Like how many animals died because my house was built.
None, I have a soil test that saus 0 percent soil. Ie desert conditions. And now there's a hundred or so trèes on my block.
Animals, I eat some but not much of them.
I've mentioned on this forum before, I think, before you eat an animal you must have killed and prepared one.
If you cannot(kill) you must not(eat).
We talk about green and carbon footprints. Yet few realise that a labrador has the same carbon footprint as a Toyota Landcruiser.
Morality of causing pain, yet we allow Halal slaughter.
Fishing, whilst there is sensation round a fish's mouth, is there a pain sensor?
Where do we get off judging others?
How do we justify telling Trump he must accept losing the vote and not accept him winning it?
On Solar or green power. On expansion of economies. On accepring refugees who are culturally immiscable.
Do what you like but don't invade my space...... nimbyism?
I've hunted for the table yet won't kill a spider in my home if it isn't toxic.
I have a garden full of animals who accept me... the stonebush curlew eggs hatched this morning.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Do or do not, there is no try.

[rally]

I thought I was going to abstain from this one . . . but here goes.

I wonder what everyone's opinion from both sides thinks of the philosophical argument in this article.

http://theconversation.com/ordering-...our-hands-4659

I've seen this argument better quantified elsewhere - but the fact is that vegetarians who eat agriculturally farmed produce of any sort are contributing to the death of organisms from microbes to mammals due to habitat destruction at a minimum, and even if they were weren't eating farmed food, they would be competing against the native animals that would have otherwise been eating the same vegetable matter they removed from the natural environment, thus starving and creating food pressure for them.

Either way humans are doing this.

I do think that there is a failure in the starting assumption that the natural world is supposed to be a "kind" place - predation is a fundamental process at almost every level of the animal kingdom, and it has been this way for millions if not billions of years.

To argue against it is not dissimilar to creating a movement that says we shouldn't allow the Earth to spin or the tides to rise and fall.
This is the way it is and it has nothing to do with us or our beliefs.

I agree that death or injury for no reason isnt tenable, but a vast number of the species on this planet evolved to eat other species - you can choose to dislike it, just like you mightn't like Purple and Orange together. Thats OK - but dont then translate that dislike to everything else associated with it if you arent able to deal with that reality.

I breathe in air which include oxygen, I consume energy and exhale some CO2 - doesnt make me personally bad !
But yes, a few billion less humans wouldnt be so bad for the natural world and that is where the focus ought to be in IMHO.
At some substantially lower population level we might be able to exist with a greater level of harmony with the other inhabitants of this planet - be they whales or microbes.
That could only be a good thing - if it could be done without some sort of armageddon !

But to intimate that meat eaters and specifically fishers and hunters are therefore cruel, arrogant people and should become vegans is about as hypocritical as anything can be.

I have no specific need to criticise Les or anyone - he is entitled to his beliefs, opinions and certainly his likes and dislikes.
In fact my beliefs aren't so vastly different, and I respect anyone that has respect for animals and helps them, but just because I also eat them, sometimes hunt them, doesnt mean that I dont have respect for them and doesnt mean that I am intentionally cruel to them.

Regards

Rally

[xelasnave]

Well I just heard on QI that wind turbines kills goats...
If you don't know how care to guess?
If you do know put it up.
So the problem should wind turbines be banned or should goat herders be held to a higher level of responsibility and not let goats near turbines?
Alex

[sharpiel]

Originally Posted by rally

But to intimate that meat eaters and specifically fishers and hunters are therefore cruel, arrogant people and should become vegans is about as hypocritical as anything can be.

I have no specific need to criticise Les or anyone - he is entitled to his beliefs, opinions and certainly his likes and dislikes.

I don't believe that anywhere ever on IIS have I stated that I am vegan or that anyone else should be vegan. This is a misrepresentation and a distortion of my statements here. Nor have I stated fishers or hunters are arrogant. I have asked whether we as a race are arrogant in some of our beliefs of superiority to other sentient life.

My posts here simply stated that subjecting animals to cruelty for the sake of our entertainment is unacceptable and should be banned and I juxtaposed the treatment of fish in this respect to other companion animals pointing out some illogicalities and inconsistencies.

[rally]

I havent distorted the facts at all, and maybe you didnt say you were a vegan and someone else did, just that you were abhorred by the process by which humans get the majority of their dietary protein from animals.

You put up a clearly defined and clearly directed argument and it makes no difference about the semantics of how you phrased it.

Your last sentence in your last post "subjecting animals to cruelty for the sake of our entertainment is unacceptable and should be banned " would probably have been better used as your opening argument for the thread. But that isnt what you did,

Your opening statement.

"My point is that fishing and hunting require the destruction of a life which is very precious to the entity that loses it and destroys the families of the entity who remain behind.

We abhore war for the loss of human life and the families bereft and left behind by this senseless destruction. And yet it's ok when we do the same to other life forms for our own entertainment. Are we so arrogant that we think our life is more precious than any other?

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. "

You opening sentence starts with "fishers and hunters" and your interpretation of what they do, in your next sentence you then draw a parallel between this loss of life and that of humans and call it arrogance that we regard this as any different.
You finish off with the sentence aimed fairly and squarely at "hunters and those who fish".

Sorry Les but you being quite hypocritical and it is you who launched this attack and its just me defending it, an attack on the way life has evolved on this planet and its natural consequences no less !

Your preferred food source must obviously be vegetarian, mine is omnivarian, and I will add that I grow a lot of my own in my 300-400m2 vegetable gardens and more again of fruit trees.
I know and accept that either of the two primary food sources displaces wildlife and I dont like it either, in fact vegetarians are at least equally responsible for the death and loss of natural organisms despite what you would like to believe that the mere fact that someone who doesn't eat an organism is not causing that species any harm.
Its such a simplistic and isolated view of what is actually happening that it astounds me everyone doesnt understand it.

If I was to take your approach and start an attack on vegetarians which isnt something I would do except for making this point by substituting vegetarian and consequences into your same sentence.

My opening statement could be -
"My point is that vegetarianism requires the destruction of natural habitat and all the life forms that inhabited it, which is very precious to the entities that loses it and destroys not only the families of the entity who remain behind but also every living creature in the vicinity."

Do you not understand this extremely simple byproduct of agriculture ?
Or is it that you are being selectively blind to justify a mistaken belief so that you can launch an attack against those who dont share your belief ?

I dont object to your having a belief, but I do object to you using a mistaken belief to criticise and attack others in such a hypocritical way.
I would also like to point out that the vast majority of hunters in this country hunt feral species - they hunt the very species that are displacing our native wildlife, most I know also eat what they hunt.

The real problem is humanity's expansion as the dominant species is causing massive destruction of the natural environment, it is no longer in harmony with the natural environment due to our over population and our seemingly ever increasing dependence on harvesting everything from the natural environment to the detriment of the environment and without respect for it.

Like I said, I am not disagreement with what I feel is probably one of your fundamental underlying concerns, but I dont need to single out a particular (majority) group of the population to express my position and nor would I do this knowing it to be hypocracy.

[mountainjoo (Jerome)]

Sheesh, a lot of uncharitable discussion here... Rally, to say that a vegetarian diet is at least equally responsible, when compared to a standard meat based diet, for the displacement and destruction of natural organisms is incorrect. It is also immensely more efficient and less resource intensive. I can provide links to several sources if you are interested.

[The_bluester (Paul)]

Originally Posted by rally

At some substantially lower population level we might be able to exist with a greater level of harmony with the other inhabitants of this planet - be they whales or microbes.
That could only be a good thing - if it could be done without some sort of armageddon !

And there I think is the nub of most of the human races problems.

Combine a biological drive to reproduce at a rate as close to rabbits as we can collectively manage and a world economic system which focusses on profit and is predicated on a constantly growing "Consumer" base and therefore a constantly growing population and a fair few of our species problems fall out of that.

I am not entering into the hunting/fishing argument. Particularly when the promise/threat? is right there on the first page of this thread that it was being copied complete by the OP. IMO "I will make sure we all remember what everyone said" is not a good debating tactic.

[xelasnave]

Perhaps we need to remain calm and respectful.

And avoid the trap of you said I said discussion.

For my part I feel uncomfortable when moralising because I know although I try my best I can never be perfect. All one can do is the best they can.

I dont like the fact after any of my trips my windscreen tells a story of many deaths of poor little creatures the victims of hit and run, but I must drive and so it is so

But there are little things we can do both in actual prevention of damage and in presenting a face to the world that may cause others to think about something they have never thought about before.

And the chalenge is to point out something with tact.

In any event lets stay very calm and not cause the toes to be ammended to exclude discussion on these matters.

Much of our frustration may come from the realisation that humans cause a lot of damage that we individualy can not alter but feel, reasonably, that somehow being human we are partly responsible.

The OP seeks to get us to simply think about something most of us have never thought about and if you think deeply about the proposition it probably will make one feel uncomfortable.

But please let's not have a i said you said discussion... Readers can read and work out what was said... Peace
Alex...

[rally]

Jerome - it is substantially correct.
Did you read the link - there are plenty of well argued and scientifically supported cases around.

How much of the world has been clear felled to make way for crops ?

How many organisms do you think died initially, were displaced and failed to be able to reproduce and have been poisoned to death or excluded from the land due to monoculture ?
Im not just talking about sentient or semi sentient organisms - I mean the whole lot from single celled and upward.
A natural environment carries a huge biodiversity which has a huge carbon footprint - this is mostly made up believe it or not, from sub surface micro organisms and sub surface vegetation, funghi etc etc.
Once crops like grains are planted - this completely disappears.
Net effect more carbon in the atmosphere.

To ignore this is to stick your head in the sand - charitable or not.

The thrust of my defence is to illustrate that those who seek to argue that those who eat meat are responsible for the death and or suffering of animals are in fact no less responsible than those who dont eat meat - that is all. It just happens in a different way.
Its not so graphic, its not so obvious and its so much more sanitarily hidden from view than a bloodied animal carcass at an abattoir or a butchers shop that evokes such emotional hysteria - but it is death and diplacement of animal life and its a monstrously huge cause none the less.

The reason is - evolutionarily - we need to eat (ie we dont photosynthesize), either way at extreme levels it contributes to the death and displacement of other living organisms.
I have to accept this and live with it too.

The problem isnt that we eat meat and/or vegetables - the problem is we eat too much, we simply devour too much from our environment because there are too many of us and too much of our resources because of our lifestyle.

That is all.

Im not attacking the vegetarian diet - just pointing out the invalidity of the argument raised by some.

A solution - we add chlorophyllic genes to our human DNA and start photosynthesising !!
Im just kidding of course, but hey that might help the situation - we just run around nude sunbaking and eat as much sunlight as we like !
I wonder if Sunset sunlight tastes better than Noon sunlight ?

Originally Posted by mountainjoo

Sheesh, a lot of uncharitable discussion here... Rally, to say that a vegetarian diet is at least equally responsible, when compared to a standard meat based diet, for the displacement and destruction of natural organisms is incorrect. It is also immensely more efficient and less resource intensive. I can provide links to several sources if you are interested.

[bugeater (Marty)]

I personally think the OP's original topic raises interesting questions. But the problem is that when you take an essentially religious position, you're pretty much saying "I'm right and you're wrong and nothing you say can change my mind. But I want you to change your mind based on my fact-free conviction".

Statements like "I can tell you from personal experience that all animals feel pain and suffer" are a problem for me. I'd like to establish the truth of such a statement. Because I know it not to be true - some animals barely have a brain to speak of, so how could they possibly suffer? For me the question is - which animals are capable of "suffering"? Of course if you start taking a spiritual "all life is precious" approach, then we are back to religion again.

I do find it pretty inflammatory to come out and basically target a group of people (hunters and fishers), call them hypocrites, state their position as logical and inconsistent and then show absolutely no attempt to understand their position.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Well I just heard on QI that wind turbines kills goats...
If you don't know how care to guess?

According to federal environment minister; Wind turbines are an instrument of the devil. As such, they require a goat to be sacrificed upon commissioning, otherwise, nearby grazing animals will be prone to drop dead from noise stress.... carried off to hell, as it were.

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

I should add to the list of apologies- it was I who assumed that the logical extension of the OPs workdview was that to be consistent he must be a vegan, and only because I was genuinely impressed by the high level of empathy he clearly has with all things. He and Alex remind me of the Jainist monks of India, who hold life so dear that ants are gently brushed aside when they walk. Noble indeed.
My main point was that the best he can do is make people stop and think, which he has done. Banning things is a step too far. I can't argue about the role of law here with the kind of sophistication Alex can master, but I remember reading a famous book called Leviathan, and the statement that resonated with me was that the only time law should intervene in your actions is when they affect someone else. If "someone else" includes all paramecium, then you have one perspective. I guess humanity currently spans the entire spectrum from regarding the whole biosphere as having equal rights, all the way down to just themselves. I also think the bandwidth depends on your economic position and responsibilities to dependents.
Personally, when I'm hunting people for food for my family in the post-apocalyptic world of tomorrow, I will be glad I'm a good shot, and suspect my empathy spectrum will be very narrow.

[xelasnave]

Hi Marty
Sorry I could not let it pass.
If you believe I am spiritual or religious I can only say I have given you an incorrect impression.
I am neither, I am an athiest's athiest.
I like to think I have good christian principles its just that I dont believe in God, that Jesus was the son of God or the resurrection. I like to be kind and rather peace than war but I really like cage fighting. I see no inconsistencies in my philosophy other than I would not call it a philosophy.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by clive milne

According to federal environment minister; Wind turbines are an instrument of the devil. As such, they require a goat to be sacrificed upon commissioning, otherwise, nearby grazing animals will be prone to drop dead from noise stress.... carried off to hell, as it were.

Well yes thats the correct answer.
And shows how little QI knows because they suggested it was something to do with low air pressure rupturing the animals lungs which of course is nonsence given there is all that wind blowing about.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Andrew the law was summed up in three principles in a book.. Diceys rule of Law.
I cant remember what they were but I am rather sure one principle was you could do what you liked so long as you did not inturude on anothers rights.
I will have a look but if such a principle is not there well it should be..
Unfortunately the way the world works many folk seek to impose their world on others it happens and like most things there can be argued pros and cons.
The law had difficulty embracing the concept of victimless crime because to do so went against Diceys, I think it was the third principle, rule of law.
There was a time when we did not have written law, other than judgements upon the unwritten law that were recorded.

[N1 (Mirko)]

Originally Posted by rally

[...]
The problem isnt that we eat meat and/or vegetables - the problem is we eat too much, we simply devour too much from our environment because there are too many of us and too much of our resources because of our lifestyle.

That is all.

Specifically, it's not what we eat that's the problem, it's what we don't eat, and throw away instead.