Hunters: To protect our social licence, we have to stop killing animals we don’t eat

Cameron SS said:
So if people aren't supposed to shoot animals they don't intend to eat, where does that leave catch and release fishing?
Click to expand...

There are many anti's...the truly rabid ones who go far beyond merely anti-hunting...who argue that catch-and-release is the ultimate form of animal torture. Having worked for many years in downtown Toronto, I have had more than my fair share of exposure to these ultra-nut-jobs. They think it's terrible that you would actually catch, kill and eat a fish, but they maintain than catching one (by "jabbing that sharp hook into its flesh"), handling it ("wrenching it out of the water and into a harsh alien element"), "dis-respecting" it (I kid you not, I've had that term thrown at me in one of these debates!) by posing with pictures, and then finally releasing it so that you or someone else can do it all over again...is much worse.

You can't make this sh!t up...:bangHead:
 
I'm kinda wondering 'bout these nut jawbs with piercings thru their lipzs.
Sort of like a fish that broke someones leader and now has a glitter dangl'in
out their boekah?
These dem folks that think piercing lips is wrong?

Forgift me folks, only down a swaller oar two of me jabba this mourn'in.
 
jjohnwm said:
There are many anti's...the truly rabid ones who go far beyond merely anti-hunting...who argue that catch-and-release is the ultimate form of animal torture. Having worked for many years in downtown Toronto, I have had more than my fair share of exposure to these ultra-nut-jobs. They think it's terrible that you would actually catch, kill and eat a fish, but they maintain than catching one (by "jabbing that sharp hook into its flesh"), handling it ("wrenching it out of the water and into a harsh alien element"), "dis-respecting" it (I kid you not, I've had that term thrown at me in one of these debates!) by posing with pictures, and then finally releasing it so that you or someone else can do it all over again...is much worse.

You can't make this sh!t up...:bangHead:
Click to expand...

I am all for catching fish and eating them. ALLLLL for it. When it comes to catch and release though, I am almost with those so called nut jobs. Would you ever shoot an animal to wound, take a picture of the bleeding animal, then provide first aid and release it back into the wild?

I am one of those all life is precious types. But I still participate in the food chain. If killing animals for sport is unethical, then I am struggling to understand how catch and release isn't in the same ball park. Not trying to stir the pot at all. I have fished with my in-laws a bunch, and they are big catch and releasers. I don't think I have ever seen them keep a fish to eat. They always seemed wierded out when I insist on keeping what I caught to cook on the shoreline, or save for dinner that night. Never felt comfortable bringing this up with them cause its so controversial.

Thought I would ask here to see how others rationalize it?
 
Cameron SS said:
I am all for catching fish and eating them. ALLLLL for it. When it comes to catch and release though, I am almost with those so called nut jobs. Would you ever shoot an animal to wound, take a picture of the bleeding animal, then provide first aid and release it back into the wild?

I am one of those all life is precious types. But I still participate in the food chain. If killing animals for sport is unethical, then I am struggling to understand how catch and release isn't in the same ball park. Not trying to stir the pot at all. I have fished with my in-laws a bunch, and they are big catch and releasers. I don't think I have ever seen them keep a fish to eat. They always seemed wierded out when I insist on keeping what I caught to cook on the shoreline, or save for dinner that night. Never felt comfortable bringing this up with them cause its so controversial.

Thought I would ask here to see how others rationalize it?
Click to expand...

Interesting viewpoint. I suppose the first thing I would mention is that legality requires the release of certain fish, due to closed seasons on a particular species, size limits, or simply possession limits. What if you have a licence of the type that Ontario once called (maybe still does?) a "conservation" licence? That licence allowed you a zero possession limit on muskies. So you land a muskie, perhaps as an incidental catch while bass or pike fishing. The law saws you must release it. Your rational says that you must eat it. Hmmm....Well, we know what the anti's would say: "Ban all fishing!" That would solve this puzzle very neatly for them...and, unfortunately, for you and me and everyone else as well.

Or...you land a muskie while intentionally fishing for them. By your reasoning, you are already committing an amoral act by the mere act of fishing for them at all, since the law prevents you from keeping even one; every one you catch must be released. Another dilemma...better ban fishing!

So, you solve that moral puzzle by simply buying the "regular" licence, which allows the possession of one muskie. You catch that fish...and your philosophy forces you to kill and eat it. The same goes for any other muskies you catch on future trips; they must go on the griddle as well. Now, my viewpoint is that muskies are very special fish that should not be killed and eaten, except under very special circumstances; specifically, you catch a fish that no amount of effort will revive, that will obviously succumb to the stress and/or injuries incurred during capture. It happens, even with the best possible care and effort, and of course it would be sinful to waste such a fish...assuming that your licence allows you to keep it. The guy with the conservation licence is mandated by law to "release" such a fish, even if it is already dead or dying. More dilemmas...but, of course, the "solution" is still there: No Fishing Allowed.

Of course, there are plenty of folks who are into "line-class records" and other competitive stuff; these people revel in catching the biggest fish on the lightest tackle...somehow ignoring the fact that such "sporting" tackle is forcing them to completely exhaust many fish, putting them in extreme danger of dying even if care is taken to try to revive them. Many of these folks look down their noses at others who use heavier tackle...even though this makes it easier to land and release a fish before it is depleted beyond hope of recovery. Interesting debate; how to solve it? Oh, yes, of course...No Fishing Allowed.

I have on numerous occasions caught and released the same individual fish multiple times, sometimes multiple times on the same day. I have on two occasions hooked a fish that was still hooked and attached to another line in the water, said line leading to my fishing partner in the same boat. Somehow, the "torture" that these fish was experiencing didn't seem to be interfering a whole lot with their normal predatory activities.

So, I feel that the analogy to hunting, and "shooting to wound", is unrealistic. Catch and release fishing, if it must be compared to hunting (and it doesn't need to be, nor should it be...) would be most analogous to paintball hunting; i.e. stalking the critter, marking it with a paintball, and then watching it scamper away unharmed (although perhaps "dis-respected").

I am an animal lover. I do feel that life is precious. But life and death are both part of the natural process; hunting and fishing are ways to participate in that process rather than merely stand on the sidelines and watch it.
 
the spank said:
I keep saying, stay the **** off Facebook, Twitter etc with hunting and fishing pictures!! It’s doing us more harm than good.
Click to expand...

Once again I'm with" the spank."

Some people put everything out there in social media.
Like that guy acting rediculice after spearing the bear.
Look what happened next.

Keep it up and lose it all.
 
jjohnwm said:
Interesting viewpoint. I suppose the first thing I would mention is that legality requires the release of certain fish, due to closed seasons on a particular species, size limits, or simply possession limits. What if you have a licence of the type that Ontario once called (maybe still does?) a "conservation" licence? That licence allowed you a zero possession limit on muskies. So you land a muskie, perhaps as an incidental catch while bass or pike fishing. The law saws you must release it. Your rational says that you must eat it. Hmmm....Well, we know what the anti's would say: "Ban all fishing!" That would solve this puzzle very neatly for them...and, unfortunately, for you and me and everyone else as well.

Or...you land a muskie while intentionally fishing for them. By your reasoning, you are already committing an amoral act by the mere act of fishing for them at all, since the law prevents you from keeping even one; every one you catch must be released. Another dilemma...better ban fishing!

So, you solve that moral puzzle by simply buying the "regular" licence, which allows the possession of one muskie. You catch that fish...and your philosophy forces you to kill and eat it. The same goes for any other muskies you catch on future trips; they must go on the griddle as well. Now, my viewpoint is that muskies are very special fish that should not be killed and eaten, except under very special circumstances; specifically, you catch a fish that no amount of effort will revive, that will obviously succumb to the stress and/or injuries incurred during capture. It happens, even with the best possible care and effort, and of course it would be sinful to waste such a fish...assuming that your licence allows you to keep it. The guy with the conservation licence is mandated by law to "release" such a fish, even if it is already dead or dying. More dilemmas...but, of course, the "solution" is still there: No Fishing Allowed.

Of course, there are plenty of folks who are into "line-class records" and other competitive stuff; these people revel in catching the biggest fish on the lightest tackle...somehow ignoring the fact that such "sporting" tackle is forcing them to completely exhaust many fish, putting them in extreme danger of dying even if care is taken to try to revive them. Many of these folks look down their noses at others who use heavier tackle...even though this makes it easier to land and release a fish before it is depleted beyond hope of recovery. Interesting debate; how to solve it? Oh, yes, of course...No Fishing Allowed.

I have on numerous occasions caught and released the same individual fish multiple times, sometimes multiple times on the same day. I have on two occasions hooked a fish that was still hooked and attached to another line in the water, said line leading to my fishing partner in the same boat. Somehow, the "torture" that these fish was experiencing didn't seem to be interfering a whole lot with their normal predatory activities.

So, I feel that the analogy to hunting, and "shooting to wound", is unrealistic. Catch and release fishing, if it must be compared to hunting (and it doesn't need to be, nor should it be...) would be most analogous to paintball hunting; i.e. stalking the critter, marking it with a paintball, and then watching it scamper away unharmed (although perhaps "dis-respected").

I am an animal lover. I do feel that life is precious. But life and death are both part of the natural process; hunting and fishing are ways to participate in that process rather than merely stand on the sidelines and watch it.
Click to expand...

Well like i said i dont fish much and am not even a little bit familiar with the ins and outs. It sounds to me like the law certainly creates a lot of problems.

I want to be clear I am not advocating we ban anything, just expressing that I dont really get how catch and release IS an ethical practice.

From a practical point of view the fact that you cant really control with any certainty what will bite, there will always have to be some allowances made for situations where someone caught the wrong kind of fish. But thats a very different thing from deliberately trying to catch a particular fish or any fish with zero intention of eating it.

I am certainly not interested in compelling someone to eat a fish they dont want to eat, I just dont get the argument in favour of being allowed to catch it when the plan is to let it go.

Yes many fishers are able to catch fish and release with little harm to the fish. I am very open to hearing arguments how doing so some how benefits the fish in the long run, but I am skeptical of the claim that the same benefit couldnt be realized without exposing the fish to the risk of harm.

I dont think we need to ban all fishing just to address what I see as a particular issue. I am sure if the mortality rates were actually a problem then the species would probably be more protected, so i am really just asking about the ethical arguement.

I am curious why you say fishing shouldnt be compared to hunting. On what basis do you make a distinction?
 
Cameron SS said:
I am all for catching fish and eating them. ALLLLL for it. When it comes to catch and release though, I am almost with those so called nut jobs. Would you ever shoot an animal to wound, take a picture of the bleeding animal, then provide first aid and release it back into the wild?

I am one of those all life is precious types. But I still participate in the food chain. If killing animals for sport is unethical, then I am struggling to understand how catch and release isn't in the same ball park. Not trying to stir the pot at all. I have fished with my in-laws a bunch, and they are big catch and releasers. I don't think I have ever seen them keep a fish to eat. They always seemed wierded out when I insist on keeping what I caught to cook on the shoreline, or save for dinner that night. Never felt comfortable bringing this up with them cause its so controversial.

Thought I would ask here to see how others rationalize it?
Click to expand...

Please... it is a fish... there is no rational required, within the boundaries of good sustainable practices.

Here is one for you... I once flew in to a remote lake with a buddy for a week of walleye fishing. When we landed and docked I made one cast while our gear was still piled on the dock, as soon as the lure hit the water it got hammered by a ten pound pike, I fought it in and found that it had swallowed the jig, so I cut the line and released it... as they will process and pass the jig in a week or so... I caught that same pike every single day for the next week, releasing it each time... it got to the point that I knew where it would be at any given time of day... when we were waiting for the plane to pick us up, I bet my buddy that I could catch it again with a single cast... he had to buy dinner on the way home. That fish was just as sassy at the end of the week as it was at the start.
 
the spank said:
I keep saying, stay the **** off Facebook, Twitter etc with hunting and fishing pictures!! It’s doing us more harm than good.
Click to expand...

It's not necessary to stop posting pictures. Just be sure that your security settings are set to the highest setting and for "friends only". Use an unlinked alternate e-mail address that you don't feel the least bit bad about hitting "delete all".
 
hoytcanon said:
Please... it is a fish... there is no rational required, within the boundaries of good sustainable practices.

Here is one for you... I once flew in to a remote lake with a buddy for a week of walleye fishing. When we landed and docked I made one cast while our gear was still piled on the dock, as soon as the lure hit the water it got hammered by a ten pound pike, I fought it in and found that it had swallowed the jig, so I cut the line and released it... as they will process and pass the jig in a week or so... I caught that same pike every single day for the next week, releasing it each time... it got to the point that I knew where it would be at any given time of day... when we were waiting for the plane to pick us up, I bet my buddy that I could catch it again with a single cast... he had to buy dinner on the way home. That fish was just as sassy at the end of the week as it was at the start.
Click to expand...

So no rationale needed for catching any other prey then?

Good sustainable practices, yes. That is what we are talking about. To me sustainable is using what you need, leaving the rest as untouched as possible.

The fish survived a week of being caught every day. I am jealous it sounds like you had a great week outdoors. I dont see how catching the fish and letting it go benefited the fish, or how your story answers my question, other than you dont seem to care about the ethics of fishing because its just a fish? I am sure thats not how you meant it.
 
Cameron SS said:
So no rationale needed for catching any other prey then?

Good sustainable practices, yes. That is what we are talking about. To me sustainable is using what you need, leaving the rest as untouched as possible.

The fish survived a week of being caught every day. I am jealous it sounds like you had a great week outdoors. I dont see how catching the fish and letting it go benefited the fish, or how your story answers my question, other than you dont seem to care about the ethics of fishing because its just a fish? I am sure thats not how you meant it.
Click to expand...

Careful speaking of ethics... your ethics are not my ethics and not the next guys ethics... it is a legal and acceptable practice that has been studied extensively and determined to have minimal impact on the individual fish as well as the species as a whole in the given environ.

We did have a great week... in 20 minutes on the water we had our limit of walleye on the hook and after a breakfast of fish and eggs you would have us do what? Suntan? Rather, we kept 3 or 4 in the morning, 3 or 4 in the afternoon and 3 or 4 in the evening and ate as we went... we released dozens in between. They went back to doing whatever fish do... cruising around and eating smaller fish and avoiding being eaten by bigger fish.

So your strategy is to keep the first six fish on your line, regardless of size count them toward your limit and consume them in their entirety? What happens to your sensibilities if you happen to be fishing in a "slot limit" area? Which is a biologically accepted and employed conservation practice... you just refuse to fish?
 
I have to say that this idea bears a striking resemblance to the line often spouted by "meat hunters", specifically those who feel they hold some sort of moral high ground over "trophy hunters". A guy shoots the first legal deer he sees, calls it good and leaves the field. He has meat, he has been "successful"; he might do this year after year, although in my experience al lot of these high-horse guys are inexperienced and poor hunters who don't have much "success". Another guy passes deer after deer after deer, waiting for "the one". There's a good chance he won't shoot anything at all; he has been "unsuccessful"....except he hasn't. If he is hunting because he likes to hunt, then he is by definition successful because he enjoyed the experience.

I can enjoy fishing or hunting whether or not I get anything; but I'd rather get something. :) If I'm hunting, then getting something means killing it. If I'm fishing, getting something doesn't necessarily involve its death; catch and release lets you experience the entirety of fishing with no bloodshed, if that matters to you. If you are actually worried about inconveniencing an individual fish, rather than thinking about the health of the species as a whole...then, no, fishing probably isn't for you.

One thing seems certain: if you have a lot of experience as a fisherman, you probably got a lot of it through catch and release. It would be pretty damned difficult to learn much about fishing, or to maintain a high level of interest in it, if you pack up your gear and head for the filleting shack as soon as you fill your limit in most cases.

Now I'm curious, Cam...how about bait? Do you use live bait? How do you feel about that? Those are living creatures you are putting on those hooks; worms, minnows, leeches, whatever...where do your ethics lead your thoughts with regard to them? What's the difference?
 
Blah blah blah..waah waah waah

That's all I see in this article. Humans are predators, the best ones. We kill stuff. I'm not here to appease a bunch of bean eaters, social justice warriors or " changing social climate".

I kill things for a reason, usually food... but not always. And I'm done justifying it to a bunch of whiney city b1tches or politico's.

I will continue the hunt until I am no longer able to it. Don't like it? Don't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom