Are You a Fan of Fishing? Share Your Best Catches!

[Townsend]

If anyone actually says this, I don't buy it. I think the whole challenge is to catch the fish. Fishing, in and of itself, with no care about actually catching a fish, could be done in a mud puddle, and no one does that. The important thing for Ron to realize is that "ending a life" isn't what people are focused on.

Agreed...well...mostly. I won't ever fish a stocked fishery because it has no real challenge to it. It is not just the fight but its trying to lure the fish into taking your bait. It can be a very rewarding experience.

What a lot of people don't realize is that I, like all the anglers I have ever meet, have more respect and admiration for nature then most people. I fully appreciate fish and find them very beautiful and elegant. But most importantly I understand, in a way that you cannot learn from a classroom, how delicate their environment really is. I personally support wildlife preservation and do more for it than 99 percent of the people in the world who will complain about me taking fish. I have done more to help fish live longer happier lives then any of them will. In fact, while I work to better the world they are inadvertently working against me.

Take a look at the Spoon Bill. While commercial fisherman fished the Spoon Bill nearly to extinction, it is now making a come comeback and I can honestly say that this is in large part due to sport fisherman wanting to keep their sport alive. Today it is making a comeback at Gavins Point Dam near Yankton South Dakota due to stocking efforts and extensive work to help keep the environment clean and healthy for them. While the happy nuclear family, who lives in suburbia bliss, ignorant of how commercial fishing, which is supported by their dollars spent at their local grocery story, is destroying the environment. Most of the people in the world live in cities and rarely if ever do they even venture out for a camping trip. And yet they are the ones complaining about hunting and fishing for sport the most. It really is kind of sick in my opinion.

The taking of a few fish each season really does no harm. If you understood how nature works you would understand that. That being said a lake CAN be over fished and in the past it has been a major problem. Today most serious anglers will only take fish of a certain size and will release more fish then they will take. Anglers today are more often then not, very well educated people who understand how balance in nature works. For us to keep our sport healthy we need to keep the environment healthy.

Also, I would like to point out that when you buy food from the grocery store you are helping the industry, which is supplying you that food, to expand. For every bit of food you eat there are animals that will suffer because of it in one way or another. This is true even if you are a vegan. Destroying habitat is very harmful and its effects are devastating to many species that cannot easily adapt to new environments. Now if you get your food from sport fishing then you are helping to expand an industry that works to preserve habitats. An industry in which there are more benefits then harms done to nature.

If you take away sportsmens/womens rights to fish and hunt then there will not be the kind of interest in preserving the environment that there is today. It takes more then lots of money and laws to help protect our environment. It takes people who care for and have a stake in it.


http://www.platteriver.org/backgr/sturg.htm

The Spoon Bill

 

[Townsend]

The whole point of fishing is that it is NOT done in a mud puddle. Fishing is done in special places. That is WHY catching is nice but not necessary. I guess you are not familiar with any of those that fly fish for Steelhead in the rivers of the PNW.

I guess I see your point too but I have never had the opportunity to go fly-fishing. It seems like it takes a lot of practice to learn just to cast a fly let alone learn to be a good at it. It seems that most fly fisherman fish in streams in or around mountains. I wonder what all kinds of fish strike fly’s? I know rainbow trout go for these about what about Bass in lakes and rivers? If anyone knows I would appreciate some information. I love fishing and being outdoors and anything that can keep it interesting is worthwhile.

So far the fishing has been really slow around here but as summer warms the waters it should pickup. If I get any nice catches I will post pics.

Regards,

 

[zoobyshoe]

Some flyfisherman even go as far as to remove the hook completely and focus only on getting the fish to strike.

This fullfills the minimun requirements for me to refer to it as "catching". Anyone who can get a fish to srike, could easily go on to actually hook it and reel it in. The fish is essentially "theirs". Anyone with this skill could eat in an emergency.

To say "fishing" is more important than "catching" implied to me that the fisherman is completely unconcerned with how the fish react, he just wants to cast. If we agree that he is concerned about manipulating the fish to the extent he could catch him if he wanted, then we're talking about the same thing, whatever we call it.

 

[DocToxyn]

I wonder what all kinds of fish strike fly’s? I know rainbow trout go for these about what about Bass in lakes and rivers? If anyone knows I would appreciate some information. I love fishing and being outdoors and anything that can keep it interesting is worthwhile.

Most fish will take a fly, if it is presented properly. Bass and panfish will eagerly accept many patterns and are typically the first fish that flyfisherman take (myself included). Ponds, river, streams, lakes, oceans they all can be covered with fly gear. Even fish such as carp can be taken with the right flies. If you search around the web for things like bass flies or bass bugs or go to one of the big retailers, Cabelas, BassPro, you'll see all the gear for all the fish. It can be really satisfying to catch and release a fish you caught with a fly you tied yourself.

 

[stoned]

. In many cases you would be hard pressed to find people who care more about animals and the environment than hunters and fisherman.

Yeah Right !

 

[Townsend]

Yeah Right !

I could never club a baby seal...you Canadians can be really weird sometimes. How is clubbing even sporting? What chance does that baby seal have? None...how is that even fun? Do you have to buy a license to club baby seals? What purpose does it even serve?

Edited for spelling errors.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What purpose does it even serve?

IIRC they are after the pelts. This is part of the fur industry. Those guys are not sport hunters, they're paid to go out and do that. Not that I don't think it's pretty grotesque.

 

[stoned]

I could never club a baby seal...you Canadians can be really weird sometimes. How is clubbing even sporting? What chance does that baby seal have? None...how is that even fun? Do you have to buy a license to club baby seals? What purpose does it even serve?

Edited for spelling errors.

Gov. of Canada pays them to kill huge number of young seals because according to them there are too many seals and they eat all our fishes.
and also it provides some employment for out of work fishermens.

PS.try to tell those guys that they are not hunters, they club you to death !

"Canada is most compassionate and environmently friendly country in the World" ! that is what I have to listen to on our TV and read in newspapers almost everyday !

 

[ron damon]

All the talk about the "beauties" and "subtleties" of fishing are no more than rationalizations for the very objective and real fact that you are destroying a viable life, something no human has a right to do.

I certainly appreciate the joys of being out in the wild, the scenery, air, green and blue, the tranquility, etc, associated with fishing, yet all of that can be had without doing any killing.

My point is metaphysical. There are a million practical reasons for us humans to consume other beings' lifes, yet I could not EVER contemplate involving myself in an activity whose sole purpose is to extract joy out of death.

 

[DaveC426913]

...you are destroying a viable life, something no human has a right to do.

According to whom? Rights are a purely human invention.

We have long hunted to eat. Just because some people feel that they no longer need to does not make it an immoral act.

I can't abide people who make personal judgements and expect that the rest of the world will just comply.

 

[Moonbear]

Gov. of Canada pays them to kill huge number of young seals because according to them there are too many seals and they eat all our fishes.
and also it provides some employment for out of work fishermens.

That makes it a commercial industry, not sport hunting. They're also not supposed to club the seals, they're supposed to shoot them to be more humane, but apparently these commercial hunters are not following the rules and not being held accountable when they don't. There is nothing sporting about clubbing baby seals.

This is the very distinction Townsend and Zooby have been making between those who go out and sport fish either to throw back the fish or keep only what they will eat and promote saving the surrounding ecosystem (part of the fun of fishing is getting to enjoy nature while you're at it...for some, holding the fishing rod is just something to do while enjoying a pretty lake and watching the birds fly past) vs commercial fishermen who will completely over-fish an area and destroy the ecosystem in the process. Commercial fishermen and hunters are only interested in making a profit (or predominantly interested in profit anyway; there are many who also recognize that their livelihood depends on a healthy environment where the fish they are catching can thrive, but certainly not all).

Here is an article that discusses last year's seal hunt with both the Canadian government's views and those of the animal activists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3618901.stm

 

[Moonbear]

All the talk about the "beauties" and "subtleties" of fishing are no more than rationalizations for the very objective and real fact that you are destroying a viable life, something no human has a right to do.

If that's your view, then stop eating immediately! How many plants and animals and their habitats were destroyed in order to plow fields for the soybeans to make your tofu? Far more than my handful of fish that I plan to eat, unlike all those organisms that you had no intention of eating, which were destroyed to plant crops.

Agricultural expansion is severe in biodiversity hotspots
Agriculture has been expanding since the domestication of crop plants 10,000 years ago. But in the past three centuries, exponential human population growth has led to a 500% expansion in the extent of cropland and pasture world-wide (see box 1, figure a). In Europe and North America, unchecked agricultural development has already transformed many natural habitats and depleted their biodiversity. Similar transformation is now underway in the tropics, where most of the world’s biodiversity is found, with huge implications for both wildlife populations and ecosystem functioning. Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs), globally important centres of biodiversity, are under above-average threat from agricultural expansion (box 1, figure b). As tropical forests are the predominant natural habitat in EBAs, this tells us that they too are particularly threatened by agriculture.

From:http://www.birdlife.net/action/science/sowb/pressure/32.html

Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and degradation continue at a rapid pace in the United States, mostly outside parks. Development fragments habitat, creating barriers to wildlife movement and complicating ecosystem management at the regional and landscape levels. Scientific evidence shows that no park ecosystem can remain healthy as an isolated refuge in a sea of development, yet parks—even large ones—are becoming surrounded.

From:http://www.npca.org/wildlife_protection/biodiversity/report/threats/fragmentation.asp

In the Midwest, it is common to have more than 90 percent of a watershed used for row crop agriculture. Many areas, where farmers have used conservation practices such as reduced tillage, grassed waterways, strip or contour cropping, and terraces on at least 40 percent of the land, still experience some of the highest erosion rates...

As human population and living areas increase, wildlife is squeezed into ever smaller patches of habitat. In the Midwest, where only one in 10 acres is not used for either crop or pasture production, additional habitat can be critical to certain game and non-game wildlife species. Tile drainage that increased the amount of tillable land and allowed for bountiful harvests has dramatically reduced wildlife abundance and diversity. In North Dakota, 60 percent of the natural wetlands have been drained, compared to 90 percent lost in Iowa to agriculture and other uses.

From: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1626A/IIa.html

 

[ron damon]

If that's your view, then stop eating immediately! How many plants and animals and their habitats were destroyed in order to plow fields for the soybeans to make your tofu? Far more than my handful of fish that I plan to eat, unlike all those destroyed to plant your vegetables that you had no intention of eating. Hunting and gathering for personal consumption is quite a natural way to survive.

So all of you go fishing because you're somehow starving and desperately in need of a source of protein, or because you just have a damn good time killing, and only later on find a lame excuse for it by eating the fish? ;-)

I'm not advocating extinction of our species by means of starvation. I am a practical man. Yet people going out on killing expeditions as a way of entertainment is a very sad and disillusioning sight...

 

[ron damon]

Rights are a purely human invention.

That's precisely it, my friend

 

[Townsend]

So all of you go fishing because you're somehow starving and desperately in need of a source of protein, or because you just have a damn good time killing, and only later on find a lame excuse for it by eating the fish? ;-)

I'm not advocating extinction of our species by means of starvation. I am a practical man. Yet people going out on killing expeditions as a way of entertainment is a very sad and disillusioning sight...

Fresh fish is very healthy. I do not eat the fish I take as an excuse but because I enjoy the meal and the making of the meal.

Where do you get your food from friend? Do you cry for the animals that lost their lives every time you sit down to eat?

You act like there is such a thing as a free lunch. Just because you did not physically kill the animal does not free you from any of the responsibility that goes along with its death.

 

[Integral]

So all of you go fishing because you're somehow starving and desperately in need of a source of protein, or because you just have a damn good time killing, and only later on find a lame excuse for it by eating the fish? ;-)

I'm not advocating extinction of our species by means of starvation. I am a practical man. Yet people going out on killing expeditions as a way of entertainment is a very sad and disillusioning sight...

Clearly you have not read the real contents of this thread. You should, before making such uninformed posts. Please actually read the thread before posting your opinions.

 

[Moonbear]

So all of you go fishing because you're somehow starving and desperately in need of a source of protein, or because you just have a damn good time killing, and only later on find a lame excuse for it by eating the fish? ;-)

I'm not advocating extinction of our species by means of starvation. I am a practical man. Yet people going out on killing expeditions as a way of entertainment is a very sad and disillusioning sight...

I find it more sad and disillusioning that people run off to the grocery store for their food with no understanding at all of how it somehow got from the land or water and into that package they are buying. Fishing and hunting keep you in touch with nature and provide a vested interest in preserving natural habitats, as opposed to showing up at the grocery store and demanding more pasta and tofu on the shelves, wanting your produce to look perfect, not caring what was destroyed to provide food for you, and content to remain oblivious to that information.

If you bothered to read the replies above, it is not about the killing. That farm-raised fish I buy at the grocery store is just as dead as the one I caught, although the one I catch myself is much fresher (tastier too), and didn't require gallons of diesel fuel to transport to me, and didn't require destroying a habitat to obtain.

I too am practical and realize that agriculture is a necessity in our society because most people aren't content to let those who can't catch their own food starve to death, but if you want to compare which is the greater evil, fishing and hunting for sport is not it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

All the talk about the "beauties" and "subtleties" of fishing are no more than rationalizations for the very objective and real fact that you are destroying a viable life, something no human has a right to do.

When it comes right down to it, the reason I don't fish is because I'm too squeamish to kill one, or even inconvenience it with catch and release. When I watch other people fish my question is "What is actually going on in their minds? Why do people do this when in isn't necessary any more for survival?"

The answer I can up with for myself is that this impulse to outsmart a fish (or a deer, or a bear etc.) has to have been responsible for early man's baseline survival. We haven't been away from the necessity of hunting and fishing long enough for it to have been bred out of us. I can't take a hard stance against it, because we may yet need it in case of emergency to survive.

I certainly appreciate the joys of being out in the wild, the scenery, air, green and blue, the tranquility, etc, associated with fishing, yet all of that can be had without doing any killing.

Yeah, but don't ignore what we've been telling you about not all fishermen killing their fish. As we said there are flyfishermen who don't even wan't to hook them. Others catch and release.

My point is metaphysical. There are a million practical reasons for us humans to consume other beings' lifes, yet I could not EVER contemplate involving myself in an activity whose sole purpose is to extract joy out of death.

This is good. Humans would also never have survived if we didn't also have a nurturing instinct. Why can't we lay off fishing, even if it ends up merely inconveniencing the fish with catch and release, if we aren't starving? I can. I just feel like it's good that the specific skills involved in catching a fish are kept alive by a minority of people, for the same reason, I guess, that there are people who know how to survive in the wilderness.

 

[ron damon]

Do you cry for the animals that lost their lives every time you sit down to eat?

As a matter of fact I do, and lately I've been experiencing some difficulties because of it, but maybe it's just that I'm insane ;-)

Nonetheless, there is a basic principle in jurisprudence called "bad acts and guilty minds". The two make up a crime. All of us have got to eat, so all of us are killers in a way. Yet, and this is what all of you never address in your replies, when you go hunting you are driven not by a need for food, but by the ENJOYMENT you take out of the experience. That makes you cold blooded killers.

Remember Einstein, who said something like "humanity could achieve no greater enlightenment than a transition to an all-vegetarian diet" (I'm paraphrasing of course).

 

[stoned]

fishing and hunting keeps you in touch with the nature ?
did you ever hear about hiking in the forest or walking besides the river ?

 

[ron damon]

Yeah, but don't ignore what we've been telling you about not all fishermen killing their fish. As we said there are flyfishermen who don't even wan't to hook them. Others catch and release.

If you can scientifically prove fish don't suffer significant harm, pain or trauma by the experience, then I'm all for it.

 

[Townsend]

Nonetheless, there is a basic principle in jurisprudence called "bad acts and guilty minds". The two make up a crime. All of us have got to eat, so all of us are killers in a way. Yet, and this is what all of you never address in your replies, when you go hunting you are driven not by a need for food, but by the ENJOYMENT you take out of the experience. That makes you cold blooded killers.

Help me to understand why you are not just as guilty as I am. You have killed to eat food by purchasing food from the store. Just because you did not pull the trigger on the gun, or run the slaughter house, or destroy the habitat of and endanger species for farming does not mean you did not contribute to the cold blooded murder of animals. Why not get out and see for yourself what it takes to put the food on your table? You go out there are get the food and prepare it and eat. If you do that then you will start to appreciate your food and respect it. But in either case you are killing the animals. You only think you can sit back and act like you have not killed for your food but you have. You just cannot seem to make that connection yet. Nature is a battle for food, if you are taking it in, then you are taking away from an animal/animals that would have otherwise consumed it.

There is and there never will be a free lunch. That goes for everything. At least everything I can think of.

 

[Townsend]

If you can scientifically prove fish don't suffer significant harm, pain or trauma by the experience, then I'm all for it.

They do...no need to debate it. However they suffer much more from commercial industry, which is supported by consumers. You do much harm and cause much suffering simply by buying a loaf of bread. If nature can teach us anything at all, it can teach us that one must die for another to live. It is a struggle to survive and just because we have commercialized and removed ourselves from the acts of killing does not means that animals are not dying. In fact although I cannot support this with any real evidence I can say with all my heart that animals suffer more pain than ever due to the fact that killing is done commercially instead of by individuals getting their own food.

I believe that if you were to kill your own food, you would do less harm to nature and animals than by going out and buying it.

 

[ron damon]

There is and there never will be a free lunch.

Thank you very much, but I think I know my Milton Friedman :-) (and my thermodyanmics)

rest of your post

You didn't really argue with my reasoning. The motives for murder in each case are diametrically opposite. Fun vs. survival. In that distinction lays your crime.

 

[Townsend]

Thank you very much, but I think I know my Milton Friedman :-)



You didn't really argue with my reasoning. The motive for murder in each case is diametrically opposite. Fun vs. survival. In that distinction lays your crime.

Wrong...their in lies your own personal deceptions. You enjoy your life and what you do because you are sustained by the death of animals. I don't extract pleasure from killing in the sense that I get all happy and giddy inside. You really, really don't have any idea what it is like to go fishing.

If you were concerned with sustaining your life with minimal pain cause to animals then you would part take in the killing of your own food. By not doing so your survival causes more pain and suffering to animals than is absolutely necessary for your survival.

I think everyone will agree that whatever causes the least amount of suffering of animals is the best for them. Fishermen/women and hunters will win that contest hands down.

QED as far as I am concerned.

 

[Townsend]

The motives for murder in each case are diametrically opposite. Fun vs. survival.

That is an assumption...both are means to and end...put good food on the table. On one hand I can buy fish caught by someone else and eat it. On the other hand I can take the responsibility for the death of an animal and catch it and kill it myself. How is that diametrically opposite? How is one a crime and the other ok?

 

[Moonbear]

All of us have got to eat, so all of us are killers in a way. Yet, and this is what all of you never address in your replies, when you go hunting you are driven not by a need for food, but by the ENJOYMENT you take out of the experience. That makes you cold blooded killers.

No, the enjoyment is a combination of getting back to our roots, putting the modern, mechanized world behind us for the simplicity of going out and catching our own dinner, and the satisfaction of mastering a survival skill. With larger fish, it's also the thrill of the fight, a test of strength and skill to be able to reel it in. The pleasure is not from killing itself. I also used to enjoy going out with a field guide to fish and learn to identify the different fish we caught and tossed back.

Do you know where the fish that you're eating came from, how it was killed, and how quickly? If it's like most commercial fishing boats, the fish are dumped alive into the icy hold of the fishing boat until until they suffocate out of water. You still want the fish dead and on your plate, you just think you can pass the responsibility for killing that fish onto someone else. This is the danger of becoming so disconnected from the process of food-gathering, that you are under the illusion it is bad to kill for survival and at the same time are under the illusion you can personally be guilt-free because somebody else killed the animal or harvested the crop for you. If anything, distancing yourself from the act and allowing others to profit from it as a commercial enterprise encourages wastefulness and killing of more animals than for those who have felt the impact first hand of having to kill an animal and realizing it's no trivial act.

If you wish to call us cold-blooded murderers, then according to your analogy, you're the one who hired the hitman.

Oh, clamming was fun too, and with those, the objective is to get them home alive, just like if you buy them at the fish market. Spending a day walking around the mud flats, digging up one clam at a time with your toes and tossing it into the basket floating beside you, and then going back to the beach house for a clam bake is far more satisfying than picking up a bag of clams at the fish market. Digging in mud all day is fun (except when you discover a crab with your toe ).

 

[ron damon]

Let me hypothesize: if in the future all of our sustaining needs could be fulfilled by ingesting a synthetically produced pill, would people still go out fishing and hunting? Wanna venture a guess? What would be their excuse then?

You eat because you NEED to. You don't NEED to go fishing => You fish because you LIKE to. LIKING to kill is murder.

 

[zoobyshoe]

LIKING to kill is murder.

Liking to kill is sadism.

 

[Moonbear]

Murder only refers to killing another human, thus cannot be applied to fish.

From dictionary.com:

mur·der Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.