We do not need to defend it, fishing as anglers is covered in The Animal Welfare Act 2006, as has been previously stated.
HMMMM.Indeed, within current stated practices fishing is part of UK law, therefor all debated, decided and legislated, including the ethics...obviously, because we abide by those laws set out.
Tangled appears to want to reach beyond that and question it's validity questioning not fishermen essentially but the ethics on which the laws were based, effectively rechallenging the accepted level of what is justifiable treatment.
This is precisely the modus operandi of the blind flapper fringe of Peta, with the same duplicitous methodology of attacking the fisher rather than the legislation by asking for justification where none was needed.
He is a bot, managed by PETA, and set up here to try to cause discord.I have been reading back through Tangled's posts and the guy is all over the place.
My point is that like eating meat, fishing is an acceptable practice, you don't need to make excuses for doing it, but like eating meat we should be ethical about it.
And we shouldn't - (make excuses) because there are none. We should accept that what we do is harmful, but we do it anyway and live with it.
4 posts later he posted:
We are behaving legally - for now - but not ethically. Inflicting harm for fun can't ever be an ethically correct position.
Tangled, if you accept that you as an angler inflict harm, but you say it can never be an ethically correct position, yet, as you say, you do it anyway and live with it... What is the point you are REALLY trying to make?
To maybe answer Bert's point at the same time, no, you don't get to define the distinction, unless you are Peta and want to steer it that way.
It is not. The entirety of coarse fishing, most of game fishing and even some of sea fishing is ONLY for fun.Fishing for sport is integrated with fishing for food,
catch and release is practiced for conservation reasons. it is in the eyes of the public and law, the same thing, it is you who has redefined catch and release as 'for fun', this was never the reason it was adopted and nothing has changed on that count.
ITangled, if you accept that you as an angler inflict harm, but you say it can never be an ethically correct position, yet, as you say, you do it anyway and live with it... What is the point you are REALLY trying to make?
I was hoping - in vain it seems - that some form of answer would emerge or that we could agree that there isn't one.
So far we have only one person claiming that he can answer the ethical question being asked, but he won't say what it is.
Angling puts £1.4 billion into UK economy, that's just freshwater, and supports 27000 full time jobs not counting part time, 2.9 million anglers, biggest participation sport. Political suicide for anyone trying to ban it.
Ethics don't come into it, go and find something else to worry about.
Not quite. I see where you are coming from, I've wrestled with the concept myself but come to the conclusion that the hunting urge is buried deep in my psyche. To which I subjectively apply my own moral code. Such as the right to chap a salmon, if this becomes 100% C&R I will stop doing it. Having said that I've chapped two in the last five years, but not killing anything would be morally wrong.
How about the benefit to human mental health from fishing outweighs the discomfort a fish feels to being hooked in the mouth, having caught the same fish twice in the same session verifies it for me and proves the trauma is minimal if done properly.