Sentient Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.

taffy1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2014
Messages
12,112
Location
Well within my comfort zone
As mentioned back in this thread, people eat meat but rely on others to provide, same with fish, they let others provide. No outrage for the disposed of unwanted by-catches that are returned dead.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
48,888
We do not need to defend it, fishing as anglers is covered in The Animal Welfare Act 2006, as has been previously stated.

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.
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
13,535
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
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.
HMMMM.
Seems like the penny has dropped!
 

Segami

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
123
Location
Glasgow
I have been reading back through Tangled's posts and the guy is all over the place.

Ohanzee said:

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.

Tangled replied:

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?
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
13,535
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
I have been reading back through Tangled's posts and the guy is all over the place.

Ohanzee said:

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.

Tangled replied:

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?
He is a bot, managed by PETA, and set up here to try to cause discord.

Probs all bull, but it does come over that way!
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,270
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's a clear distinction that our opponents make, not me. The ethical distinction is clear. Denying it does not make it go away.

Fishing for sport is integrated with fishing for food,
It is not. The entirety of coarse fishing, most of game fishing and even some of sea fishing is ONLY for fun.

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.

We fish for fun. If we fished only to eat, we wouldn't mess about with fly rods. Catching a fish and then putting it back simply proves that we do it for our own entertainment. You can't waffle your way around simple facts.
 
Last edited:

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,270
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've repeated the point I'm making many times.

If we can't defend our actions ethically, we will eventually lose the legal protection we have to practice our sport.

What ethical arguments do we have?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,270
So why keep repeating :unsure:
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.
 

happy days

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
10
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.
 

Paul_B

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
5,978
Location
West Riding of Yorkshire
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.

They'll be lonely Billy no mates and want someone to react with, so no answer will be ongoing, ignore them and hopefully they'll go away before they drag the forum down.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,270
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.

As far as I can see, that's the only defence we have for 'this thing of ours'.
 

codyarrow

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
4,965
As far as I can see, that's the only defence we have for 'this thing of ours'.
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.
The trout I take fall into the 1lb class, which is a good eating size. Taken from waters were removal makes no difference to their survival. Anything bigger or smaller I release.

I'm not judging anyone, these are my moral codes. There is a difference between catching animals you potentially will eat and playing with a rat on a line IMO. I can live with my judgements, if you cannot then maybe it's time to stop.
 

Segami

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2021
Messages
123
Location
Glasgow
As far as I can see, that's the only defence we have for 'this thing of ours'.

The very first post of this thread was:

Will angling come under threat?

Tangled, your very first post on this was:

No. Too many votes lost.

Once again, shot yourself in the foot.

You 'lost' your own argument on page one.

Do not expect any more replies from me in response to anything you say.

I have no respect left for your views, which is sad, considering I have only been on this forum a month.
 

happy days

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
10
As far as I can see, that's the only defence we have for 'this thing of ours'.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top