On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?

On 8/1/06 11:20 AM, in article , "JR"
wrote:

William Claspy wrote:
On 8/1/06 9:15 AM, in article , "JR"

In one case, you're catching a fish for a serious purpose. A purpose
that can justify the suffering inflicted on the fish. In the other,
you're doing it for amusement, for a passing lark.

The crux comes when one attempts to apply a human feeling- suffering- on a
non human- the fish- who may, or quite possibly may not, have such feeling.
It seems to me that if you reject "being mean", "hatred" and "love" (human
notions), you should also reject "suffering". No?

Or does it become more of a discussion about US and our feelings rather than
about the fish?

I'm not imposing a human feeling. I think all the discussions of
"whether fish suffer" and "whether fish feel pain" do unfortunately
always seem to rehash questions of whether they feel pain *the way we
do* and whether they suffer *the way we would*. These questions can
never be resolved and are pointless anyway.

Yet you seem to resolve it pretty neatly for yourself (see your next
sentence).

I think it is self-evident
that, as sentient beings (see your last sentence below), fish suffer in
response to certain stimuli.

Hm. I'd agree if you changed "suffer" to "react".

Fish suffer the way fish do, and we suffer
the way we do. (I know, I know.... doh! g). That we might not suffer
the same way (have the same "feelings") is beside the point.

I was about to say "I agree", but then it strikes me, isn't that rather the
whole point? I mean, if you are going to make the "I'm at the top of the
food (and sentient :-) chain, that's why I choose to fish for sport"
argument.

Some folks
find it easy to believe the enjoyment they derive from catching a fish
is justified because a fish's suffering is not *really* suffering (i.e.,
is not the same as human suffering). It's a convenient rationalization.

Possibly. Hard to quantify "some folks" as well! I can speak for me, you
can speak for you. I won't pretend to summarize "some folks."

I think it is an excellent topic for discussion.

Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to
playthings. Some folks have no problem with that; others do.

The above statement, or in particular the "playthings" portion of it- might
trivialize the many reasons in favor of C&R, which effect the fishes' life
just as much as C&K would.

I don't think so. That they're reduced to playthings, to be harassed
for fun only, is a fact. The "many reasons" only can only help to
justify--or fail to justify--the fact; they cannot be trivialized by a
simple statement of the fact.

Fact? Really? Like scientific fact? Can "harassed" be quantified? Can
"fish suffering" be quantified? Do they use focus groups for that? Are the
findings repeatable? Do you really think that your statement "mandatory C&R
reduces them to playthings" is a _simple_ _fact_? Doesn't seem so simple to
me. But then, I can be pretty simple sometimes myself. :-)

I have no problem with C&R, only with pure, mandatory 100% C&R.

Your inclusion of "mandatory" has me scratching my head a little, and I'm
wondering if you would explain. Would the "playthings" statement change if
the C&R were *not* mandatory. So if I'm fishing on a no-regs stream, and
release a fish, was the fish not a plaything at my whim? Are the fish that
you caught and release that were not part of your slot limit (were there a
highly restrictive slot limit) not playthings, whereas they would have been
had the C&R been mandated by some outside (outside of your own conscience!)
agency?

(To be honest, I don't follow the discussion closely enough to know the
definition of "slot limit"- is that where you can only keep the first (say)
two fish you catch? Or is it when you can only keep fish of a certain
size?)

If
there are any conservation reasons for mandatory C&R that couldn't be
satisfied by a highly restrictive slot limit, then the population is, I
believe, too fragile to allow fishing in the first place.

I've not paid that much attention to it, but it would seem to me that 100%
C&R waters are frequently not set aside such for conservation reasons, but
rather for what you might call "entertainment" reasons- the hopes that 100%
C&R will allow for more and bigger fish! Not saying I agree with that (or
disagree, I guess!), just how it seems to me.

Part of the problem is that it is difficult- for me anyhow- to think in a
binary fashion. For example, I have seen C&K fisherman that, if you are
thinking in human terms, were quite brutal to their prey. And I have seen
C&R fisherman with whom the fish probably were not really aware (if they are
aware at all....) that they had been hooked and released.

You've seen fish go completely limp or behave in completely the same
fashion after hooking as before?

I'm not a fish biologist, nor a behaviorist, but I have seen the latter,
after a fish is released*, quite frequently. Within moments the fish
returns to its lie, resumes feeding, fighting with other fish, etc.** And
when I'm the angler, I generally breathe a sigh of relief when he does so-
just as I feel a bit of anguish when the poor thing is bleeding or foul
hooked, or injured from a previous angler or heron. The fact that I
register anguish or relief is probably the sign of a guilty conscience, and
how I rationalize that I'm not 100% sure. That all three notions register
in my own pea-sized brain is a sign that my synapses are working. And the
fact that this paragraph has gone in the direction that it has is why I said
above that the philosophical discussion becomes (for me anyhow) more about
US than about the fish. As you said, it becomes pointless in a hurry to
discuss "does the fish feel pain" or "does he suffer." The pointlessness
stems, in my opinion, from the, er, fact, that we can't know how- or even
if!- the poor blighter suffers at all! I guess for some that means they can
stop thinking about it, or considering it. shrug

Sentience is not an easy concept.

Often it's not an easy state. At least not before a few cups of coffee,
anyway.

You're telling me, brother! It was a couple of hours before I got my first
cuppa this morning. Talk about suffering! :-)

Like I said, I'm glad this conversation goes on. I'm not too firmly on
either side of the fence. I know what motivates me to C&R and I know what
motivates me to C&K, but thinking about either too hard makes me just sit on
the bank and pull out the flask. But I enjoy hearing what others have to
say! And hope to do so on a river bank with you sometime, JR, maybe over a
hot cast iron skillet with some freshly caught trout! :-)

I'd be interested in hearing your own- that is, your personal!- reasons for
participating in sport fishing, JR. How do you justify the C&R that you do?
Assuming you at least occasionally C&R, that is!

Will waffle on demand,
Bill

*on reflection, there was a (or perhaps I should be more accurate and use
"the" :-) BIG steelhead I hooked this past spring. I thought for sure I
hooked him, but he didn't seem to react the way I thought he would. He just
sort of sat (er, swam) there as if nothing happened. That only lasted a few
moments though. Once he recognized that he was hooked (sentient!) he almost
took me for a ride all the way to Lake Erie. Ended up breaking off. Wowza!
I don't think he suffered though. :-)

**[as an aside, I think using these "well, from what I've seen..." anecdotal
type of arguments is pretty fruitless, at least if you are trying to draw
general conclusions or convince someone of something. There will almost
always be a counter example! On the other hand, personal experience is an
excellent motivator for ones own current behavior: "well, last time I used a
weighted wooly bugger I ended up foul-hooking the fish, so I'm not going to
use THAT again!" or "when I swung that caddis downstream the fish really
nailed it, so I'm going to try it again on the next hole."]

"William Claspy" wrote in message
...

I'm not a fish biologist, nor a behaviorist, but I have seen the latter,
after a fish is released*, quite frequently. Within moments the fish
returns to its lie, resumes feeding, fighting with other fish, etc.** And
when I'm the angler, I generally breathe a sigh of relief when he does so-
just as I feel a bit of anguish when the poor thing is bleeding or foul
hooked, or injured from a previous angler or heron. The fact that I
register anguish or relief is probably the sign of a guilty conscience,
and
how I rationalize that I'm not 100% sure.

Excellent writing William, I'm sure everyone here has experienced this
before.
-tom

"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message
...
Actually, a good portion of Tim's argument does seem to be based on
such concepts, with maybe a bit of "self-loathing" thrown in for fun.

Nope, Tim's "argument" is nothing more than an effort to exorcise the demon
he sees (however through a glass darkly) resting on his shoulder

The demon.......

...To take your statements to their logical extreme -- wouldn't anyone who
is not fishing *solely* to feed themselves just be fishing for a "passing
lark"? And wouldn't it also be true that anyone who wastes any portion of
the fish caught has now crossed back over into that "lark" rather than the
"serious purpose"? (I.e., how do you justify the suffering/killing if you
waste any of what you kill?)

The demon has at long last been exposed.....if not quite properly named. It
was, of course, just a matter of time, but I am surprised that it took this
long.

In fact, all the participants in this discussion.....all of the participants
in this newsgroup.....fish for the same reason. Catch and kill is a thin,
transparent, and thus utterly repugnant rationalization. Angling, for
anyone but a subsistence fisherman/woman (who could only in rather unusual
circumstances justify using hook and line rather than more efficient and
effective methods.....and virtually never fly fishing) is principally a
recreational activity. Keeping a few fish doesn't change that. Putative
ethical arguments based on an alleged belief in one management regime versus
another are purest horse****.

Lots of people outside the angling community understand the nature of the
core issue here quite well, and it's not just the lunatic fringe of PETA and
similar idiots. Lots of people within the community understand it as well.
The time is rapidly approaching when the self-serving and hypocritical
platitudes mouthed by the latter will no longer suffice to quell critics
both within and without. Unfortunately.....for most.....this is going to
require either a serious effort to come to grips with the knotty problem of
ethics (which, in turn, will mean finding out just what it is that the word
refers to) or simply giving up fishing altogether. Obviously, the latter is
more likely.

As to the matter of suffering, if fish don't, I still await a rationale for
telling children that they shouldn't pull the wings off of flies.

Wolfgang

Conan The Librarian wrote:
JR wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote:

I'm glad someone finally distilled that "argument" to its essence.
That's exactly what he seems to be saying. You either show your
"love" by killing the fish outright, or you show your "hatred" by
releasing it to fight again.

Has nothing to do with "being mean," "hatred" or "love."

Actually, a good portion of Tim's argument does seem to be based on
such concepts, with maybe a bit of "self-loathing" thrown in for fun.

That's how you read it. Not I.

In one case, you're catching a fish for a serious purpose. A purpose
that can justify the suffering inflicted on the fish. In the other,
you're doing it for amusement, for a passing lark.

What if you cull fish as you go about your "serious purpose"? Are
those fish caught for amusement, for a passing lark, but once they are
finally filleted they become "serious" fish? How about if you fish a
body of water that has size limits even though you know that the
majority of the fish you will catch fall into the size where they must
be released?

Who said anything about serious fish? It's the purpose that is serious,
which makes the enterprise serious. In your examples, fish would have
died (or been caught and released) as an unavoidable and/or accidental
by-product of a larger, otherwise serious enterprise--that of providing
food-- rather than a frivolous, trivial enterprise--that of providing
entertainment. It's the seriousness of the intent that counts, I think.

To take your statements to their logical extreme -- wouldn't anyone
who is not fishing *solely* to feed themselves just be fishing for a
"passing lark"?

There's a continuum of intents/actions/consequences/results when it
comes to what I am calling "seriousness", to be sure. But, yes, the
more the intent (or result) deviates from--or doesn't contribute to,
even indirectly--the end of providing food, the more trivial that part
of the enterprise is. I'll admit, though, that not every American--even
my poor weak self--is yet prepared to be as extremely logical and
morally exact as the average German.

And wouldn't it also be true that anyone who wastes any
portion of the fish caught has now crossed back over into that "lark"
rather than the "serious purpose"? (I.e., how do you justify the
suffering/killing if you waste any of what you kill?)

Waste is irresponsible in any event. It wouldn't necessarily be a
"lark" but it would be wrong, yes, and wrong to the extent that it was
knowingly (or thoughtlessly) wasteful. BTW, I can't remember the last
time any part of any fish I killed was "wasted." I kill what I am sure
I and/or the folks with me will eat fresh that same day. When I had a
garden and a cat, the heads/guts/bones got eaten or composted. Now that
I have neither, those parts go in the garbage. Would I prefer that they
didn't? Sure, but I'm no more remorseful about it than about those
parts of the rest of my food that go the same route, faute de mieux.

Hunting does not trivialize the prey. Mandatory C&R reduces them to
playthings. Some folks have no problem with that; others do.

What about optional C&R? Are those fish any more or less "playthings"?

Again, it depends on the intent of the angler when setting off to catch
fish. If he/she never had any intention of ever taking a fish for food,
then yes, the fish are reduced to nothing more than "sporting" toys.
The *entire* enterprise would then be self-indulgent frivolity, rather
than only some ancillary part of it.

BTW, I have no illusions that I will change anyone's mind here. Many
people are very happy and quite morally untroubled to harass wildlife
solely for fun, and because it's associated in the public's mind with a
traditionally honorable profession/sport, it has society's blessing.....
for the moment, anyway.

--
John Russell aka JR

In article , says...
Again, it depends on the intent of the angler when setting off to catch
fish.

IMHO, as soon as the word "intent" enters a C&R/C&K thread the thread
is over. Judging another angler's intent or their morality based on
their intent is overrated. Each of us has to decide for ourselves. I
can't (or shouldn't) tell you that your intent and morality are worse
than mine and I'd expect you to return the favor (I'm not saying you
have made any such comment).

Your personal morality is based on your intent, others' morality is
based on other factors or a mix of other factors. Neither is
superior.
- Ken

wrote in message
...
In article , says...
Again, it depends on the intent of the angler when setting off to catch
fish.

IMHO, as soon as the word "intent" enters a C&R/C&K thread the thread
is over. Judging another angler's intent or their morality based on
their intent is overrated. Each of us has to decide for ourselves. I
can't (or shouldn't) tell you that your intent and morality are worse
than mine and I'd expect you to return the favor (I'm not saying you
have made any such comment).

Your personal morality is based on your intent, others' morality is
based on other factors or a mix of other factors. Neither is
superior.

It is a strange world that can produce people capable of stating with
conviction that intent doesn't matter.

Wolfgang
who supposes that he will now be informed that no one said any such thing.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

It is a strange world that can produce people capable of stating with
conviction that intent doesn't matter.

Wolfgang
who supposes that he will now be informed that no one said any such thing.


I find it stranger still when people place a higher importance on intent
than they do on outcome - though I'm not saying that that is what you did in
this case.

Bob weinberger

wrote:
In article , says...
Again, it depends on the intent of the angler when setting off to catch
fish.

IMHO, as soon as the word "intent" enters a C&R/C&K thread the thread
is over. Judging another angler's intent or their morality based on
their intent is overrated. Each of us has to decide for ourselves.

Of course. Where did I say anything about judging others intent? In
the case of mandatory C&R waters, though, it should be obvious that
anyone fishing them has no intention of fishing for food.


--
John Russell aka JR

Bob Weinberger wrote:

I find it stranger still when people place a higher importance on intent
than they do on outcome - though I'm not saying that that is what you did in
this case.

Bob, now, I *did* write:

"There's a continuum of intents/actions/consequences/results when it
comes to what I am calling "seriousness", to be sure."

Take the two cases:
- Killing someone on purpose or accidentally.
- Stepping on someone's toe on purpose or accidentally.

The "seriousness" of the ethical issues involved, I think, involve both
the outcome and the intent.

Which is *more* important? It depends, I think. In the C&R/C&K matter,
perhaps the outcome is more important in the conservation/protection
realm and the intent more important in the ethical one?

BTW, you been to the mouth for steelhead yet? My continued
"semi-retirement" and $3/gal gas is keeping me pretty close to home....

--
John Russell aka JR

In article , says...
wrote:
In article , says...
Again, it depends on the intent of the angler when setting off to catch
fish.

IMHO, as soon as the word "intent" enters a C&R/C&K thread the thread
is over. Judging another angler's intent or their morality based on
their intent is overrated. Each of us has to decide for ourselves.

Of course. Where did I say anything about judging others intent?

Well if you hadn't snipped the rest of that paragraph it would have been
obvious that I didn't think you had. Read the last sentence, the part
in ().

"
IMHO, as soon as the word "intent" enters a C&R/C&K thread the thread
is over. Judging another angler's intent or their morality based on
their intent is overrated. Each of us has to decide for ourselves. I
can't (or shouldn't) tell you that your intent and morality are worse
than mine and I'd expect you to return the favor (I'm not saying you
have made any such comment).
"

- Ken