| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Fluke
Member
164 Posts |
 Posted - 28/01/2003 : 11:06:54
|
I've argued this point on several fora, with many different people, but this is the first time I've raised the point myself.
Firstly, I'd like to set one thing straight: I don't have any axe to grind with people who choose to practice catch and release, it is their right to do so where allowed by fishery rules and I respect that right. I practice C&R for fish that are caught out of season (before anyone asks, I don't actively fish for species that are out of season, but do occasionally catch them while legitimately fishing for other species), for fish that are too small, under EA or fishery byelaws, to take and for those species I don't particularly want to eat - chub and dace aren't great eating species afterall, but it's possible to catch both on fly.
However, I do eat fish and I prefer to eat fish that I've caught myself, I know how they were dispatched, I know how they were cleaned, by whom and how long the fish has been dead for before I eat it. Can you ever say the same about fish bought from a fishmonger, or worse, from a supermarket?
I prefer not to fish waters, leaving them fallow if you will, which cannot support a moderate harvest of the species I'm fishing for. I can get much the same pleasure from fish spotting on a river which is struggling or in decline as I can from catch and release fishing, so why run the risk of damaging such a precious commodity by C&R ?
Lastly, I'd say, that everyone's conscience will prick them differently - some anglers will fish only C&R on any water, but will happily buy cod and chips at the local chip shop. Some, hopefully a minority, will kill everything they catch regardless of size and another minority will fish C&R only because they don't ever eat fish of any species.
Hopefully, we can discuss this without the need for invective as this has been, so far, one of the more relaxed fora I've seen.
I've left more than enough points unanswered and unopened for there to be some debate - all tht is required is a post from someone else!
Cheers,
Fluke!
"Don't take life too seriously... it ain't permanent!" Attribute to Joe Pearlstein.
|
|
|
wretched_mess
Junior Member
55 Posts |
Posted - 28/01/2003 : 17:09:26
|
I can't quite grasp what you are saying in your post?
Are you trying to say that C&R is un-ethical?
If were talking ethics, it is extremely subjective -coming down to your own definition of what constitutes a moral standard.
PETA beleive fishing is morally wrong (un-ethical). I disagree with that point of view - but that does not mean to say I have no morals.
I think the answer lies within each angler. Each has his/her own conscience to deal with and decide what is right or wrong in the circumstances - do I let this trout go and live to fight another day or is it into the frying pan?
I don't have a problem with anyone taking 'one for the pot' or C&R. In fact I C&R 99% of the time now. I'm sure my coarse fishing background has something to do with it. That and cleaning the fish at the end of the day is a chore I'd rather do without.
If a fish population in a river or lake is on the brink of survival, then I think I would disagree with an angler who did not practice C&R. Fish are a precious resource worth looking after.
So in answer to your question "How ethical is catch and release", my answer is "As ethical as you want it to be".
I fear we care more about our ethics and pay little attention to our own common sense.
|
 |
|
|
Fluke
Member
164 Posts |
Posted - 29/01/2003 : 06:41:09
|
I'm not stating anything, just trying to generate a little healthy conversation - your reply was exactly the sort of thing that I had hoped to illicit, particularly with reference to common sense.
Anyone else?
Fluke!
"Don't take life too seriously... it ain't permanent!" Attribute to Joe Pearlstein. |
|
|
|
Paul King
Junior Member
81 Posts |
 Posted - 29/01/2003 : 08:46:07
|
I fish c&r 99% of the time but I do realise that there are some difficulties with the ethics of catching a fish, enjoying the struggle and then letting it go to repeat the process. I too started off coarse fishing where 100% c&r is the norm and I personally have no qualms provided that the fish is treated with care but I could see how an argument could be constructed against it.
I also have no problem with anyone who wants to kill fish for the table as is their right - its personal choice.
I have always felt that many in angling proably consider themselves to be far less open to criticism than hunting, shooting and other field sports but this is not necessarily the case if you look at what we do objectively.
My own feeling is that the least open to criticism is deer stalking where a wild quarry is killed with one shot (99% of cases) having lived a perfectly natural life and doesn't even hear the bang of the rifle that kills it.
Paul King |
|
|
|
braveheart3
New Member
46 Posts |
Posted - 29/01/2003 : 11:08:59
|
Fluke, how dare you call me f~?#*% unethical for fishing C& R………………….. na only kidding.
Personally speaking I now fish almost exclusively C & R, I don’t eat fish and I don’t sell them and I would much rather see them swim away rather than kill them for the sake of it. I also believe that each individual should have the right to decide for themselves whether they wish to kill fish or not but I do not think that conscience plays a part in it, it is purely a simple choice; I will kill or I will not kill the fish.
What I think should be mentioned though is how people handle the fish whether they intend to kill it or not, how many time have you seen a poorly handled fish thrown back into the water with no regard for its welfare.
I think that no matter your intentions (kill or not) the fish should be handled with the utmost respect at all times. If you are going to release it try to do so in the water and if you must handle it do so with wet hands and give it time to recover if necessary, and if you are going to kill it do it as quickly and efficiently as possible.
I do like your principle regarding leaving waters fallow, but if they are to be fished I wouldn’t see a problem provided any fish caught were handled with care.
"Work is for people who don't know how to fish"
braveheart |
|
|
|
Fluke
Member
164 Posts |
Posted - 29/01/2003 : 13:08:45
|
Paul, Braveheart,
Absolutely! Killing a fish for the sake of it is a terrible waste and shouldn't, in my opinion, ever be done.
Of the fish I take, most are rainbows from smallwaters or reservoirs, as these populations are artificial and highly sustainable with minimal further impact on wild situations. There are a few occasions in a year where I'll take wild trout and grayling, but not many, so again there's a minimal impact on a wild fishery.
In terms of using the fish, I eat them, personally, because I enjoy it and they taste nice. It's good that neither of you see a problem with this. In addition, thanks to a friends suggestion, I'll now be using the remains both from cleaning and cooking the fish to fertilise my garden with - it takes up relatively little freezer space until it's needed afterall - so eco friendly as well as damn good food!
Just to re-itterate, I'm not anti C&R provided it's done properly. I don't do it myself, but given my approach to taking fish I don't see that I need to.
Cheers,
Fluke!
"Don't take life too seriously... it ain't permanent!" Attribute to Joe Pearlstein. |
|
|
|
Webley
Starting Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 29/01/2003 : 17:06:37
|
When you come across those occasional and wonderful creatures of myth, the wild brown trout, you sometimes meet, amongst their number, an ultimate example of the species...the Faberge. Do their inner bits end up on the Flukesters garden I wonder?
Does he cast mercy upon the rounding hen in September? Or the colouring cock?
When his fishing skills really come together and he can do no wrong, does his day finish before it really begins, with the swift dispatch of those four, morning, mayfly, river trout to complete the bag?
More questions than answers Adam. Your consideration please.
Edited by - Webley on 30/01/2003 05:54:19 |
|
|
|
Fluke
Member
164 Posts |
Posted - 30/01/2003 : 06:52:50
|
Hi Webley,
I'm very particular about which fish I will take and also about which fish I will fish for in the first place.
I'm certainly not the angler who will catch most on any given water or any given day - sometimes it might happen, but generally only when everyone else has had a very bad day and I've gotten lucky, as my nickname implies.
September is when I start fishing for grayling, my brown trout I take in the spring. I can't remember the last time I took a limit of fish away with me and I will release one's that don't suit my needs for a table fish - be that too large or too small. Why take a fish only just on the legal length when what I want is a meal for two?
Yes I've spent longer putting the rod up, choosing a fly and walking to my likely spot than I have catching the two fish I wanted to take home to eat. I'll do it again then next time I get that lucky too ;-)
I'm afraid I don't know the word faberge except with relation to highly decorated jewelery eggs - can you elaborate please?
As to using the bits I wouldn't eat as fertiliser, I'm surprised that should cause any worry - or have I misread you there?
Cheers,
Fluke!
"Don't take life too seriously... it ain't permanent!" Attribute to Joe Pearlstein. |
|
|
|
Webley
Starting Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 30/01/2003 : 07:13:43
|
"I'm afraid I don't know the word faberge except with relation to highly decorated jewelery eggs - can you elaborate please?"
Certainly Sir,
I refer to the highly decorated and extreamly precious fish, those 1 in 1,000,000 creatures that make you gasp at their colours and infinate design. You know the ones, you often begin to describe them at the bar in the evening, but realise, if you are wise that your words fall well short of doing them justise. I have your answer, however.
"As to using the bits I wouldn't eat as fertiliser, I'm surprised that should cause any worry - or have I misread you there?"
I have no cause for worry on this count, in fact I think it is rather a good idea. It seems to show respect to the whole protein from the fish. That protein merely converts into further food.
On a simalar track, my mates final wishes include being hung over a stream so that the blue bottles set their eggs amongst him, to fall off and feed the fish underneath, as maggots. I hope he is going to breach the subject to his Mrs, in his living years, I'd rather not.
|
|
|
|
wretched_mess
Junior Member
55 Posts |
Posted - 30/01/2003 : 14:34:52
|
Fluke: I think you are stating something - re-read your own posts.
Paul King: What Ethics? As I stated in my post, ethics are now considered what you want them to be (a tragic turn of affairs if you ask me). Everyone has there 2 cents worth (sorry, but my world revolves around the cdn dollar not the humble pound now - poor me!) of what constitutes ethics and so everyones opinion is valid (which makes it very difficult to determine what is ethicly correct - if you value anyone elses opinion other than your own that is!).
I think we are confusing 'common sense' and 'ethics'. Ethics imply a moral standard (again terribly subjective if you beleive in pluralism, but extremely clear cut if you don't) which is based on a universal acceptance of this standard. However, beleifs aside, Common sense relies cheifly on our own inward ability to know the difference from right and wrong (conscience)(philosphers will argue against this point)- rather than what other people say is right or wrong. Common sense (your conscience) is black and white (right or wrong). Now a days, Ethics are what you want them to be. It is this fact that I feel that we should not consider ethics at all - that is until we can agree that there is a moral standard we can all agree too. Till then, we should rely on our common sense rather than the philosophy of (in my own mind) ignorant and stupid men/women who have a terrible need to control what we do.
I understand that my statements with regard common sense and conscience, will have people thinking that people have varying degrees of common sense than others, and, given that fact, it is too dangerous to leave people to their own devices - we need some sort of standard. I agree. It is one of the reasons why we have Laws or fishing regulations. However, we now live in an age where that 'standard' is no longer being thought of as a 'standard' after all - we should do what we want, when we want. There's even an awful saying "A fool follows the law, and a wiseman interprets the law". That standard is now deemed flexible. Pretty soon that standard will be so flexible it will be no standard at all. However, man (that word will upset the feminists out there) cannot escape his own common sense (conscience) - thank God.
So, to end my 2 cents worth (5 bucks by now I think), I feel that C&R is a common sense (conscience) one. There are occasions where it makes good common sense to do so and times when it does not. You have your answer.
There is no final answer to whether C&R,(or fishing, hunting, eating Meat, cutting down trees, etc. etc.) is Ethical in the end - because, sadly, ethics are what you want them to be. Maybe I should phrase that - ethics are what everyone else wants them to be.....you can't please everybody all of the time, so you'll never be able to get everbody to agree to a moral standard, therefore you can never say that it is or isnt ethical.
I'm repeating myself, so I must feel pretty strongly about this subject of the dreaded ethics.
If in doubt listen to Jimmny Cricket.
Braveheart3: You still here? I thought you'd dissapeared back to Fish & Fly. Nice to see that you're hanging around this forum. I have an idea to spur people onto posting. Lets persuade Mark Bowler to offer a free subscription to the person who post the most topics on this board. Even if this competition got abused, at least people would get over their hindrances.
|
|
|
|
braveheart3
New Member
46 Posts |
Posted - 30/01/2003 : 16:53:33
|
Wretched Mess I had indeed disappeared back to fish and fly, but recent events have caused me to rethink and I have come to the conclusion that these fora although quieter are for the moment free from the bitching that has blighted fish and fly of late, some of it sadly by myself I might add, and also the questions posed on here are generally of a higher standard as are the reply’s.
I fear that if a free subscription were offered for the most posts we would soon be seeking pastures new. Perhaps a prize for the most thought provoking post or the post with the most replies would be slightly better.
Finally I don’t think Fluke was intentionally making a statement, he was merely trying to illicit some debate with a thought provoking post. (Fluke + Thought provoking, that’s a scary scenario. )
"Work is for people who don't know how to fish"
braveheart |
|
|
|
Fluke
Member
164 Posts |
Posted - 31/01/2003 : 04:31:34
|
WM: You're right, bad choice of words on my part - what I should have said was "I am not casting aspertions about the practice of C&R" - Braveheart is quite correct about wanting some debate, rather than a totally quiet forum, but reasoned and enlightened debate rather than the slanging matches that seem to take place elsewhere ;-)
Cheers,
Fluke!
"Don't take life too seriously... it ain't permanent!" Attribute to Joe Pearlstein. |
|
|
|
wretched_mess
Junior Member
55 Posts |
Posted - 31/01/2003 : 11:58:46
|
Fair enough lads! Nuff said. ;)
|
|
|
|
jab
Junior Member
81 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 09:00:51
|
Now for my 'tuppence-worth!
Stating a precise difference between what is a "moral" and what is an "ethical" issue is very difficult. Even expert philosphers can't agree, so I'm not going to try. I'll just lump them together.
We can I think analyse ethical statements according to two criteria: a) the position adopted; and b) whether or not a discussion can add to the sum of "moral knowledge", if such a thing can be said to exist at all.
We can divide "position" into three basic types: "absolutist"; "situational"; and "relativistic".
From an absolutist standpoint, the truth of some moral statement will always hold; e.g., "it is never right to kill" is absolutist. Most "moral rules" are of this type.
From a situational viewpoint, the truth or otherwise of a statement depends on context; i.e., it depends on the circumstances in which an act (and its consequences) occur, if possible independent of the observer's position.
From a relativistic viewpoint, the truth or otherwise of some statement will depend on the point-of-view of the observer. Note that this very different from the situationalist viewpoint.
The trouble with both the absolutist and relativistic viewpoints is that neither help when we are faced with a dilemma. We are unable to analyse the situation and so unable to come to a decision. E.g., ask yourself the question "Is it right to go to war with Iraq?" and you will see what I mean. An absolutist position can only answer "yes" or "no" and the relativistic position provides no answer at all (at least none that help us resolve the conflict). On the other hand, adopting the situationalist position allows us a chance to analyse the particular circumstances and possible consequences, hopefully from an objective (evidence-based) viewpoint, though we do need to recognise that, at least to some extent, there will be some subjectivity involved.
Am I making sense?
James Bannon
(When in doubt, try honesty) |
|
|
|
Bob Wyatt
Member
111 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 12:18:52
|
Jab, good interesting post. Here's my 2P. The trouble with this topic is that it has nothing to do with the fish. The fish have no idea what's going on and do not 'suffer'. The thing that really bothers people about fishing (and shooting and hunting) is that we enjoy it. So it's, as usual, a puritanical response to another's pleasure. The 'ethical' argument against C&R is always focused on the 'morality' of that pleasure.
If people really cared about wild fish and animals they would do something about improving their lives by enhancing and protecting their habitat. The overwhelming public response to the disgusting practice of farmed salmon and the plight of the wild sea-trout of Scotland's west coast is a case in point.
Wyatt |
|
|
|
Allan Liddle
Junior Member
50 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2003 : 15:49:14
|
Ethics and morals are very much down to the individual. Some like 'catch and release' and others loath it. Personally i prefer to return my fish whenever possible. Lets face it what you kill today you can't catch tomorrow. I've witnessed too many baskets of fish being kept just so the angler can say 'look at me'.I hope i'm right in saying this is on the way out now that anglers are becoming 'more aware'lets face it we've all done it chasing those 'bragging rights' but so what if others don't believe you? Sometimes though it's better to keep a few as long as the water can sustain it, or, as long as the fish itself hasn't been too exausted and / or damaged to survive. Why attempt to return a fish that you're not 100% sure is going to make it? Common sense you take it home with you and eat it. In the past competition angling has come under fire and as one who paticipates in these well, strict catch limits, restricted fishing time, rules and many other restrictions the angler's faced with during most of these as well as the fact that there are some of them run strictly on catch and release (the Scottish river national for example)along with the fact that they represent only a small proportion of the overall angling world all,i feel, adds up in keeping a perspective .
Webley touches on the 'Do you cast mercy on the rounding hen in September or the colouring cock?' Are you not back to your conscience again here? Afterall it would take a good vet to get a fish up a burn in October that's been 'chapped' in July would it not?
Allan Liddle
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
How ethical is catch and release?
