anglers, or people who like fishing, are now being targeted by animal rights groups...

 

 

why? the rivers and lakes are stocked with fish to keep their numbers up in order to provide sport. rivers are nearly clean... unlike 30 years ago when most rivers were little more then open sewers, poluted and dead.

 

coarse fish are returned to the water where they go on to enjoy life... game fish like salmon and trout are caught for food.... whats wrong with that? free range natural fish.

I think fishing is an abhorrent sport and would like to see it banned, because it is a working class "sport" it is untouched by legislators and the government instead huffs and puffs about the middle/upper class fox hunting, fishing is as painful to the fish as fox hunting is to the fox

 

Fish feel pain, I would not like to have a hook put into my throat and then lifted into the air where I am unable to breathe, I have seen fish flap about on riversides in agony as the oxygen is sucked out of its gills and it dies an agonising death

 

Fishing is immensly cruel and if hunting with hounds is banned so should fishing be

working class sport?...lol.. think you are over generalising there.

 

i think you are putting human felings upon fish. fish do not feel pain as has been proved, after all, if you had a hook through your lip would you pull away from it if it hurt?.... no! you freeze.

 

fish are cold blooded, there is no comparison with chasing a warm blooded fox.

 

the fish are unharmed... the proof is the fact that the same carp is often caught several times often years apart. the death of a fish that you witnessed isnt reprisentitive of the fishermen i know, who care for their quarry.

working class sport?...lol.. think you are over generalising there.

 

i think you are putting human felings upon fish. fish do not feel pain as has been proved, after all, if you had a hook through your lip would you pull away from it if it hurt?.... no! you freeze.

 

Its a myth that fish don't feel pain Rob

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm

 

http://www.firstscience.com/site/editor/02...gs_05092003.asp

 

The latter article shows that trout have lower levels of pain tolerance than the human population

 

Its been scientifically proven that fish do feel pain so on the grounds of animal cruelty I find fishing unbelieveably cruel, fish are of low intelligence thats why they end up on hooks and nets etc but they do feel pain

 

what they failed to identify is the level of pain, which just isnt the same as in mamals. they are cold blooded and live in cold water, they may well feel 'pain' but its more of a discomfort rather then an acute severe level pain.

 

im not really that fussed over a fish tbh, i used to fish many years ago and i released the fish i caught with no obvious detriment to them.

 

 

but like i outlined, the benefits of having a thriving angling fraternity far outweigh the negative aspects such as they are. like beef, sheep, pigs, they are farmed and released, so unless you think growing animals for food is cruel too.... then really you havnt an argument :)

Craig it's all very well saying it should be banned and that they feel pain, but dont you eat fish? :rolleyes:

 

If you didn't eat it then maybe I'd get your point.

so unless you think growing animals for food is cruel too.... then really you havnt an argument :)

 

I think it is.

Craig it's all very well saying it should be banned and that they feel pain, but dont you eat fish? :rolleyes:

 

If you didn't eat it then maybe I'd get your point.

 

You are right to expose my hypocricy Lucy

 

I should not eat fish I know that :blush: but luckily I don't have it very often but I should not really have any at all

You are right to expose my hypocricy Lucy

 

I should not eat fish I know that :blush: but luckily I don't have it very often but I should not really have any at all

 

I'm not trying to be mean though.

 

I would have thought though, if you care about animals and know it causes them pain you wouldn't eat it?

If you don't have it hardly at all then why not stop getting it altogether? It's not hard tbh.

Edited August 22, 200618 yr by x-The_Royston_Poisoner-x

I'm not trying to be mean though.

 

I would have thought though, if you care about animals and know it causes them pain you wouldn't eat it?

If you don't have it hardly at all then why not stop getting it altogether? It's not hard tbh.

 

My mum loves fish as do some other members of my family so whenever we go over there for a family lunch on a Sunday about once a month my mum always makes a fish dish, salmon usually, and as its a lot of cooking I like feel too embarrassed to ask her to make something else too so I just eat what I am given on the table

My mum loves fish as do some other members of my family so whenever we go over there for a family lunch on a Sunday about once a month my mum always makes a fish dish, salmon usually, and as its a lot of cooking I like feel too embarrassed to ask her to make something else too so I just eat what I am given on the table

 

:o you're a fully grown man though lol. I'm sure she wouldn't mind doing something else.

but the point is...

 

whatever the meat type, these things are farmed specifically for the purpose of being eaten.

 

if everyone stopped eating meat, the subsequence impact upon the countryside would be catastrophic. valuable habitats like upland moors, dales, hillsides that team with rare speciese would lose their habitat as natural growth that food animals keep under control by grazing, would run amok. rivers, lakes would revert to being sterile open sewers as there would be no need to keep them clean.

 

like it or not, money is the deciding factor.

 

id sooner see a world where animals are reared under decent conditions, looked after, then humanely dispatched and have all the environmental benefits of this system, then have the alternative.

but the point is...

 

whatever the meat type, these things are farmed specifically for the purpose of being eaten.

 

if everyone stopped eating meat, the subsequence impact upon the countryside would be catastrophic. valuable habitats like upland moors, dales, hillsides that team with rare speciese would lose their habitat as natural growth that food animals keep under control by grazing, would run amok. rivers, lakes would revert to being sterile open sewers as there would be no need to keep them clean.

 

like it or not, money is the deciding factor.

 

id sooner see a world where animals are reared under decent conditions, looked after, then humanely dispatched and have all the environmental benefits of this system, then have the alternative.

 

But, if everyone stopped eating meat, and farmers stopped over breeding the animals, then where's the problem?

 

They're not always reared under decent conditions, or looked after though. It's the way they're killed I don't like. Have you seen some of the videos on peta's website? Disgusting.

But, if everyone stopped eating meat, and farmers stopped over breeding the animals, then where's the problem?

 

They're not always reared under decent conditions, or looked after though. It's the way they're killed I don't like. Have you seen some of the videos on peta's website? Disgusting.

 

 

the problem is that the countryside would largely go to waste, economics run the world and run farming. the countryside, especially marginal habitats, need animals to graze to prevent weeds and shurbs/trees taking over grasslands. obviously im not talking about arable farms that are already all but devoid of any wildlife, but pasture, feilds, moors, dales, upland areas. these are the habitats that are free from intensive farming/chemicals and harbour the greatest variety of wildlife. if we stopped eating meat these areas would all be seriously downgraded and we would lose many of our endangered speciese and alot of our variety.

 

animals are not kept by farmers as pets, they are an economic unit. take away that and there is no animal.

 

cows, pigs, fish, sheep... they are all needed to help keep the countryside healthy, even if they are only there to be eventually eaten. best to have a few years of life then non at all.

 

im totally against animals being mistreated, and not kept under accepted legal conditions, we should respect them all through their life.

 

peta concentrate on the extremes, most animals, if not all, in the uk are treated properly and dispatched humanely..... far better then how we will die, thats for sure.

 

southpark had their own take on peta......lol.

I think fishing is an abhorrent sport and would like to see it banned, because it is a working class "sport" it is untouched by legislators and the government instead huffs and puffs about the middle/upper class fox hunting, fishing is as painful to the fish as fox hunting is to the fox

 

Fish feel pain, I would not like to have a hook put into my throat and then lifted into the air where I am unable to breathe, I have seen fish flap about on riversides in agony as the oxygen is sucked out of its gills and it dies an agonising death

 

Fishing is immensly cruel and if hunting with hounds is banned so should fishing be

 

c**k Fighting, Badger Baiting, Dog Fighting - all these were essentially 'Working Class' pursuits, all have been rightly banned, but I notice it took a hell of a long time to ban Fox Hunting, purely because it was an upper-class "sport" if you ask me and all the unelected, aristocratic scum in the House of Lords bloody well had to have their arms twisted in order to have it banned. And even then it was a compromise...

 

And I dont think you really can compare fishing to fox-hunting. When was the last time you saw fox meat on sale in the butchers..? "The unspeakable in pusuit of the uneatable" as Oscar Wilde once put it. In most cases fishing is done by people to catch some fresh fish for the dinner table as opposed to buying the treated and frozen stuff in the supermarkets.... And I refute your supposition that fishing is a purely "working class" pursuit anyway, plenty of well-off people do it as well....

 

Fox hunting still goes on.. there are ways round it now, the hunt near me goes out twice a week

Fox hunting still goes on.. there are ways round it now, the hunt near me goes out twice a week

 

Which brings me back to my point that the law was an utter compromise, it wasn't a total ban as it should have been because, as you say, people are getting round it.. A bloody waste of time to end up with such a half-arsed measure....

 

But we have the unelected, Pro-Hunting, Pro-Aristocratic "House of Lords" to thank for that one..... <_<