Ban on Livebaiting

Message

#1 Post by **Ryan** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:27 am

This might be of interested to any of the guys that do a bit of pike fishing etc.. They've banned livebaiting in Scotland, politicians decided it was to cruel. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ngle07.xml

How long before we see similar UK wide even in Ireland ?

#2 Post by **Donagh** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:46 am

Live baiting is illegal in the south of Ireland when in fresh water. This is to stop the introduction of coarse fish.

Donagh

Rockhopper · #3 Post by **Rockhopper** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:59 am

Good Point Donagh.....that makes sense. I was told the law in Scotland didnt effect sea angling...so it may be for the same reasons.

Its the fecking word "BAN" that pi$$es me off......all you seem to here now...ban this and ban that...they should ban banning :lol:

Tom.

#4 Post by **Ryan** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:19 pm

It seems that way, all these so called "Do Gooders" trying to be politically correct, if they had their way they'd probably try to ban people having a fish tank in their homes! :twisted:

Next thing you know they'll be trying to ban using worms as bait in the rivers!:shock:
Actually i think a garden worm is worse, not only do you stick a hook through it, but you drown the bloomin thing aswell :roll:
Oops, :oops: hope they don't read that.

#5 Post by **petekd** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:46 pm

This is a lot scarier to be honest than the ban in Ireland. This is a ban that HAS partly been implemented because of cruelty issues. This is something that we should all take very seriously. Its one foot on the ladder for the ANTIs and a major coup for them at that. We have to ask the question how long before legislation starts interfering in other areas of our sport.

At the end of the day, what worries me is that are we trying to defend the indefensible??? In the cold light of day its a damn cruel sport no matter what way you look at it. Livebaiting with a small fish is IMHO no different from baiting with a worm, maggot or similar. One animal ripped from its habitat to be impaled on a hook in the hope of duping another animal into impaling itself before then being ripped from its own habitat.....

I dont think to be honest we have much of a Moral argument when it comes to fishing. We can talk for ever about how relaxing and enjoyable it is, about how it brings in so much revenue for communities and governments alike but when it comes down to it the bottom line is it is cruel and anyone who cannot see that is fooling themselves. Some facets are less cruel than others granted but none of it is cruelty free.

We can talk about fish welfare all we like, we can preach catch and release all we like but if this sport ever ends up in the dock on a Cruelty mandate then we could be history. Scary stuff isnt it.... we may end up having to rely on the worst traits of politicians in order to save our sport....lust for money and votes.

#6 Post by **fenitbob** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:43 pm

I think the best way to deal with it is to agree with them yes it is a blood sport and yes it can be cruel but it is not as bad as they are making out. Does the fish like it? of course not but its a means to an end i.e. feeding yourself. I can either go out and catch a fish myself or I can pay someone to do it for me. either way somethings going to die to feed me.

I think it is a case of if you want to ban angling for the reason of cruelity you are going to have to ban fishing commercially which they won't. and ban farming while you are at, and animal testing, horse drawn carriages, insecticides, circuses, pets, zoos.

either way the argument that there is something morally wrong with angling has no basis in any moral code apart from buddism and maybe hinduism. but in western culture eating animals is not a problem. anything else is a makey uppy sort value system.

don't make me quote scripture! :D

sorry been thinking about this alot :oops:

#7 Post by **corbyeire** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:18 pm

like your argument fenit - clear and simple 8)

#8 Post by **petekd** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:42 pm

Unfortunately, when that argument is applied to solely recreational angling it does not hold up. If all you go fishing for is pure pleasure at the fishes expense, how do you defend it..... This, in fairness IS the main reason we fish. The main reason we fish is not for food in fairness. In fact for most coarse fishermen, not at all. If the argument is raised that the price paid for our entertainment is suffering from another animal, (WHich it is hard to argue that it isnt) what on earth can we say?

Im just trying to provoke a little debate on the subject here by playing devils advocate..... Its an interesting topic and someone, somewhere in the future is going to raise the same argument and Im interested in how we handle it. That is all.

#9 Post by **alannelson** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 pm

Fishing is fishing think of how many worms are getting murdered never mind live baiting with fish remember its all in the food chain but to any one that thinks thats cruel ive saw kids at my local harbour catching mackerel cutting there tails off with a stanly knife when there still alive and then throwing them back in for a laugh bad crack :roll:

#10 Post by **corbyeire** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:33 pm

the main reason most people fish pete - is for the buzz - the unknown (well for me anyway) - its pitting your wits against the conditions, and hoping to come up trumps - and if your that way inclined - food for the tea

sure its cruel - but most anglers feel its a level acceptable - i think its on a totally different level to a fox hunt for instance

and a few valid points have been made into the morality argument -and how much animal suffering goes on daily for other products that would never be considered to do with animals

in essence - animals/plants etc. continue to suffer at the expense of our expanding existance - where do you draw the line

us anglers are going to have to size up where we fall on this - and in truth probably fall back on sandmans argument of keeping the powder dry

its turning out like an AA meeting here - and the that organisation beginning with P like groups will just quote our confession :shock: :shock: :P

#11 Post by **fenitbob** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:23 pm

Petekd I understand completely.

there is also the argument that culturally we have always done it. or at least for the last few generations and that this fits in with our nature.

you can argue that fishing connects you with nature in a way that no other activity does it is more of a meditative experience because you are concentrating on what is happening out in the water, more so than something like hiking which is a slow endorphin release sort of pleasure, which is good too. there is something in the the active seeking out of quarry that fulfills a need inside people.

Now of course you can argue that fishing is cruel and cruelity is wrong but we would kill rats and other vermin and not feel bad about it because it is a clear case of our health versus their lives. we eat animals because they tastes nice and its an easy way to get proteins but we do not eat certain animals because we relate to them on an emotional level (apes, cats and dogs) but we eat just about everything else. A line is drawn somewhere when our needs over ride the welfare of animals and fishing is within that line because it always has been. we do not emotionally relate to fish if we did we wouldn't fish.

What I'm trying to get across is something instinctive here that cannot be faked the fish are very important to it there is a reality about it that you do not get with anything else.
I think it is just the hunting instinct in some of us that comes out.
The anti angling crowd they're vegans, non-standard diet, non-standard ideas.
we are the hunters. they are the witch doctors.

as some one once said about the anti hunt people :- "They're nice people but would they ever go away and worry about something else"

#12 Post by **fenitbob** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:30 pm

ok I may have gone a bit over board there :oops:

#13 Post by **petekd** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:43 pm

I thought that was nicely put :wink:

#14 Post by MC » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:45 pm

fenitbob wrote:ok I may have gone a bit over board there :oops:

not at all, it was very well said

#15 Post by **Donagh** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:13 pm

Just saw this. Looks like the ban in scotland was driven purely by the transfer of coarse fish into game fisheries.

http://www.total-fishing.com/News.asp?A ... 744598D7FB

Donagh

#16 Post by **Adam S** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:51 pm

i personally dont feel fishing is "cruel" no more than i feel a cat playing with a mouse before it eats it is cruel. what fish can and cant feel, and if they have a brain capable of processing what we would call pain has yet to be proved and the rose study showed it to be unlikely , they react to stimuli (as do plants and viruses!), but i personally dont think that they feel pain as we understand.

i think to call fishing cruel is to apply human feeling and emotion to a non human system, and i dont think the two fit together.

having said that i am not trying to justify my fishing by all that, if what i said above was disproved i would still fish. and i would still laugh at man utd fans after yesterday, now that is cruel!

#17 Post by **lumpy** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:30 pm

i agree with you.there was an australian study conducted into the psychosomatic effects of pain on humans. their conclusions included the fact that from their findings 67%of pain was percieved as being psychalogical in nature and that the physical attributes of pain were indeed quite minor. to apply this principal and our own perception of pain in a social and psychological scenario is unjustifiable,esp when you considder the large percentage of humans brains devoted to pain and pain perception and whether the same amount exists in fish..