Little J No More

[Wulff-Man]

There is an enormous amount of stress, and the animals often die.

Sounds like some arguments I've heard about C&R fishing. ;-)

But seriously, I pictured it like on the nature shows, where the animal often falls fairly soon after being shot and doesn't go far.

How about paintball. Now THAT would be sporting and require some good hunting/stalking skills! Or a combination of laser tag and photography. I'm kidding, but it would be an alternative for someone who doesn't want to kill the animal. Again, a personal endeavor, not an organized competition. Although the laser tag thing doesn't seem so bad as a competition, since it wouild have little affect on the deer.

Troutbert and I think some others have pointed out the difference between deer hunting and trout fishing, as far as management of the populations, and this is a big part of the issue.

 

[troutbert]

The 50 fish "limit" for bluegills is an absurdity. Why on earth would a fisheries agencies post a "limit" of 50 panfish per angler per day? You don't whether to laugh or cry.

If people really keep those kinds of numbers, a bluegill population can get hammered down too.

But if people keep a few to eat, and don't get greedy, bluegill populations can do OK with some harvest. Their populations are much less susceptible to over-harvest than trout. They live in a very different environment.

And you can sit in your lawn chair reading your leather-bound edition of Ortega Y Gasset, while waiting for your red and white bobber to bob.

 

[FarmerDave]

Wulff-Man wrote:
Or a combination of laser tag and photography. I'm kidding, but it would be an alternative for someone who doesn't want to kill the animal. Again, a personal endeavor, not an organized competition.

A laser sight on a camera? Hmmm. I might have to give that one some thought. I feel a laser site for hunting is kinda unsporting, but combine that with a regular site and a camera? you may be on[size=xx-small]to[/size] something

 

[Wulff-Man]

FarmerDave wrote:

Wulff-Man wrote:
P.S. I just re-read Ohio's post, and I can kind of see the conflict with inflicting pain/stress just for the sport, and not for the food. But really, even if you eat the animal, the whole reason for the hunt is for the sport, whether you eat the animal or not, at least for probably 95% of the hunters. I mean, almost no one today needs the animal to feed themselves. It's all for sport, and your enjoyment of the sport. You're just kidding yourselves if you try to make it out to be anything else. If that bothers you, you shouldn't do it.

P.S. Very true. I hunt mainly for the sport, but to hunt [color=0000CC]only[/color] for the sport is wasteful in my opinion. I am selective of what i hunt. I wouldn't hunt for deer if I didn't like venison. I could legally shoot more than I do, but i only kill what I can use. Groundhogs are another story. Vultures have to eat, too.

I see your point. That did go through my head after my post. From a purely logical standpoint, I could say that if you could buy good venison for less than the time and money spent hunting for it, and you would pass that up to hunt for it, then you still must admit that you do it for sport, not the food. But it's a combination of the two that gives satisfaction to othe hunter. Both the sport of hunting, and the enjoyment of eating what is caught. And I think that may be where this whole thread started.

 

[FarmerDave]

troutbert wrote:
The 50 fish "limit" for bluegills is an absurdity. Why on earth would a fisheries agencies post a "limit" of 50 panfish per angler per day? You don't whether to laugh or cry.

If people really keep those kinds of numbers, a bluegill population can get hammered down too.

But if people keep a few to eat, and don't get greedy, bluegill populations can do OK with some harvest. Their populations are much less susceptible to over-harvest than trout. They live in a very different environment.

And you can sit in your lawn chair reading your leather-bound edition of Ortega Y Gasset, while waiting for your red and white bobber to bob.

Good one! Except when it comes to the majestic bluegill, I use nothing but bamboo flyrods. ;-)

By the way, although i agree that 50 is kind of excessive for a daily limit, it would be very hard to over harvest bluegills. Underharvest is more common. I'd be glad if a few of you guys would come over and limit out on pumpkin seeds in my one pond. They are tough to get under control once they overpopulate, but i am gaining on them (by adding a couple big predators).

 

[FarmerDave]

I can buy venison, and I can get it in restaurants. And for the average hunter, that would probably be cheaper when you figure in all the expenses of hunting. But this says it all for me. "Both the sport of hunting, and the enjoyment of eating what is caught."

 

[CaptMatt]

[/quote]
Good one! Except when it comes to the majestic bluegill, I use nothing but bamboo flyrods. ;-)
[/quote]

I guess you and jack would disapprove if I brought my 10ft cast net to a lake and took 50+ out with one throw? I wouldn’t want to step on anyone’s toes. Or maybe I could do a cast net seminar for the Amish? Now thats a good idea. :lol:

 

[JackM]

Dave, I like the picture of the bluegill. Where did you find a rod and reel combo that small? I'd like to get one myself, just to lay down next to the bluegill I catch.

And also, I resent that people who use red-and-white strike indicators to catch bluegill have to be insulted by others calling them "bobbers." I only use dry flies myself-- no need for a strike indicator at all.

 

[littlejuniata]

Now I will have to go to the lake to see if the bluegills are up, will take me all of 90 seconds or less to get there.

 

[JackM]

They are on the edge of the shallows in my local lake. About 8:00 PM and they are popping all over within easy casting range.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

The very fact that we have the luxury of having this argument shows just how far most of us are seperated from hunting, meat fishing, and agricultural endeavors.

My moral dilemena with catch and release fishing is balanced by the conservation priciple that support limiting creels. However, if I have no prospect of ever getting food from my fishing, I feel I am on very shaky ground.

That being said, I personally probably harvest only a half dozen stocked trout, two dozen perch, and several walleye a year for my and my families consumption.

Just for debate, how would you all justify BASS tournaments ethically? Why is a BASS tournament OK and lets say beating your dog to relieve stress from work considered animal abuse?

I realize that is a very extreme example and there are a lot of other social aspects that make fishing good, but some non-hunters/fishers have a very hard time with this. Unless I can use either a hunting/fishing for food or an preventing overpopulation to preserve habitat arguement, I have avery hard time defending my actions.......

 

[Wulff-Man]

OhioOutdoorsman wrote:
Why is a BASS tournament OK and lets say beating your dog to relieve stress from work considered animal abuse?

Are you from PETA, or what? ;-)

I would have to say that, first of all, catching a fish does not physically harm it the way beating your dog does. But considering how I've seen fish treated at BASS tournaments sometimes, I'm not so sure of this. So I would be left with the fact that a fish is a lower life form with less awareness than a dog, and it isn't affected so much with the way it's treated. But I do have to admit that if it is physically as badly treated as a beaten dog, then this argument isn't so comforting either. Oh heck, maybe BASS tournaments are as bad as beating a dog! But I'm no fan of them anyway.

But I think that carefully handling trout or other fish in order to release them certainly is not physically the same as beating a dog. And the lower life form thing also applies. I still don't think you can rely on the food argument to justify it, if you only eat a very small percentage of what you catch. As I have said before, you either have to believe that you are not unduly harming the fish for your own perverse pleasure, or you have to think about giving it up.

 

[JackM]

How do you justify leather shoes? Aren't baseballs made of horsehide? Footballs of pigskin? A lot of our comforts and conveniences depend upon exploitation of natural creatures. Whether you are killing them or just torturing them for a short time, it is all the same to me in one sense. We use them for our own purposes. If that creates a dilemma for anyone, may I recommend looking into the precepts of PETA.

 

[CaptMatt]

Tournaments are a tricky subject. Down here our Harbor gets bombarded with redfish tournaments all the time. These include the ESPN Red Fish Cup, Flatsmasters etc... The amount of stress these tourny's put on fish is pretty un real and it leaves many a fish spooked and skittish to no end. Now last weekend a group of people were tagging red fish at the way in to monitor spawning habits and travel. If these fish are caught again there's a phone number to calla and yada yada yada. Some of those fish are in a live well all day and then weighed and held in the air before release. I am a tourney fisherman here as well so I'm living in a glass house. Many other tourney's give you an official measuring board and a camera that is to be turned in every day. Those work out a little better for the fish. I guess my point is that tourney's are advantageous to a point but they do put a heavy stress on fish all so they are released into the wild again. the problem is that tournaments are continually putting big time pressure on these fish but there are some good ethics with the tagging programs and studies that go on there

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

My actions speak louder than words....I C and R fish all the time.

Why do I do it?

Cause its FUN.

When people ask me why I do it, it gets more complicated.

When asked why I hunt deer, I say the following:

I enjoy hunting because I enjoy being outdoors, being with my friends, and the challenge. Yes, I hunt for a trophy but also for food. I spend many days at the range with my gun and bow so that I can take the game cleanly and efficienctly. I feed my family with the venison. Also, by hunting I reduce the forest and your garden from being overgrazed. I also reduce the number of deer-vehicles accidents and fatalities. (This is proven by several suburban studies.) If I get more than one deer in a season, I give venison to my friends and some to the homeless.

Pretty sound ethically.

I have a harder time explaining C and R fishing to non-fishers. I even loose some of the social aspect of it, because I tend to flyfish alone about half of the time wheras I always hunt with others.

I guess on C and R only waters, I don't even have the prospect of getting food......that prospect of getting food makes it more justifiable, whether you choose to release most of the fish because of a conservation ethic of not.

I can understand not believing fish feel pain or that animals are for our use as humans and that fish are a lower life form........these were the justifications I was looking form and agree with all of them, although I don't think most will find them as ironclad as my hunting ethic explanation.

A lot of this also has to do with societal norms......I could go to parts of SE Asia and eat dog or beat an entrapped monkey in the head with a hammer and eat its brains and have it be socially acceptable. C and R angling is definitely considered OK by 99% of the people in the US, and I guess thats the bottom line on why I think its acceptable to do it. Its all relative.

Furthermore, I grew up in a fishing town where limiting out on 50 perch and 6 walleye was the norm.......if you started practicing catch and release there, they would find it VERY odd. What is the point of fishing if you ain't going to keep the fish?

 

[JackM]

Don't be offended, but I don't think your reasons for enjoying hunting and fishing are all that different. It just so happens that a better rationalization can be devised for hunting as your post demonstrates.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

You're 100% right Jack........I enjoy both for the same reasons.....I just looking for better rationalizations when I have to defend and explain my C and R fishing to others.

 

[JackM]

When we would challenge my mom's reasons for her rules or directives with a "why," she would say "because I said so!" It was the most honest rationalization she could muster. Similarly, that is how I choose to defend my fishing practices-- "because I enjoy it."

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I guess I should explain the whole "cull the herd comment". My thought process on this has always been that if you kill a trout that was dumb enough to take a fly then you leave that niche open for a slightly smarter trout who will then pass on his genetics, thus ensuring that the fittest offspring will be the ones reproducing.

what if the smart one was eating bugs to stay alive and the other were stupid and starving to death. then you just culled the last remaining trout with the good genetics.

 

[Wulff-Man]

I'm sorry, but I'm still baffled by the whole "I feel good about killing an animal, but guilty about catching it and letting it go" emotion.

I have never felt that I had to "defend" my C&R practices to others. Explain it, yes, because I have often had that puzzled reaction to it. But I just tell people the truth, that I enjoy the sport and the outdoor experience of catching them, but I don't really want to kill them and I don't really want to eat them. I'd rather leave them for others to enjoy catching. And I feel good about that, not guilty.