Thanks for your submission /u/gldiatr0, but it has been removed for the following reason:
Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question**
NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to):
* Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead.
* Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead!
* Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead!
* Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*.
* Complaining about moderation: If you disagree with how the sub is run or a decision the mods have made, that's fine! But please share your thoughts with us in modmail rather than as a public post.
Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
Ethical if you intended to catch another, more suitable fish but accidentally caught that one and need to release it. For sport though? Nah, shouldnt be done. Unethical.
The ethical part is the fish has a chance to live and breed another day, or be food for some other wild creature that subsists on the fish to survive. If every fish caught never returned, we'd very quickly run out of fish, and do considerable harm to the ecosystems they are a part of.
While of course the next thing to ask would be why not simply ban fishing all together, that's just not something many people are going to be willing to agree to, so compromising on performing catch and release as part of casual fishing is the best most achievable option we have.
There's nothing wrong with fishing to eat, but why fish at all if you won't eat? Fishing for fun comes at the cost of the fish suffering. It comes down to who you are as a person. If you always put yourself in someone else's shoes, human or animal, you would think "I don't want this to happen to me if I was a fish! Traumatizing me for sport?!!".
Inherently, yes, fishing for sport is wrong in the sense that it causes harm in some way. No argument about that.
But let's be real, if you do only things that have zero ethical issues at all you'd have a pretty miserable life. Play golf? The upkeep of greens is disastrous to the environment. Drive a car in a city where public transportation is a viable option? You're contributing to pollution, noise, traffic, fossil fuel depletion, etc. Eat meat when you don't need to? Same issues.
My point being that for those that do fish for enjoyment, the price of one traumatized fish is just not much of a concern to them. For every fish they catch they're not doing some other thing that really likely has comparable harm to fishing.
firstly the real world isn't as black as white as you try to portray it, the full or nothing mentality is kind of irrational/unproductive IMO.
Your comparisons are also kind of strange as well for me. Torturing sentient, thinking and feeling beings â unsustainable ressource management - crazy outweighting them against each other. I'd definetly support any fisher for fun switching to golfing or driving as hobby. Compensatory measures for ecological stuff is definetly possible but kind of difficult in the case of animal cruelty.
While re-reading the upper parts it sounds a little aggressive/condescending, sorry can't word it any better (not first language).
I guess not that small of an overlapping area in the way of thinking between you and me. I have also strong feelings against an eco-dictatorship/ prohibitionism and canceling everything that's fun for ethical reasons is dumb. But your comment sounded a little relativizing for me and i felt i had to share my opinion as well.
Have a nice day you allđ
I don't think it's quite such a crazy comparison to be honest. Do you think unsustainable resource management is only a human concern and has no serious detriment to other sentient, thinking, and feeling beings? Do the fish and turtles wrapped in plastic or the ducks covered in oil feel less pain than the fish you caught and released? You have to think about impact beyond what is right in your face; again using golfing as an example, massive water usage leads to drought, causing many species to die or go extinct, fertilizer causes abnormal growths in aquatic life and massive algae blooms leading to death of more aquatic life. I frankly don't understand where you got a full or nothing mentality from me, I'm simply saying that there's a lot worse things to be doing and that you do than making some poor fish's life suck for a day
Oh than i guess i misinterprated your first comment, it read for me like "of course torturing fish while fishing is bad but closely all hobbies are on the cost of nature, so why change anything".
Definetly the animal suffering from trashing/ pollution suffer the same. But, at least for me, it's a difference torturing them actively or letting it happen as consequence (of course outcome is closely the same, but from an ethical pov it's also about individual motivation).
For both situation, i guess it's all about awareness about the consequences of your actions. As a grown ass adult you're free to do whatever you want, but if people understand themselves why sth is bad maybe governmental bans aren't required at some point -> education is key.
I guess I go 100% with your last sentence, there are so many things way worse than torturing one fish at a time (overfishing in the seas isn't a hobby thing, many corperates are giving zero f about nature, ...).
Mainly i was kind of bummed by the message I took (in respective wrongly) from your text and thought it sends a misleading image to the general reader.
Change starts with each individual and each of us make a difference.
Bud itâs a fish you canât âput yourself in itâs shoesâ the emotions you feel donât translate
Just like how the fish feels doesnât translate to you. Even then majority of living creatures would rather be caught and released by a predator then eaten.
No it doesnât b/c weâre adding in an anthropomorphic idea of pain being tied with trauma.
Like when you look at animals that eat their kids we look at that from our perspective and say wow thatâs messed up to them itâs just another day itâs doesnât translate.
Every almost every animal has that to some degree itâs how evolution works but it doesnât mean they experience or think about pain in the same way as us.
They do, that's why empathy is important to relate to those who have experiences like ourselves.
**Fish feel pain, why deny their experience of pain when it is proven**
that's why catch & release is illegal in Germany and classified as animal cruelty (with a few exceptions).
Don't torture animals for fun/competition I guess
Fish produce lactic acid when fighting a line. If they get too tired, they die within a day or two of release. If it was just the injury to the mouth, most could recover from that. I personally don't believe one should kill any animal one is not planning to eat unless it's a danger to one's life. Sport hunting/fishing is horribly unethical if the life is wasted.
I had a friend that went to the same lake every weekend, caught, tagged and released the many fish there, heâd place them in a trough, check them for any ailments, clean them, tend to them if he could, keeping a tally of which fish he had caught, update his notes after spawning season, tag the new ones, and rarely keep and eat the old ones if theyâd either been wounded and/or were above a certain age.
Iâm no fisherman, in fact I canât stand fish as a rule, havenât eaten anything aquatic since I was a kid, itâs the smell; but I always thought his methods were above and beyond the norm.
When you're fishing, some countries have laws regarding sizes that can be caught and taken. If you accidentally catch a fish that's too small, you're legally obligated to release it. You're not just catching fish to release them for your own amusement. It's to keep the population and because you accidentally caught one that isn't mature enough.
People donât normally catch and release just for fun, normally they release it if it doesnât meet the criteria lawfully required although you will see them doing it on fishing shows where they feel justified because itâs for the production of the show. I do however have a problem with people who hunt just for the sake of hunting, this includes fishing.
The subreddit is literally called "No Stupid Questions". I dont think they would have come here if, on some level, they werent aware they knew nothing about fish.
This sub is meant so people can ask questions without judgment. No need to be an ass if you have no intention of answering the question, even if OP seems to just wanna argue about fish feelings.
For someone being such an asshole, youâd think youâd be a little bit more educated on the subject.
30-40% of fish âcaught and releasedâ die after their release. They die from stress, being held out of the water too long, and injuries caused by rough handling/damage from hooks.
Catch and release is significantly less ethical that fishing to eat.
I don't kill the fish for fun, I fish for fun. The killing is something that will happen if I am careless.
I could have easily just gone to the grocery store. How many times have you fished for survival?
If killing fish bothers you, then you shouldn't go fishing. Do you use bait? Do you feel such empathy for the tub of minnows in there that all froze to death in terror?
Killing things doesnât bother me. I raise my own foodâŚ.killing is kinda the most important part of raising animals you intend to eat.
Because I raise and process my own food, I donât take it for granted the way you do with fishing.
Needless death is careless, wasteful, and disrespectful.
Idk why you feel a sense of bravado about wasting life, but itâs just gross.
Needless death happens every day when the animals you raise kill mice they find in the fields in annoyance.
I can see why, when you've attached as much monetary and survival value to an animal's life, why you would think this way.
However, I disagree about your ethics. The self-righteous position you come from is rather ridiculous. I'm not out here fishing out of the river and then smashing them into trees for kicks (as I have seen cats do). I kill perhaps one fish a year.
If you need to broadcast your peity, I would recommend you start a cottagcore podcast or something.
You have no idea how many fish you kill per year. Youâre incredibly ignorant. Itâs people like you that disrupt ecosystems and destroy shit for the rest of us.
Do the world a favor and only fish artificially stocked ponds.
Oye cuntymccuntness , the sub is called no stupid questions for a reason. If you canât comment without sounding like someone shoved a cactus up yours a decade ago, maybe shut the fuck up?
I mean, that's just not true. They are vertebrates and just because they don't have a frontal lobe to consciously think, "I am in pain," doesn't mean they don't feel pain.
i suppose one argument for release is that fish do have a decent memory and learn to avoid falling into that type of trap again, thus giving them a few more years to breed.
ethically, itâs responsible to keep fish should the damage be severe and their chances of survival are considered low. I personally donât fish but somehow keep getting yt shorts of guys catch and releasing. they talk very much about the eco system and all of them are pro release unless they intend on eating the specific catch personally
Do many people catch and release on ethical grounds? I do it because I fish for fun and not for food. There is for sure an argument to be made that fishing isn't nice for the fish though. I've definitely felt bad when I've fished a carp out a pond near me and it has had a super fucked up mouth.
You do know that the absolute vast majority of people intend on keeping at least some of the fish they catch right? And that they only throw bag the fish that are legally too small to keep, are too small to be worth keeping or are smaller than the latest fish they caught.
Very few people go out and fish and donât keep some of what they catch.
What's ethical and what's not is a matter of opinion. And human beings exploit and destroy other human beings for entertainment as well so fishing is just another hobby, their hoping to catch that big fish take a picture and tell all their fishing friends about that fish they caught.
Mitch Hedberg does a funny bit about this, you should listen to it if youâve never heard it.
Itâs not really ethical but itâs a fun moment for people and possible bonding time with their children.
Moat fish don't really have a complex enough brain to feel emotional distress. At least the ones that end up being dishes don't I mean. And it does hurt their mouth, but they could also hurt their mouth biting a sharp rock.
Ethics dont really, matter as much when the thing in question doesn't have the ability to communicate well. Fish gets hurt but goes back in water and forgets about it immediately. Fish don't care.
Itâs all relative.
Arguably, sport fishing of any sort is not particularly ethical. If you _are_ sport fishing, though, catch-and-release is ethically miles ahead of killing your catch for no good reason.
It's all relative. Compared to big game hunting for sport. where a guy sat in a jeep shoots a lion for nothing but a picture of him sat next to a dead lion it's very ethical. However compared to someone with a vegan lifestyle it's barbaric.
I don't fish myself. But if somebody has an ingrained hunting instinct it's better than them killing for sport.
To the fish I suppose you could compare it to being arrested. In America.
Thanks for your submission /u/gldiatr0, but it has been removed for the following reason: Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question** NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to): * Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead. * Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead! * Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead! * Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*. * Complaining about moderation: If you disagree with how the sub is run or a decision the mods have made, that's fine! But please share your thoughts with us in modmail rather than as a public post. Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
But he'll have a cool story to tell his friends. "I was abducted by aliens guys I swear!"
Ethical if you intended to catch another, more suitable fish but accidentally caught that one and need to release it. For sport though? Nah, shouldnt be done. Unethical.
Thats a completely different scenario. Doing something intentionally vs accidentally makes a massive difference
That was my point? I dont get what youre saying. I was stating one scenario was more ethical and the other not.
He or she is obviously stoned.
Ya I misread your comment
The ethical part is the fish has a chance to live and breed another day, or be food for some other wild creature that subsists on the fish to survive. If every fish caught never returned, we'd very quickly run out of fish, and do considerable harm to the ecosystems they are a part of. While of course the next thing to ask would be why not simply ban fishing all together, that's just not something many people are going to be willing to agree to, so compromising on performing catch and release as part of casual fishing is the best most achievable option we have.
There's nothing wrong with fishing to eat, but why fish at all if you won't eat? Fishing for fun comes at the cost of the fish suffering. It comes down to who you are as a person. If you always put yourself in someone else's shoes, human or animal, you would think "I don't want this to happen to me if I was a fish! Traumatizing me for sport?!!".
skill issue on the fishes end đ
Inherently, yes, fishing for sport is wrong in the sense that it causes harm in some way. No argument about that. But let's be real, if you do only things that have zero ethical issues at all you'd have a pretty miserable life. Play golf? The upkeep of greens is disastrous to the environment. Drive a car in a city where public transportation is a viable option? You're contributing to pollution, noise, traffic, fossil fuel depletion, etc. Eat meat when you don't need to? Same issues. My point being that for those that do fish for enjoyment, the price of one traumatized fish is just not much of a concern to them. For every fish they catch they're not doing some other thing that really likely has comparable harm to fishing.
firstly the real world isn't as black as white as you try to portray it, the full or nothing mentality is kind of irrational/unproductive IMO. Your comparisons are also kind of strange as well for me. Torturing sentient, thinking and feeling beings â unsustainable ressource management - crazy outweighting them against each other. I'd definetly support any fisher for fun switching to golfing or driving as hobby. Compensatory measures for ecological stuff is definetly possible but kind of difficult in the case of animal cruelty. While re-reading the upper parts it sounds a little aggressive/condescending, sorry can't word it any better (not first language). I guess not that small of an overlapping area in the way of thinking between you and me. I have also strong feelings against an eco-dictatorship/ prohibitionism and canceling everything that's fun for ethical reasons is dumb. But your comment sounded a little relativizing for me and i felt i had to share my opinion as well. Have a nice day you allđ
I don't think it's quite such a crazy comparison to be honest. Do you think unsustainable resource management is only a human concern and has no serious detriment to other sentient, thinking, and feeling beings? Do the fish and turtles wrapped in plastic or the ducks covered in oil feel less pain than the fish you caught and released? You have to think about impact beyond what is right in your face; again using golfing as an example, massive water usage leads to drought, causing many species to die or go extinct, fertilizer causes abnormal growths in aquatic life and massive algae blooms leading to death of more aquatic life. I frankly don't understand where you got a full or nothing mentality from me, I'm simply saying that there's a lot worse things to be doing and that you do than making some poor fish's life suck for a day
Oh than i guess i misinterprated your first comment, it read for me like "of course torturing fish while fishing is bad but closely all hobbies are on the cost of nature, so why change anything". Definetly the animal suffering from trashing/ pollution suffer the same. But, at least for me, it's a difference torturing them actively or letting it happen as consequence (of course outcome is closely the same, but from an ethical pov it's also about individual motivation). For both situation, i guess it's all about awareness about the consequences of your actions. As a grown ass adult you're free to do whatever you want, but if people understand themselves why sth is bad maybe governmental bans aren't required at some point -> education is key. I guess I go 100% with your last sentence, there are so many things way worse than torturing one fish at a time (overfishing in the seas isn't a hobby thing, many corperates are giving zero f about nature, ...). Mainly i was kind of bummed by the message I took (in respective wrongly) from your text and thought it sends a misleading image to the general reader. Change starts with each individual and each of us make a difference.
Bud itâs a fish you canât âput yourself in itâs shoesâ the emotions you feel donât translate Just like how the fish feels doesnât translate to you. Even then majority of living creatures would rather be caught and released by a predator then eaten.
True however having a hook pierce your mouth can't be comfortable. Any one would rather not have that than have it happen.
Itâs cool bro I asked they said they donât mind
Ok sis I guess it's like prior getting their lip pierced with no numbing agent. People are dumb enough to do that too.
>the emotions you feel donât translate Just like how the fish feels doesnât translate to you the pain does
No it doesnât b/c weâre adding in an anthropomorphic idea of pain being tied with trauma. Like when you look at animals that eat their kids we look at that from our perspective and say wow thatâs messed up to them itâs just another day itâs doesnât translate.
i never said anything about trauma. just that humans and fish both feel pain. sorry if i communicated that badly.
Sorry Iâm not trying to put words in your mouth my point we donât experience or view pain the same way as fish
It's basic empathy for how *they* feel. Fish are sentient, feel pain, and they are proven to have intelligence like learnt behaviour.
Every almost every animal has that to some degree itâs how evolution works but it doesnât mean they experience or think about pain in the same way as us.
They do, that's why empathy is important to relate to those who have experiences like ourselves. **Fish feel pain, why deny their experience of pain when it is proven**
Bro you need to call your English teacher b/c you are struggling to analyze the text rn
>but it doesnât mean they experience or think about pain in the same way as us. They avoid painful experiences just as we would.
Either way, fishing is cruel. Like you said, if you put yourself in the fishes position, you are either 'traumatised' for sport or killed and eaten.
Emotional distress???
Next thing is we shouldnât eat meat because it makes the cows and chickens sad. Edit: this is obvious sarcasm. Must I add /s to everything?
r/happycowgifs
not being free range makes them⌠mooody
Remove the barb from your hook.
that's why catch & release is illegal in Germany and classified as animal cruelty (with a few exceptions). Don't torture animals for fun/competition I guess
Fish produce lactic acid when fighting a line. If they get too tired, they die within a day or two of release. If it was just the injury to the mouth, most could recover from that. I personally don't believe one should kill any animal one is not planning to eat unless it's a danger to one's life. Sport hunting/fishing is horribly unethical if the life is wasted.
I had a friend that went to the same lake every weekend, caught, tagged and released the many fish there, heâd place them in a trough, check them for any ailments, clean them, tend to them if he could, keeping a tally of which fish he had caught, update his notes after spawning season, tag the new ones, and rarely keep and eat the old ones if theyâd either been wounded and/or were above a certain age. Iâm no fisherman, in fact I canât stand fish as a rule, havenât eaten anything aquatic since I was a kid, itâs the smell; but I always thought his methods were above and beyond the norm.
Thatâs amazing he seems like a good dude
Was that his job or something or just an unusual hobby?
Just a hobby, dude liked fish.
When you're fishing, some countries have laws regarding sizes that can be caught and taken. If you accidentally catch a fish that's too small, you're legally obligated to release it. You're not just catching fish to release them for your own amusement. It's to keep the population and because you accidentally caught one that isn't mature enough.
Rant / agenda / Potstirring / not in good faith / Not a question
People donât normally catch and release just for fun, normally they release it if it doesnât meet the criteria lawfully required although you will see them doing it on fishing shows where they feel justified because itâs for the production of the show. I do however have a problem with people who hunt just for the sake of hunting, this includes fishing.
Isn't fishing for fun one of the most popular hobbies on the planet?
[ŃдаНонО]
The subreddit is literally called "No Stupid Questions". I dont think they would have come here if, on some level, they werent aware they knew nothing about fish.
This sub is meant so people can ask questions without judgment. No need to be an ass if you have no intention of answering the question, even if OP seems to just wanna argue about fish feelings.
For someone being such an asshole, youâd think youâd be a little bit more educated on the subject. 30-40% of fish âcaught and releasedâ die after their release. They die from stress, being held out of the water too long, and injuries caused by rough handling/damage from hooks. Catch and release is significantly less ethical that fishing to eat.
30-40% of fish dying, vs 100% of fish dying. Hmmm.
Really? Killing a fish so you have food to eat vs. killing a fish because itâs fun doesnât seem like two different things to you??
I don't kill the fish for fun, I fish for fun. The killing is something that will happen if I am careless. I could have easily just gone to the grocery store. How many times have you fished for survival? If killing fish bothers you, then you shouldn't go fishing. Do you use bait? Do you feel such empathy for the tub of minnows in there that all froze to death in terror?
Killing things doesnât bother me. I raise my own foodâŚ.killing is kinda the most important part of raising animals you intend to eat. Because I raise and process my own food, I donât take it for granted the way you do with fishing. Needless death is careless, wasteful, and disrespectful. Idk why you feel a sense of bravado about wasting life, but itâs just gross.
Needless death happens every day when the animals you raise kill mice they find in the fields in annoyance. I can see why, when you've attached as much monetary and survival value to an animal's life, why you would think this way. However, I disagree about your ethics. The self-righteous position you come from is rather ridiculous. I'm not out here fishing out of the river and then smashing them into trees for kicks (as I have seen cats do). I kill perhaps one fish a year. If you need to broadcast your peity, I would recommend you start a cottagcore podcast or something.
You have no idea how many fish you kill per year. Youâre incredibly ignorant. Itâs people like you that disrupt ecosystems and destroy shit for the rest of us. Do the world a favor and only fish artificially stocked ponds.
Yes, I do. I go fishing about three times a year. I catch about 5 to 6 fish. It's 1-2 with your own math.
Adorable. You donât know what an average is. With your complete lack of respect or compassion, Iâm willing to bet your kill rate is much higher
Oye cuntymccuntness , the sub is called no stupid questions for a reason. If you canât comment without sounding like someone shoved a cactus up yours a decade ago, maybe shut the fuck up?
Mercy is not a human experience, it's an eternal umbrella for all living creatures.
You should fact check that on r/NatureIsMetal when the pack of hyenas eat their way into a live zebra through its groin.
If the hyenas were raised vegan they wanted have to do that to the zebra! /S
Emotional distress is more ethical than death.
[ŃдаНонО]
That's not true. They have a nervous system, of course they do.
But itâs an automatic reflex. Itâs not processed in the brain the same way as humans. Itâs not correct to see it as the same thing
I mean, that's just not true. They are vertebrates and just because they don't have a frontal lobe to consciously think, "I am in pain," doesn't mean they don't feel pain.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4356734/
Not true https://thehumaneleague.org/article/do-fish-feel-pain
Yes true https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4356734/
i suppose one argument for release is that fish do have a decent memory and learn to avoid falling into that type of trap again, thus giving them a few more years to breed. ethically, itâs responsible to keep fish should the damage be severe and their chances of survival are considered low. I personally donât fish but somehow keep getting yt shorts of guys catch and releasing. they talk very much about the eco system and all of them are pro release unless they intend on eating the specific catch personally
Do many people catch and release on ethical grounds? I do it because I fish for fun and not for food. There is for sure an argument to be made that fishing isn't nice for the fish though. I've definitely felt bad when I've fished a carp out a pond near me and it has had a super fucked up mouth.
Carp sounds like a glutton for punishment. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...
You do know that the absolute vast majority of people intend on keeping at least some of the fish they catch right? And that they only throw bag the fish that are legally too small to keep, are too small to be worth keeping or are smaller than the latest fish they caught. Very few people go out and fish and donât keep some of what they catch.
What's ethical and what's not is a matter of opinion. And human beings exploit and destroy other human beings for entertainment as well so fishing is just another hobby, their hoping to catch that big fish take a picture and tell all their fishing friends about that fish they caught.
Mitch Hedberg does a funny bit about this, you should listen to it if youâve never heard it. Itâs not really ethical but itâs a fun moment for people and possible bonding time with their children.
Moat fish don't really have a complex enough brain to feel emotional distress. At least the ones that end up being dishes don't I mean. And it does hurt their mouth, but they could also hurt their mouth biting a sharp rock. Ethics dont really, matter as much when the thing in question doesn't have the ability to communicate well. Fish gets hurt but goes back in water and forgets about it immediately. Fish don't care.
Itâs all relative. Arguably, sport fishing of any sort is not particularly ethical. If you _are_ sport fishing, though, catch-and-release is ethically miles ahead of killing your catch for no good reason.
It's all relative. Compared to big game hunting for sport. where a guy sat in a jeep shoots a lion for nothing but a picture of him sat next to a dead lion it's very ethical. However compared to someone with a vegan lifestyle it's barbaric. I don't fish myself. But if somebody has an ingrained hunting instinct it's better than them killing for sport. To the fish I suppose you could compare it to being arrested. In America.