to think fishing for sport is cruel?

[littlemisssarcastic]

and wonder why anyone would derive any sort of satisfaction from catching a fish, only to remove the fish from it's habitat, gaze at it, possibly weigh it, have their picture taken while they grin and the fish suffers, and them throw it back again, only for some other cruel fisherman to come along and do the same thing??
Surely the hook must cause the fish pain? Doesn't the fish feel frightened?

IA probably BVU, but what is the actual point?

I can understand why people may fish for food, but what is the point of fishing just to upset/harm/frighten/cause sufferance and pain to an animal??

Seriously, I don't get it!! I also don't understand how anyone can feel pride fishing for sport?
I've heard the argument that the fish doesn't feel any pain, but where is the evidence to back this up? I'd be very interested to see this.

Can any keen fishers out there explain to me please? I am quite sure there is something I am missing. AFAIC see, If I was a fish, especially a fish in designated fishing grounds, I'd rather be caught, killed swiftly then eaten, than be repeatedly terrified and made to suffer for the enjoyment of the fisher. What exactly is so enjoyable about fishing for sport? What exactly makes a fisherperson feel proud when they are fishing for sport?

AIBU to judge someone because they fish for sport?

I thought catch and release depended on the species. With pike and similar being caught and released because they are inedible, and trout being caught and eaten because they taste nice.

I think there's sometimes an environmental argument in favour of fishing for some creatures - like those crayfish things that are alien species and destroy the ecosystem in some rivers.

I have fished for eating fish. I think it's a much more humane life and death than the average farmed chicken or pig. I'm not sure about coarse fishing though, it seems a bit pointless.

The belief that fish are somehow magically oblivious to having a hook in their mouth or to suffocating in air is as much of a myth as the belief that they have no memory. The link above is one scientists view that has little support other than from fishermen - subsequent research continues to demonstrate that fish feel pain. I'm sure Dr Wiki can fill in the details.

YANBU. My ds is a keen fisherman, he goes every weekend with his grandad, I think its cruel :(

subsequent research continues to demonstrate that fish feel pain. I'm sure Dr Wiki can fill in the details.

Why not do that bit of research to support your argument? And please do not quote Wiki as an authority.

I really am not trying to argue whether fish can or cannot feel pain, I just get the impression that a lot of people decide what they want to believe and then look for evidence to support that belief. It's called confirmation bias and I think we are all guilty of it. (and hark at me using Wiki as an authority now)

Speaking as a former angler, I don't actually know if fish do feel pain, but I always fished for bait, food, or for the specimen records.

Many a time I have knocked a fish on the head with a priest (the tool most anglers use to kill a fish as humanely as possible) and ate it for my tea. Any fish that were too small to eat were very quickly unhooked and thrown back (I could unhook any fish, by hand or with a T-bar disgorger, in less that 1 minute from landing). Mackerel were the only fish I didn't throw back because as soon as human fingers touch the mackerel scales, they fall off and those scales are protective to the mackerel.

Except that is a link to what is effectively someone's opinion (although a very educated one). (FlaminNora)

My link, it is an academic submission and fully cited. Your link only provided an abstract. It may well be his opinion, but he has backed it up.

Whereas the one I linked was to the findings of a more recent ... scientific experiment. (FlaminNora)

The difference in publication dates is small (max 18 months)

And I'm not sure "This study provides significant evidence of nociception in teleost fishes and furthermore demonstrates that behaviour and physiology are affected over a prolonged period of time, suggesting discomfort." really convinces me that fish feel pain.

Once again, I do not profess to know whether fish feel pain or not. But I sometimes get on a high horse and try to scrutinise the sources of information we tend to accept.

Ok, when you've got different sources saying different things, you use your logic. Staying alive relies on fear and pain.

Ok, when you've got different sources saying different things, you use your logic. Staying alive relies on fear and pain.

Only that's not logic. That's hypothesis.

Ell that's the conclusion I have drawn from the pain research I have read.

Well, not Ell!

OP, YANBU.

I have felt this way for a long time. A couple of colleagues go, I will never be dragged into it. Very cruel.

Still not logic.

If the research you have read is direcly related to whether fish feel pain, then why on earth have you not included it in this discussion? It might have been the 'logical' thing to do.

I have not read very much about it at all . I'm just looking at the different perspectives.

And, as I mentioned before, I feel there is a fair deal of confirmation bias

YANBU! I argue this all the time in real life. Especially as I seem to know too many people that claim to be vegetarian but they eat fish.

Don't people realise that fish are suffocating when they aren't in water?? Fishing is barbaric, far far worse than killing cows in and abattoir, and I hate it.

Mackerel were the only fish I didn't throw back because as soon as human fingers touch the mackerel scales, they fall off and those scales are protective to the mackerel.

See, I don't know much about fishing (except that I hate it) but doesn't that tell you something? That fish aren't supposed to be touched perhaps?

Welcome to the discussion Outraged.

I see you know as much as me about fish and fishing.

Are we allowed to touch fish whose scales do not fall off, or is it just the mackerel?

No. If I was boss of the world, no one would touch any fish with hands ever, and even goldfish would only be transferred if they could remain submerged in water the entire time.

It would be illegal to use a net to move a fish from one tank to another. And so would showing fish out of water on telly.

But then I have a phobia about fish not in water, and can't even go near the fishmonger section in the supermarket, so my view might be slightly unreasonable.

So, unless I have read all directly relevant literature, it is unreasonable to make some assertions? Mumsnet isn't a peer reviewed journal you know.

Only that particular fish (around UK waters). Even if you put the mackerel back into the water, it will still die. WRT tag and release (for research purposes), if fish felt pain, how come sometimes the same fish gets caught time and time again as it gets bigger? If fish could feel pain and fear, surely they would have become smart enough not to be caught by line and hook again.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't pain and fear make you take note of what was causing it and help you avoid the cause? If so, then why doesn't it stop a fish from being caught time and again?

So, unless I have read all directly relevant literature, it is unreasonable to make some assertions?

Of course it isn't msrisotto! But it is also not unreasonable for another poster to challenge that assertion.

And if that assertion cannot be backed up by some sort of 'higher' level of authority that in itself is not in dispute, then I think we have to ponder on why we are accepting the original assertation.

Please forgive me for sounding particularly pompous there

Can I go on a complete tangent and point out that pike is delicious?

that pike is delicious

Good with chips?

Thanks to those who put up with my pontification without telling me to stuff a kipper up my arse. I'm off to bed now. (Midnight here just now)

primafacie - yeah, I know some people eat pike. Its just that here people tend not to eat them, but catch them for sport. I don't really know why!

To all of the people who don't think it is cruel to fish for sport, would your opinion change and would you stop fishing for sport if there was evidence to suggest that the fish did indeed suffer in some way?
I can't believe it makes no difference to the fish at all whether they are left to swim along in the water or caught by a hook and dragged out of the water?

Surely the fish don't enjoy it??

The fish must get stressed at the very least.

If an animal displayed signs, that to me, looked as though that animal was in distress, I just don't think I could continue doing what I was doing, for the sake of sport, unless I had conclusive proof/evidence, that the animal was not suffering at all in any way, shape or form.
It seems to me that the studies that have been done are biased, depending on who has researched/written them. There are so many conflicting opinions.
For the sake of the fish, how can you justify possibly making the fish suffer for pleasure? What pleasure do you get out of watching a fish suffocate? Do you largely ignore what appears to be an animal suffering? How do you grin for the camera while the fish you are holding is gasping?
I just don't get it.
What do you actually 'get' out of fishing for sport?
I suppose this is why I am more understanding of fishing for food, because fishing for food makes sense to me in the way that the fisher is getting food, but to fish for sport and throw it back?

Why not just fish for food and leave the other fish alone?

I'm afraid I only know a few people who fish IRL and they all do it for sport. Suffice to say I don't like them, simply because they fish for sport. Just seems such a cruel thing to do when there is no hard evidence, and so far, I cannot see a need.

I have never understood why anyone would proudly display pictures or proudly boast about how many fish they have tortured caught on their last fishing trip either. Are the fishers just oblivious to the animals possible suffering? Or do they just not care?

YANBU! Killing any living creature for fun is cruel and unnecessary.

I get very annoyed by the number of birds killed by fishing line discarded on river banks and in the water.

Fishing for sport is a disgrace and a bloodsport that I'd like to see banned.

Congers are one fish that can survive out of water for up to 8hrs as they have a protective slime coating their skin, which keeps the moist. A conger should never be bashed over the head because it goes absolutely berserk.