Login

Join for Free!
117132 members


Ethics of Fishing

Animals!

Moderator: BioTeam

Are fishermen bad people?

Yea, George Bush should fire up O'le Sparky
5
36%
Nope, fish don't have feelings
8
57%
It's against my religion to answer this question.
1
7%
 
Total votes : 14

Postby thank.darwin » Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:40 pm

Yes in this world organisms eat other organisms... we must do this to live; so it is necessary to eat vegetables and fish- I don't know why there is such a big issue about this kind of thing - We need to eat food - is that such a crime?
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
-Albert Einstein
User avatar
thank.darwin
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:39 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby mith » Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:33 pm

Well....milk doesn't require killing anything.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby thank.darwin » Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:37 pm

Alright, I will rephrase my statement - most organisms eat other organisms
- Thank-you for pointing that out mithrilhack :D
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
-Albert Einstein
User avatar
thank.darwin
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:39 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada


The ethic's of drinking Milk...

Postby Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca » Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:03 am

mithrilhack,

Have you ever been to a factory where milk is produced? It's pumped from cows via machinery. The machines are really tough on the cows, and so many of the cows develop cists from the friction. The cists break causing puss and blood to enter the milk. Then we drink the puss, blood, hormones, steriods, and other crap thats mixed in with the milk. Lucky us... We didn't have to kill anything to get the nutrients that we need to survive....

Once the cow is dry and no longer gives milk, it is slaughtered for human consumption or animal feed. So did we really not kill anything by drinking milk? Again, like the farmer and block deer permit example, just because the product you're buying doesn't directly kill animals, we should not be duped into believing that we're not financially supporting farmers to kill animals by buying their products.

Is this really the alternative to consuming animals that vegatarians and animal activists are pushing for? I can't imagine that these groups, with such a focus on protecting animals, would buy milk and support a system where animals are enslaved their entire lives, stuck in small cages, have their babies taken away from them almost immediately so that we get to drink the substance that is meant to nurture life... Then (like the KFC chickens and eggs example) when they run dry and can no longer produce milk, we slaughter them for the meat...

Its important for everyone to visit the local farms and see just what we're supporting. Maybe if more people knew, there would be more demand for healthy animal products, and they would show up in more grocery stores... I buy bacon, milk, and eggs. I'd like to be able to say that those animals lived good lives, but I doubt it. At least the deer, moose, bear, and fish that I harvest have lived life to the fullest, and the meat's not loaded up with crap that farmers injected to make money... But the government is making sure that its safe right? They're always acting on behalf of the public right? The drugs that cost half as much in Canada as they do in the states really aren't safe for consumption as President Bush tells us, Right?

The one thing that really bothers me about wild game in Northern Ontario is that our public forests are sprayed by chemicals, AKA herbicides... to save our multi-national forestry companies some money. This is the battle I'm actively fighting!!!

If anyone else is interested, help would be appreciated.

Joel
Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:55 am

Postby mith » Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:16 pm

Joel,
I'm not one of those Peta freaks who fight for stupid causes such as sending fire trucks to rescue kitties when people are dying nearby because of an actual fire. I'm simply asking if catch and release is sadistic to fishes.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby buraku » Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:16 am

I'm in the process of finishing off my mariculture MS. Some people say what I do is wrong. Breeding and raising frys to be assimilated into caged populations for human consumption does seem like a rather cold and heartless act.

Here is how I usually answer.

The Earth's natural fisheries cannot sustain the human population's over-fishing forever. Not only does mariculture provide food from a controlled environment and is quite renewable when compared to wild populations, but it is also used to re-populate areas where over-fishing has decreased populations.

People have to eat. Some of those people live in environments where a quality source of protein is not readily available, such as several third-world countries. Aqua-culture provides them with what they need.

I know the question posed was whether fishing is wrong, so I will say this so as not to get completely off-topic :D I believe that anyone who consumes meat has a moral obligation to hunt and kill a living creature at least once in their life, not for sport, but just to actively participate in the food-chain that they are a part of. Anything else would be hypocritical.

If this is a moral argument though, then none of my comments matter. A moral argument cannot be won or lost by logic because a person's belief systems are purely subjective and not supported by scientific thought. That's why I chose to become a biologist. I don't have to put up with this **** on a day to day basis. Give me hard analytical data and I'm a happy camper :)
buraku
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:56 am

Postby mith » Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:30 pm

I hate to argue for the Peta ppl but here's what they would say:
Meat is a good source of protein but not as good as legumes, etc....

Second, I agree that current agricultural production will not match the future populations. But, currently there is enough food(nutrition-wise) in the world to feed everyone. It's been proven by an Indian economist that the problem is inequality of wealth and distribution. Heck people in some countries kill sharks, cut off the fin and throw the rest of the carcass into the sea. I know while third-world countries suffer from starvation, americans are suffering from obesity.

So basically...if there is enough food for the whole world and if that food can be obtained without heartless cruelty, should we continue the present course?
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby buraku » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:02 pm

mithrilhack wrote:I hate to argue for the Peta ppl but here's what they would say:
Meat is a good source of protein but not as good as legumes, etc....

Second, I agree that current agricultural production will not match the future populations. But, currently there is enough food(nutrition-wise) in the world to feed everyone. It's been proven by an Indian economist that the problem is inequality of wealth and distribution. Heck people in some countries kill sharks, cut off the fin and throw the rest of the carcass into the sea. I know while third-world countries suffer from starvation, americans are suffering from obesity.

So basically...if there is enough food for the whole world and if that food can be obtained without heartless cruelty, should we continue the present course?


Well, you've kind of answered your own question by quoting the Indian economist. Since people are unable to recieve food because of unequal distribution, how can they eat it? By placing a system of agriculture under their control instead of exporting food and trusting a corrupt system of government to distribute it equally, the populous is much more likely to recieve the nutrition they need.

And when it comes to feeding people who are starving by providing the highest quality of nutrition possible that will help their development the most effectively, the question of animal rights and morality is rendered null and void. I'm sorry, but I could care less about the feelings and rights of another species when the human species in developing countries is in need of an immediate source of sustenance in order to survive. Plants do not provide the same quality of protien as animal flesh within the same acreage of production.

As I said before though, moral arguments cannot be resolved under the umbrella of logic.
buraku
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:56 am

Is fishing Sadistic?

Postby Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca » Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:51 am

Is farming sadistic? Because the whole issue really is about feeding, and the requirement that people be fed. I got you that you don't like the idea of catching a fish with a hook in its face, and letting him go.... but they do survive to live another day, and spawn again... which is more than I can say for the deer taken under farmers block permits...

As far as fish farms go, agreed that people need food and its a good way to provide that food. As for myself, i'd rather go all natural.

So the issue is really about the amount of pain inflicted on the fish when they bite the lure, and are caught. Because most serious trout fishermen don't take the fish out of the water when they catch it, and so there is no starvation of oxygen issue. But, on the same point, does it hurt a fish to come out of the water for a minute anymore than it does a human to go underwater for a minute. Some fish like sturgeon can live out of the water for hours, and then be released without harming them.

Are there any scientists in the room that may be able to shed some light on how fish feel pain as opposed to humans. I've never seen anything conclusive, but i'm interested to hear. Is it like getting an ear pierced, or more like ripping out someones tongue? I would hope and bet that its more like an ear piercing...

P.S. Its very difficult to manage a fishery if its impossible to let spawners go. The only way to let spawners go, is to catch them first. Generally, unless sight fishing, an angler doesn't have the option of choosing which fish will bit the lure, so his only option is to let the spawners go after hooking them. That is.... if he wants to make sure that there will be plenty of fish for years to come.

Joel
Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:55 am

Postby buraku » Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:33 am

You're right Joe. This thread was supposed to be about fishing physically hurting the fish (I think). Somehow I was drawn off topic.

As far as fish feeling pain, fish have between 40 and 60 pain receptors around the jaw and mouth. So they do feel pain. You can actually test this yourself if you happen to have a fish tank handy. Take a small sterilized needle and retrieve a fish from your tank. Slightly pierce the inside of the mouth in several spots and return it to your tank. Now feed your fish. You'll notice that the pierced specimen will be hesitant when feeding or may not feed at all for a period of time. You may also notice behavior such as the fish rapidly sucking in water or brushing its mouth against plants or the wall of the tank. After a while, the nervous stimulation of the pain receptors by the needle will fade and the fish will resume feeding.

Now whether this affects your judgment when it comes to fishing is up to you. I'm an avid fisherman, although I eat everything I catch unless it's inedible, but I would never judge others for fishing or hunting for sport. This is a personal choice made by others and it's really none of my business how others decide to conduct their lives. Some may condemn me for the experimentation and subsequent dissection of fish and other marine life for the pursuit of knowledge. That's fine. I'm the one that decides to make those decisions and so accept full responsibilty for my actions.
buraku
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:56 am

Postby mith » Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:24 pm

Plants do not provide the same quality of protien as animal flesh within the same acreage of production.


I beg to differ on this point. Since animals are a secondary source, they should be harder to raise than crops. Second, any proteins stored by the animal should come from the plants. I don't think amino acids are created by animals(I know animals can make proteins, but I think ultimately the raw materials are from plant sources).
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby buraku » Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:38 am

mithrilhack wrote:I beg to differ on this point. Since animals are a secondary source, they should be harder to raise than crops. Second, any proteins stored by the animal should come from the plants. I don't think amino acids are created by animals(I know animals can make proteins, but I think ultimately the raw materials are from plant sources).


I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this! No offense, but everything in this post is pretty much completely false, purely based on some sort of weird deductive reasoning and no scientific basis what so ever. I don't have the time or the patience to explain elementary biology, you can take an entry level course at your local JUCO for that, which I suggest you do if you'd like to pursue this subject. Or just pick up a used bio book somewhere. In fact, I don't think I'll be posting here anymore. I don't mean to sound aloof, but I honestly thought this was a forum for those that were in the field or had at least taken the time to understand biology's rudimentary concepts. Boy was I proven dead wrong. Sorry to have wasted everyone's time.
buraku
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to Zoology Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron