Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Countering Anglers' Arguments - Pisces Information Sheet A
Countering Anglers' Arguments
Pisces Information Sheet A This information sheet provides answers to the common arguments put forward by anglers in defense of their bloodsport. We hope it will help you to correct their opinions whenever possible. Fish and Pain 1. "There is no evidence to prove that fish feel pain." Fish are vertebrates with a brain, a central nervous system and pain receptors all over their bodies, including the lips. It is common sense that they are able to feel pain. Although it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that any creature another than humans is able to feel pain, we can look at their physiology and behaviour and make reasoned judgments. Between 1976 and 1979, the RSPCA sponsored an inquiry into angling and shooting, published as the Medway Report. http://www.pisces.demon.co.uk/factshe2.html The Report concluded that all vertebrates (animals with backbones) including fish, are able to experience pain to one degree or another. They also agreed that there is no reason to differentiate between warm-blooded and cold-blooded creatures (fish are cold-blooded). The Report added that angling inflicts injury, causes pain and trauma to the fish and even if the fish is to be returned to the water, death can still result from handling. Even when using wet hands an angler will remove the protective outer mucous layer, leaving the fish open to infection when returned to the water. Some anglers will come up with the comment that the National Federation of Anglers (NFA) discredited the Medway Report, but the NFA are obviously not an unbiased organisation and the report used to justify this is a literature review which does not actually state that fish cannot feel pain. Meanwhile the RSPCA still puts forward the recommendations given in the Medway Report. The RSPCA had a follow up review in 1994 by Dr Kestin, which did not show any need to change the current policy. Another comment is that fishes brain's have a small cerebral cortex (where pain perception is based), but that area is also concerned with higher thinking, memory, etc., so no conclusions can be made from that observation alone. In 1988 and 1992 two reports were published on the work done in Utrecht in the Netherlands into fish and pain. Scientists gave fish electric shocks, finding that they react in a comparable way and with similar pain thresholds to human subjects. The conclusion was that fish are definitely able to feel pain and that they experience considerable fear when caught by an angler. They also said that livebaiting is extremely cruel because of the prolonged stress involved. Note that a vivisector would need a Home Office licence under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to do the same things to a fish in a laboratory, as an angler does to fish on the river bank. 2. "Coarse anglers put back their catch unharmed." Coarse anglers (the majority in the UK) make a great deal of the "fact" that unlike sea and game anglers, they return their victims ostensibly unharmed. They delude themselves! Coarse fishing is probably cruelest branch of the "sport". When a fish is caught, it is deceived into impaling itself on a (usually) barbed hook, which inflicts an injury. The angler often "plays" the fish to wear it out and make it easier to land. The fish is then dragged into a suffocating, alien environment and handled which (even with wet hands as is recommended by anglers) removes the invisible outer "mucus layer" which provides the creature's waterproofing, leaving it open to infection when returned to the water. Swallowed hooks prolong the suffering and are likely to result in damage to the fish's gut and possible death. The time out of water is prolonged by those who want to photograph their victims, with the incentive of fame in one of the angling magazines who pay cash for notable or record catches. If the fish survives the ordeal of being caught, it is either returned to the water, where it must devote its energy to recovery, or is held prisoner in the unhealthy environment of a keepnet. http://www.pisces.demon.co.uk/factshe1.html#Keepnet 3. "Because it has been known for fish to be caught twice in the same day, fishing cannot be an unpleasant experience for the fish." Anglers go to great lengths to disguise hooks with maggots, fake flies, etc. to trick the fish into "biting". Many anglers will admit that it requires unusual skill to entice a fish which has been repeatedly caught to take a baited hook. Although the fish may become wary if the same type of bait is used, it does have to feed to survive. Anglers also speak of fish learning to be wary of them, direct evidence that the fish are not as stupid as they like to make out. 4. "If fish felt pain, they would swim towards the angler when hooked rather than resist and struggle to get free." Fish will fight vigourously when hooked because they are unable to make the connection between the hook and the angler. Frenzied struggle is the result of fear of the unknown (or for those who remember being caught, fear of being dragged out of tlhe water) and their inherent will to survive. 5. "A hook cannot cause pain because fish eat shell-fish and other spiky objects. The mouths of fish are designed to be lacerated." This is one of the angler's strongest arguments although its substance is far from concrete. Animals tend to avoid anything which gives them the sensation of pain. Therefore, it cannot be harmful for a pike to eat a perch with sharp gill covers and dorsal fins and for a donkey to eat thistles, (which humans would find painful), but we don't conclude that donkeys can't feel pain. It is unreasonable for an angler to consequently assume that a hook does not produce a degree of pain. A hook inflicts a deep injury; often completely penetrating a lip. The wound is aggravated by the often prolonged tension of the fishing line. Additionally, the hook may be swallowed and become caught on an internal organ or the fish may be "foulhooked" in another part of its body. It has been known for the eye of a fish to be pierced from the inside. Wildlife and Environment See also factsheet D. http://www.pisces.demon.co.uk/factshe3.html 6. "Anglers are conservationists and without them there would be no fish." Although it is true that some anglers do good work monitoring the waterways, cleaning up fisheries or taking polluters to court (primarily the Anglers Cooperative Association), they are vastly outweighed by those who harm the environment. Tackle is lost or discarded (see point 7) and litter is left behind, including jagged bait cans lethal to wildlife and food which attracts rats to the fishery. Maggots contaminated with Salmonella and Botulism have proved fatal to wildfowl. Trampling of vegetation often turns banks into mudslides, while the excessive use of groundbait (catapulted into the water to attract fish to the angler's "swim" rots, polluting the water. Additionally, there are many real environmentalists such as the conservation volunteers, who do lots of useful work and not just in areas containing fish. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is among groups who own waters managed to protect all the wildlife. Additionally, the Environment Agency has a statutory duty to maintain the waters they administer. Claims about the welfare of fish appear particularly hollow when you examine the angling fraternity's obsession with certain large fish species which are hatchery reared on special diets and put in often overstocked fisheries, where overcrowding is exacerbated by the stress of repeated capture. Huge carp and catfish are being imported from abroad to satisfy the specimen anglers, while scientists are genetically manipulating fish to get fatter earlier, by lifting controls on growth hormones. Such engineered fish put existing stocks at risk, as there is a likelihood that they may be more competitive than native fish. If anglers were so concerned for the welfare of fish, they wouldn't repeatedly move fish around (livebaits and large specimens), risking the spread of disease. 7. "Only careless anglers leave tackle around." Nylon line frequently breaks when hooks become snagged on underwater obstructions or bankside vegetation, or is discarded when it gets tangled during casting. It is only very slowly biodegradable (that is, to break down in the environment) and is the cause of death and injury to millions of animals. Waterfowl, such as swans and ducks are especially vulnerable. They pick up hooks, line and weights while feeding and slowly starve to death. Entanglement in line can sever wings and limbs. Pets and livestock are also frequently affected. It is left to animal organisations to pay for the rescue and rehabilitation of the lucky minority of tackle victims that are found. It needs to be stressed that it is not just the careless few leaving tackle behind who cause this carnage, all anglers will lose tackle, so the only way to stop it is to ban angling. 8. "Anglers voluntarily gave up using lead weights." Every time the subject of tackle victims is raised with anglers, they say 1) that lead shot has been banned, and 2) that anglers did this voluntarily. Here are the facts: 1. In 1987, the Government introduced legislation, The Control of Pollution (Anglers' Lead Weights) Regulations 1986 (SI 1992), banning the supply and import of lead weights between 0.06 and 28.35 grams (1 oz). In angling terms this means that lead shot from size 14 to size and lead weights of over 1 ounce can still be used in fishing. Many animals still dye of lead poisoning. This could be due to swans picking up lead weights still in the mud from before the ban; anglers still using illegal weights (anglers have been prosecuted for this in recent years); or poisoning occurring from the sizes that are still legal. 2. Anglers did not voluntarily cease using lead weights. It was only the years of public outcry leading to the legislation, which finally forced the situation to change. Twelve months before the legislation was passed, the Government's environmental watch-dog, the Nature Conservancy Council, gave a final warning to anglers that unless they adopted lead substitutes voluntarily, it would have no option but to recommend statutory intervention. Consequently, the National Federation of Anglers, which by now had woken up and realised the tremendous damage being done to the sport's reputation, made a last ditch attempt to create a favourable impression by banning the use of the problem sizes of lead in its competitions. In the event the battle had already been lost. Anglers clung to their "right" to use lead and received nothing but contempt for insisting that shotgun pellets, boat exhausts and overhead power lines killed far more swans. Now they rely on people's short memories to pretend that anglers were happy to change to non-toxic weights. Examples of Tackle Victims Here are some facts about tackle victims: * To give an idea of the scale of this problem, one rescue group based in Northamptonshire dealt with 288 swans injured by tackle in just the first four months of the 92-93 season, together with ducks, geese, pigeons, herons, coots, moorhens and a great-crested grebe. * In 1993 the Westmoreland Branch of the RSPCA had to rescue ninety-two swans in Cumbria damaged by fishing tackle, 18 of which had to be put to sleep. * In January '94 a collie dog in Felixstowe, swallowed a fish hook, which became wedged in his larynx. A few weeks earlier the owner's other collie also got a hook caught in her leg. Luckily both dogs recovered, but a number of other dogs have been injured in previous years on Felistowe's beaches and at least one died. * RSPCA and Environment Agency reports continue to show that angling tackle continues to play a large role in inflicting damage on river birds - see factsheet D for more details. Quantifying Litter There are regular reports of fisheries being closed to anglers due to litter left behind, which endangers wildlife and children, while detracting from the beauty of the countryside. The level of litter left by anglers is difficult to quantify. One study (Forbes, 1986) at a lake in Llandrindod Wells, Wales, found that although the site was used by visitors other than anglers, 64% of the number of litter items (93% of the total surface area of litter) were recorded in those parts of the shoreline (18%) predominantly used by anglers. An island in the lake used exclusively by anglers, was particularly affected by litter. The highest litter densities for the whole site were found around the fishing platforms on the island, but other areas throughout the island were also badly contaminated, with a high proportion of items (48%) being discarded bait containers. (These are readily seen at many fishing areas.) Reference: Forbes, I.J. 1986. The quantity of lead shot, nylon fishing line and other litter discarded at a coarse fishing lake. Biol. Conserv., 38, 21-34. Other Justifications 9. "Angling keeps young people off the streets and away from violence." This argument keeps coming up. At least "hanging around on street corners" does not generally involve inflicting pain on sentient beings! Violence on the streets or violence on the waterways - what's the difference? There are plenty of other ways to involve youngsters in countryside projects and activities. We learn of many cases each year in which anglers are involved in murder, drug dealing and violence to each other. One man killed his neighbour because his parked car prevented him from going fishing! Neil Acourt, one of the people accused of murdering Stephen Lawrence is an angler. 10. "Anglers are friendly, socially responsible people." The same claim is made by many other animal abusers. Certainly anglers tend to be friendly towards (non boat-owning) member of their own species, but this is of little consequence to the fish they catch. A prevalent belief among anglers is that they have a greater right to the use of the waterways than others. Boat owners and canoeists are treated with contempt and anyone making a noise near an angler or asking them to move their equipment obstruction a towpath, risks incurring a mouthful of abuse, while locals are often inconvenienced by anglers cars and noise, especially where night fishing is allowed. 11. "People have fished since the dawn of time." At some point during our evolution our intelligence developed to the extent whereby we were able to catch fish - probably by the use of a spear and then some form of net. Fishing with rod, line and hook came later. Fish were hunted as a source of food. Today we know that we do not need to consume fish (or indeed any animal products) in order to survive. All the vitamins, minerals and food groups necessary for good health are available from non-animal sources. There is therefore no need for our species to continue fishing and there is certainly no excuse for inflicting pain upon fish purely for pleasure, as does the coarse angler. 12. "If angling were banned there would be massive unemployment." The jobs/economy argument was used by those defending the human slave trade back in the 19th century and is used by other bloodsports enthusiasts today. It is basically true that if angling, or indeed any other form of animal abuse, were banned, people would become unemployed, but society would have to re-organise itself and re-create employment opportunities elsewhere. Also, the money currently spent on angling could be spent elsewhere, and be used to boost other leisure economies that do not depend on cruelty to animals. 13. "Anti-anglers have no right to interfere with the pleasure of millions of people pursuing a popular and legal leisure activity." What right have anglers to inflict pain and suffering upon sentient beings? Just because angling is legal and widely-practised does not make it morally acceptable. If child battering is considered wrong, then there is no logical reason why the same moral code should not be applied to other living creatures possessing a similar capacity to suffer. Most anglers would intervene if they saw a dog being beaten in the street. Why does their sense of outrage stop at fish? 14. "Angling is relaxing." Many anglers claim that the main reason they go fishing is because in the countryside they are able to escape the stresses of modern living. However, it should be possible to enjoy the peace and quiet of the countryside without feeling the need to abuse its inhabitants. Anglers are in effect taking out their human-created stress upon an innocent third party. There are many other leisure activities which do not involve animals. * Back to index * More articles http://www.pisces.demon.co.uk/factshe1.html Pisces BM Fish, London, WCIN 3XX Tel: 01792 464 176 http://www.pisces.demon.co.uk/ Cheerio, |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Arguments | Australia | |||
Arguments | United Kingdom | |||
Government sanctions cormorant cull to appease anglers | United Kingdom | |||
Countering Anglers' Arguments - Pisces Information Sheet A | United Kingdom | |||
Useful Quotes About Angling - Pisces Information Sheet F | United Kingdom |