4 ms·

I fish and hunt for food, but I find catch and release to be the human equivalent of a cat playing with its prey. I don't think putting holes in animals for fun

I fish and hunt for food, but I find catch and release to be the human equivalent of a cat playing with its prey. I don't think putting holes in animals for fun is an ethical use of one's free time, regardless of whatever weird navel-gazing metaphysical ecstasy you might get from it. Hell, even from the perspective of a "sport", fishing is lame: a trot line left for two days has the same effect as sitting on the lake for five hours.

overcast 9y ago
Do you immediately dispatch the fish you catch? Or do you let them suffocate in your boat?
- megaman22 9y ago
  You want to snap their necks or bleed them out immediately, if you want them to be fit to eat.
  - peterwwillis 9y ago
    Killing them on the boat makes them less fresh, and a slow death can impart a negative flavor to the meat. The best thing to do is to keep the fish alive on a stringer in the water. You can transport them in a bucket of water to land. When you're ready to clean them, push a thin metal rod into their brain. You can then bleed them without affecting the flavor (bleeding them isn't necessary, it just makes whiter looking meat).
    - serf 9y ago
      >Killing them on the boat makes them less fresh, and a slow death can impart a negative flavor to the meat. The best thing to do is to keep the fish alive on a stringer in the water. At the risk of sounding contrarian or argumentative, which I assure you isn't the intended case here : Do you consider there to be a dichotomy between your desire for fresher taste, and your moral considerations about 'catch-and-release' behavior? As a layperson outside the realm of fishermen, and having spent little time thinking about my moral position on fishing -- or researching the impact of catch-and-release, there seems to be a contrast between the two opinions. basically, if you care enough about fish morally to oppose catch-and-release, does your moral positioning on lengthening their period of suffering stem directly from the positive benefit of fresher taste? I'm really trying not to impose a moral judgment through my questioning, If you perceive such (as I said before) it truly wasn't the intention. I am genuinely interested.
      - peterwwillis 9y ago
        No, my interest in how to achieve better flavor doesn't relate to my moral judgement on catch-and-release. Once I decided to kill it I stopped worrying about it suffering. For example, I find lethal injection to be absurd. So the state decides to kill someone. Instead of taking them out back and blowing their brains out (or, if you want to get less gruesome, using that thing that punches a cow's brain out), we make them wait 20 years for death, and then swab their arm with alcohol before giving them an injection which might actually cause them to writhe in agony for an hour. People want something dead, but they aren't willing to face what that means. Anyway, for what it's worth, keeping the fish alive in a stringer or bucket doesn't freak them out. Putting them in a dark bucket keeps them pretty calm. And poking their brain out is the swiftest most painless death they're gonna get.
sizzzzlerz 9y ago
We all have our own opinions on that. As a trout fisherman, I do catch and release using barbless hooks. I occasionally will keep a fish for breakfast or dinner when out camping. Careful handling of the fish while reeling it in and while removing the hook then then gently rocking the fish back and forth under water to allow it time to regain its orientation before swimming off seems to be quite successful. Does it survive with holes in its mount? Everything I've read says it will do just fine, again, with gentle treatment.
- Doxin 9y ago
  You mean in the same way a human will survive a stab wound as long as you stab them gently and provide good aftercare? The fish surviving doesn't quite make the whole exercise a net positive on the ethics-scale in my opinion.

overcast 9y ago

Do you immediately dispatch the fish you catch? Or do you let them suffocate in your boat?

megaman22 9y ago
You want to snap their necks or bleed them out immediately, if you want them to be fit to eat.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  Killing them on the boat makes them less fresh, and a slow death can impart a negative flavor to the meat. The best thing to do is to keep the fish alive on a stringer in the water. You can transport them in a bucket of water to land. When you're ready to clean them, push a thin metal rod into their brain. You can then bleed them without affecting the flavor (bleeding them isn't necessary, it just makes whiter looking meat).
  - serf 9y ago
    >Killing them on the boat makes them less fresh, and a slow death can impart a negative flavor to the meat. The best thing to do is to keep the fish alive on a stringer in the water. At the risk of sounding contrarian or argumentative, which I assure you isn't the intended case here : Do you consider there to be a dichotomy between your desire for fresher taste, and your moral considerations about 'catch-and-release' behavior? As a layperson outside the realm of fishermen, and having spent little time thinking about my moral position on fishing -- or researching the impact of catch-and-release, there seems to be a contrast between the two opinions. basically, if you care enough about fish morally to oppose catch-and-release, does your moral positioning on lengthening their period of suffering stem directly from the positive benefit of fresher taste? I'm really trying not to impose a moral judgment through my questioning, If you perceive such (as I said before) it truly wasn't the intention. I am genuinely interested.
    - peterwwillis 9y ago
      No, my interest in how to achieve better flavor doesn't relate to my moral judgement on catch-and-release. Once I decided to kill it I stopped worrying about it suffering. For example, I find lethal injection to be absurd. So the state decides to kill someone. Instead of taking them out back and blowing their brains out (or, if you want to get less gruesome, using that thing that punches a cow's brain out), we make them wait 20 years for death, and then swab their arm with alcohol before giving them an injection which might actually cause them to writhe in agony for an hour. People want something dead, but they aren't willing to face what that means. Anyway, for what it's worth, keeping the fish alive in a stringer or bucket doesn't freak them out. Putting them in a dark bucket keeps them pretty calm. And poking their brain out is the swiftest most painless death they're gonna get.

sizzzzlerz 9y ago

We all have our own opinions on that. As a trout fisherman, I do catch and release using barbless hooks. I occasionally will keep a fish for breakfast or dinner when out camping. Careful handling of the fish while reeling it in and while removing the hook then then gently rocking the fish back and forth under water to allow it time to regain its orientation before swimming off seems to be quite successful. Does it survive with holes in its mount? Everything I've read says it will do just fine, again, with gentle treatment.

Doxin 9y ago
You mean in the same way a human will survive a stab wound as long as you stab them gently and provide good aftercare? The fish surviving doesn't quite make the whole exercise a net positive on the ethics-scale in my opinion.