German demands fish be killed?

Question:

So i’m ignorant of this, but .. In germany catch and release is banned? really? Really, Edwin…

well Tim’s been looking for the opportunity to restart the great tirade. Has he found it? it’s all been said before. There’s nothing more to add. Tim is just hauling out the same tired old arguments. Flat tires that won’t move very far down this rocky road! I’m not sure of the timeframe, but it was 5 or 6 years ago [I believe] that the "Green" movement in Germany (the European equivalent of PETA ?) was very effective in lobbying for [and acquired] humane sports fishing laws. There are volumes of articles on this subject [go take a look in Dejanews]. That it was hotly debated is the understatement of the year…..

Articles? It’s an overly charitable description with Tim being by far the major contributor. Followed perhaps by your truly. I recall a letter to the editor in the October 1991 issue of Flyfishing by Sydney Dubroff who stated…"Personally I think the practice of throwing them back stinks, and is contrary to the basic motivation of why we fish". The editor (Frank Amato), said "To be blunt, Mr. DuBroff, I’m not interested in anything you have to say. We have conclusive scientific proof that catch and release works. I suggest you hop a time machine back to the 19th century. And maybe another planet.". This response from Amato engraged and continues to enrage me as *unbelievably ignorant* and assholish.

Point 1 Tim, in 1991 Amato was not the Editor of Flyfishing, Marty Sherman was. So be carefull who you call an asshole. Check your facts. Point 2 DuBroff, an American living in England who amused himself hauling in pond stocked farm trout made a name for himself publishing a guest editorial in Fly Fisherman on this very subject. Hmm…please review "Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development"…. http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html Where does pure C&R fit ?

It doesn’t. Kohlberg’s theory says nothing on how to judge the morality of a particular practice such as C&R. It proposes to be a theory of individual moral development and nothing else. You’d do well to read a real book on the subject rather than pretend to know something after you’ve read a mediocre review on a web site meant for high school juniors. Ralph H note spurious hyperbole, insults and ‘personal attacks’ made by the author are meant to honour "the Soul of Cicero" and are not intended as personal slights. Please don’t take offense as none is intended. remove "(take_this_out)" for email reply.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Really, Edwin…etc. Moral platitudes a crock ? Hmm…please review "Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development"…. http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html Without even commenting on the preceding tirade (God knows plenty of other people WILL), were you aware that Kohlberg killed himself? It’s a little hard to accept moral advice on killing fish from a man who killed himself.

wasn’t after he read Tim’s intrepretation of his work was it? Ralph H note spurious hyperbole, insults and ‘personal attacks’ made by the author are meant to honour "the Soul of Cicero" and are not intended as personal slights. Please don’t take offense as none is intended. remove "(take_this_out)" for email reply.

Response:

[deleted] Point 1 Tim, in 1991 Amato was not the Editor of Flyfishing, Marty Sherman was. So be carefull who you call an asshole.

[deleted] You’re right Ralph, Amato was his boss (publisher) who allowed this sort of treatment of a reader. He is even *more* culpable. — TimW – Halfordian Golfer Guilt replaced the creel…

Response:

[deleted] You’d do well to read a real book on the subject rather than pretend to know something after you’ve read a mediocre review on a web site meant for high school juniors.

[deleted] With no due respect Ralph, it was intended as an introduction to the subject. With that in mind, I thought it a very good point of departure for this subject. I’m not sorry that you disagree. Particularly in light of your response which was did not attempt to address the issues but was rather a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the reporter in a rather not funny politicianesque fashion. Do you want to take a stab at the ‘universal’ acceptance of C&R or do you want to just whine because you can not ? — TimW – Halfordian Golfer Guilt replaced the creel…

Response:

Whoops, forgot one more point to make. Isn’t a little hard to accept the Norwegian ministry council’s dictate that C&R fishing is wrong, when Norway is one of the few countries on Earth that still refuses to support the international ban on whaling? Apparently, killing rare and sentient creatures of the water is good…allowing relatively numerous and non-sentient creatures of the water to live is bad. Whales sentient? The last one I asked didn’t answer…you’ve watched Star Trek IV too many times…

Jon – you talk to whales? You need a vacation bigtime. Time to grab a pole head home and fry up some walleye steaks! Ralph H note spurious hyperbole, insults and ‘personal attacks’ made by the author are meant to honour "the Soul of Cicero" and are not intended as personal slights. Please don’t take offense as none is intended. remove "(take_this_out)" for email reply.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [deleted] You’d do well to read a real book on the subject rather than pretend to know something after you’ve read a mediocre review on a web site meant for high school juniors. [deleted] With no due respect Ralph, it was intended as an introduction to the subject. With that in mind, I thought it a very good point of departure for this subject. I’m not sorry that you disagree. Particularly in light of your response which was did not attempt to address the issues but was rather a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the reporter in a rather not funny politicianesque fashion. Do you want to take a stab at the ‘universal’ acceptance of C&R or do you want to just whine because you can not ? — TimW – Halfordian Golfer Guilt replaced the creel…

Tim if I was the editor of this NG as Sherman was of Flyfishing I would render your response down to 2 words: "Baaah! Baaaah!" Ralph H note spurious hyperbole, insults and ‘personal attacks’ made by the author are meant to honour "the Soul of Cicero" and are not intended as personal slights. Please don’t take offense as none is intended. remove "(take_this_out)" for email reply.

Response:

I wonder if the Germans swim the fish into concentration ponds where they be swiftly and efficiently dispatched, en masse.< Und then they are given to needy G. families who bake them in a gas oven. Tasteless bullshit, gentlemen. HM

Thank you. This was getting very very bad. JE

Response:

Yowza! All I wanted to know was if the German govt had moved to ban c&r. Didnt expect a war of words to result.. BUt what the hell… kinda fun to read! edwin

Response:

Really, Edwin…etc. Moral platitudes a crock ? Hmm…please review "Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development"…. http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html

Without even commenting on the preceding tirade (God knows plenty of other people WILL), were you aware that Kohlberg killed himself? It’s a little hard to accept moral advice on killing fish from a man who killed himself. Sort of like Alan Watts…if he had the whole zen thing down, why’d he eat a bullet? Anyway, I expect this will become quite heated, but without me. Flame on, guys.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Without even commenting on the preceding tirade (God knows plenty of other people WILL), were you aware that Kohlberg killed himself? It’s a little hard to accept moral advice on killing fish from a man who killed himself. Sort of like Alan Watts…if he had the whole zen thing down, why’d he eat a bullet? Why eat a bullet? Perhaps he had logically (philosopically and/or theologically) determined that the human species was a disruptive influence to the earth’s ecosystem and wanted to do his part to correct the situation.

That’s exactly what I believe each fish I catch is doing. They have logically decided that trout is a disruptive influence to the stream’s ecosystem, killing off mayfiles and baitfish rampantly, and want to do their part to correct the situation. Being unable to handle a firearm, they instead take my lure, but are then frustrated in their efforts by my releasing them. So, I guess he’s right. C&R IS cruel to the fish! :)

Response:

Why eat a bullet? Perhaps he had logically (philosopically and/or theologically) determined that the human species was a disruptive influence to the earth’s ecosystem and wanted to do his part to correct the situation. — Good Fishing and Tight Lines | / |/ ( /| — / | C. Michael Bullard

Response:

I wonder if the Germans swim the fish into concentration ponds where they be swiftly and efficiently dispatched, en masse.

Response:

or…. he determined that the earth’s ecosystem was a disruptive influence on mankind and he wanted to do his part to uncorrect the situation. whose nose?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Really, Edwin…etc. Moral platitudes a crock ? Hmm…please review "Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development"…. http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html Without even commenting on the preceding tirade (God knows plenty of other people WILL), were you aware that Kohlberg killed himself? It’s a little hard to accept moral advice on killing fish from a man who killed himself. Sort of like Alan Watts…if he had the whole zen thing down, why’d he eat a bullet? Anyway, I expect this will become quite heated, but without me. Flame on, guys.

(It *could* be just a discussion ya know…) FWIW – I made my post intentionally long…I said my piece and I’ll leave it at that. Also, be aware *specifically* that I am as confused and weak of flesh as the next guy. And that in fact I do practice catch and release myself to some extent, I practiced it religiously for 28 years…to quote John Gierach, "I am no saint, you can ask anyone…". Your pal, — TimW – Halfordian Golfer Guilt replaced the creel…

Response:

Whales sentient? The last one I asked didn’t answer…you’ve watched Star Trek IV too many times… It’s simple, really. Norway accepts that they are a meat-eating population. Thus, hunting and fishing for food is an acceptable interaction with wild creatures. Hunting and fishing for mere pleasure is not. They do not differentiate between whales and fish — why do you? If you know whales are sentient, how do you know fish are not? And, BTW, they do not hunt rare whales, but only target a very stable and growing population of minke whales. Please explain how you can condemn whaling (of a stable population) and support the C+R torture (if it’s not torture, why do the fish fight so hard?) and possible death of another animal (fish), when in fact you cannot *really* know if either is sentient or, more importantly, non-sentient? JonCook.

Response:

I wonder if the Germans swim the fish into concentration ponds where they be swiftly and efficiently dispatched, en masse.

Folks, we have a WINNER….

Response:

I can see it now "Save a Mayfly — Kill a Trout" bumperstickers brought to you by Trout Limited and the Society to Protect American Mayflys (aka SPAM) — two organizations whose efforts are solely dedicated to perserving and protecting cold water aquatic insect life from its natural preditors. — Good Fishing and Tight Lines | / |/ ( /| — / | C. Michael Bullard

Response:

They have logically decided that trout is a disruptive influence to the stream’s ecosystem, killing off mayfiles and baitfish rampantly, and want to do their part to correct the situation. Being unable to handle a firearm, they instead take my lure, but are then frustrated in their efforts by my releasing them.

.allowing relatively numerous and non-sentient creatures of the water to live is bad. sentient or non-sentient? ya can’t have it both ways my friend. –Walt

Response:

I wonder if the Germans swim the fish into concentration ponds where they be

swiftly and efficiently dispatched, en masse.< Und then they are given to needy G. families who bake them in a gas oven.

Response:

I wonder if the Germans swim the fish into concentration ponds where they be swiftly and efficiently dispatched, en masse.< Und then they are given to needy G. families who bake them in a gas oven.

Tasteless bullshit, gentlemen. HM

Response:

No catch and release is not banned, only sport fishing…it’s cruel…? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Folks, So i’m ignorant of this, but .. In germany catch and release is banned? really? How odd… edwin

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Really, Edwin… I’m not sure of the timeframe, but it was 5 or 6 years ago [I believe] that the "Green" movement in Germany (the European equivalent of PETA ?) was very effective in lobbying for [and acquired] humane sports fishing laws there. Several things ensued including the requirement of angler training in the humane dispatch methods of mercifully and quickly killing all fish caught and quitting when the reduced limit was obtained. Pure Catch and Release *is* banned in Germany and [despite what Jimbo says] because it is cruel and disrespectful to a wild animal. This *is* the trend and it is a really obvious one, IMO (whether or not anyone here chooses to believe it). Consider. Last spring the Swedish Fisheries minister declared that Catch and Release fishing was unethical and, more recently, a council (including the professor of theology at the University of Oslo) advising the Norwegian ministry issued the same edict. There are volumes of articles on this subject [go take a look in Dejanews]. That it was hotly debated is the understatement of the year.

Whoops, forgot one more point to make. Isn’t a little hard to accept the Norwegian ministry council’s dictate that C&R fishing is wrong, when Norway is one of the few countries on Earth that still refuses to support the international ban on whaling? Apparently, killing rare and sentient creatures of the water is good…allowing relatively numerous and non-sentient creatures of the water to live is bad. A fishy conclusion, wouldn’t you say? A real whale of a story to swallow? (I can’t help it. Puns are genetic.)

Response:

Folks, So i’m ignorant of this, but .. In germany catch and release is banned? really? How odd… edwin

Response:

Folks, So i’m ignorant of this, but .. In germany catch and release is banned? really? How odd…

It’s a different way of doing things (not sure about Germany, though). I was fortunate enough to do some pond fishing for trout in England quite a few years ago; The proprietors gave me a really funny look when I told them I didn’t want to keep any fish. Over there (tho’ it’s been changing recently) it was the ‘coarse fisherman’ that practiced catch and release: of chubs, pike, tench, etc. If you fished for trout, you fished for dinner: but the price per meal was pretty steep! — Jeff Brown Fire Mist Media www.firemist.com

Response:

So i’m ignorant of this, but .. In germany catch and release is banned? really?

Really, Edwin… I’m not sure of the timeframe, but it was 5 or 6 years ago [I believe] that the "Green" movement in Germany (the European equivalent of PETA ?) was very effective in lobbying for [and acquired] humane sports fishing laws there. Several things ensued including the requirement of angler training in the humane dispatch methods of mercifully and quickly killing all fish caught and quitting when the reduced limit was obtained. Pure Catch and Release *is* banned in Germany and [despite what Jimbo says] because it is cruel and disrespectful to a wild animal. This *is* the trend and it is a really obvious one, IMO (whether or not anyone here chooses to believe it). Consider. Last spring the Swedish Fisheries minister declared that Catch and Release fishing was unethical and, more recently, a council (including the professor of theology at the University of Oslo) advising the Norwegian ministry issued the same edict. There are volumes of articles on this subject [go take a look in Dejanews]. That it was hotly debated is the understatement of the year. It does not take a doctor of theology or philosophy to realize that hooking and hauling a wild animal purely for fun is, simply, wrong. It is not a defensible position to take as managers and caretakers of any precious natural living resource. It is disrespectful and allows for pollution of a loving and contemplative sport such as flyfishing into a mindless game like golf where competition and greed rule the roost. Flyfishing has become just one step above Bassmasters as a result (in my estimation). Moreover, and very importantly, it is never, ever necessary and this has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt by some simple principles that I can easily show you. Not only that, but the Animal Rights activists are targetting sports (Catch and Release) fishing and they are starting with sports fishing competitions (which can not exist in the absence of Catch and Release). Clearly, there is NO defendable position AGAINST fishing for food. You must accept that exist on the food chain (as opposed to the sporting goods chain). A most natural and respectful thing to do is to eat the fish you catch. It is, IMO, unnatural and disrespectful to stress, maim and kill them purely for fun. As humans we have a responsibility to the animals that we have dominion over and I do not believe that animals exist solely to torture for fun. Do you ? Thinking people are realizing this every day and taking the more moderate approach of ’selective harvest’ or the ancient [and time PROVEN] art and science of ‘culling’ as the watchword of fisheries management, Germany, Swedan and Norway are simply ahead of their times, IMO. Make no mistake about it, it is heading this way. I recall a letter to the editor in the October 1991 issue of Flyfishing by Sydney Dubroff who stated…"Personally I think the practice of throwing them back stinks, and is contrary to the basic motivation of why we fish". The editor (Frank Amato), said "To be blunt, Mr. DuBroff, I’m not interested in anything you have to say. We have conclusive scientific proof that catch and release works. I suggest you hop a time machine back to the 19th century. And maybe another planet.". This response from Amato engraged and continues to enrage me as *unbelievably ignorant* and assholish. If you look at this issue on a continuum, I believe, that you will see Amato’s position at the nadir of morality (no matter how much he thought he was right) and that indications from theologists and other trends (like the German C&K mandate) are clearly swinging this in a direction away from pure C&R. Just like the management of all other game species: hunt, kill mercifully and then quit when you have taken enough. I believe that history will show that I am right and that the current practice of C&R (particularly as practiced by most Flyfishermen and Bassmasters) will be viewed as barbaric and unelightened (ironic twist, eh ?). This is already happening but should reach the moral zenith of global subsistence fishing and wildlife management through the sound practice of culling of these species by around 2005. In other words… Save fishing, kill a fish. Just some light reading to influence your thinking on this subject a little… Moral platitudes a crock ? Hmm…please review "Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development"…. http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html Where does pure C&R fit ? I contend that it exists well below "We do something because it is universally right" but just above "We do something because we get the crap beat out of us if we dont". Crazy ? Did you know that "Spider Wrestling" has been banned in the Phillipines ? Your pal, — TimW – Halfordian Golfer Guilt replaced the creel…

Response:

Filed under: Lobbying

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism