Subject: FISHING & CRUELTY

From: Craig Arfman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 12:02:07 +1300

My cat knocked my phone off the hook (she thinks it's a great toy) 
breaking my modem connection as I was sending this, so I am reposting.
(apologies in advance for any duplicate postings created) - Craig

>Markus Medak wrote:
> 
> Just curious, why did you fish for thousands of days if you think it's
> so terrible, and why in the world did you work as a deckhand (I know 
> it couldn't have been the money--seems to pay little above minimum 
> wage considering the hours you work)?

The only excuse I can offer is that for a long time I just didn’t 
know any better. When I started fishing at age seven, I asked the 
same question a lot of children ask, “Does it hurt the fish?” My 
father assured me fish were different, they couldn’t feel pain 
and that was that. Over time I grew desensitized the sight of  
fish with torn mouths, gills and stomachs, bleeding, thrashing and 
dying. I learned that it was a “Sport”, and that I could even win
trophies and praise for doing it.

A decade later when I worked on the “Sport” fishing party boats, 
I still didn’t think there was anything fundamentally wrong with it,
 although I was uneasy with some of the gratuitous cruelty I witnessed: 
passengers killing birds for fun, and crew shooting seals to protect
 “their” fish.

> How could you write articles for sportfishing magazines if the idea
> of sportfishing is so abhorrent to you?  

I have written for four fishing publications and for seven years 
was associated with the publication, New Zealand Fisherman.  
During that time I wrote many articles and letters to the 
editor on the subject of hooking mortality, and avoiding the 
unnecessary destruction and suffering associated with some 
fishing practices. It was my hope that a frank and honest 
debate would allow amateur fishing to reform itself from 
within and clean up its act. 

It is to NZF’s credit that they were willing to publish 
dissenting viewpoints such as mine. However eventually 
pressure from advertisers and  
major “Sport” fishing organizations as far away as Hawaii 
and Florida, caused NZF’s editor to inform me that he was 
unwilling to publish any more articles relating to ethics 
or questioning the concept of “Sport” and that Animal Rights 
was absolutely off-limits as a topic. I have since resigned my
association with NZF.

What we are seeing here IMHO is “Sport” fishing institutions 
running scared from the possibility of an open and honest 
debate, and trying to keep the lid on it for as long as 
possible. It appears they will cling as long as possible to 
the premise of a “Sport” based on “fighting” a fish that 
can’t fight back. Most non-fishers will recognize this 
fallacy, and it’s worth noting that non-fishers outnumber 
fishers by a wide majority, despite all the talk of 
“Sport” fisher’s voting power.

> I've also worked on sport boats as a crewmember all through high shool
> and college, and while I've seen a couple of the things you mentioned
> (hooking seagulls attempted once), I think you're presenting a very
> skewed view of the average sportfishermen. 

Having fished in many situations and countries, witnessed 
many atrocities, and met many fishers as either crew-member 
or journalist and heard their attitudes, I don’t think I am 
presenting a skewed view of “Sport” fishers. While “Sport” 
fishers come from all walks of life, I think it’s inevitable 
that when you group people whose common bond is enjoyment 
of an activity that kills, wounds and maims animals, you 
end up with a group that is skewed from the overall population.

> As long as the crew has firm grasp on what is acceptable behavior and
> what is not, the majority of the passengers will not get out of line.
> Just my $0.02 worth,
> Markus

Often it’s the crew that gets out of line. While working on a 
well-known “sport” fishing boat off the Mexican coast, I 
watched the captain shoot a seal through the nose. Since 
this was highly illegal, he stayed on the top deck and used 
a .22 rifle rather than a high-powered rifle so that the 
passengers busy fishing on the bottom deck wouldn’t notice. 
The passengers didn't notice the shot or the seal shaking it’s 
head in agony 100 meters away, doomed to a probable slow and 
painful death. 

Guns often play a big part in the “Sport” fishing scene. 
I recall listening to a well-known Australian fishing guru 
brag about how he liked to blow away seabirds which were 
stealing fish scraps from his berley-trail. 
“Adds more flavour” he’d said. 

I witnessed a fatality of gun-happy “Sport” fishers, being 
carried off the aptly-named party boat, “Fishin Fool” on 
a stretcher. One of the crew was having a good time 
blasting sharks from the top deck and as he tracked one 
with his rifle a passenger’s head got in the way, as he 
fired. That incident is documented in The San Diego Union, 
if anyone cares to check it out.

After seven years of trying I have little hope that 
amateur fishing will make any progress in eliminating 
practices which are destructive, cruel and have no 
useful purpose. Following is a not-untypical response from 
a “Sport” fisher.

>Subject: RE: FISHING IS CRUEL - FURTHER EVIDENCE
>Date: 17 Apr 96 03:30:14 -0700
>From: [email-masked] (Steve Pearson)
>Organization: The Microsoft Network (msn.com)
>Newsgroups: alt.fishing
>References: <[email-masked]>

>Hey Ho: >All this crap about fish feeling pain ASSUMES that I even GIVE at
>shit if they feel pain...I don't.  Now go bother someone who DOES
>give a shit.

>Stevie Pee

Usually the response from “Sport” fishers, and their institutions, 
is a bit more subtle, such as “not proven” or “not an appropriate 
topic for discussion”. Stevie’s response is just a bit more honest 
than most.

The unnecessary destruction and cruelty caused by “Sport” fishers 
doesn’t come from using barbed hooks instead of barbless hooks, 
or come from using treble hooks instead of single hooks, 
or come from using light line instead of heavy line, 
it comes from the heart.
- Craig Arfman

---

From: [email-masked] (John H. Kim)
Date: 28 Apr 1996 12:54:56 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
>“Sport” fisher’s voting power.

I think this is an important point for all fishermen to digest.
Someone posted a good response to PETA's hunting surveys, which
showed that while a slight majority of Americans don't/wouldn't
hunt, the vast majorty (nearly 90%) supported the right to hunt.
So non-fishermen being a vast majority (~75% by my reckoning)
isn't a factor AS LONG AS we keep behavior acceptable to most
people.

i.e. Don't do anything stupid.  Image counts.

>end up with a group that is skewed from the overall population.

I have to disagree.  Fishermen make up such a large portion of
the population (around 70-90 million in the U.S. alone) that
it's statistically impossible for the "average" fisherman to
be too far off the mainstream.  That is, even if you assumed
a worst-case, starting with the most violent criminals and
working down the list to people who've gotten speeding tickets
and so on until you get 70 million people, that group is so
large their average is going to be close to the national average.
(Don't make me crank out standard deviations.  ;)

I think your memory is overstating the really obnoxious behavior
you've witnessed (which makes a really big impression).  I've
seen some outlandish behavior myself, but I'd attribute it to
only about 5% of the fishermen I've seen.
-- 
John H. Kim
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Tom Fry)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 22:40:12 GMT

Craig "who hid my %$@ing Prozac" Arfman ([email-masked]) wrote:

: > How could you write articles for sportfishing magazines if the idea
: > of sportfishing is so abhorrent to you?  

: I have written for four fishing publications and for seven years 
: was associated with the publication, New Zealand Fisherman.  
: During that time I wrote many articles and letters to the 
: editor on the subject of hooking mortality, and avoiding the 
: unnecessary destruction and suffering associated with some 
: fishing practices. It was my hope that a frank and honest 
: debate would allow amateur fishing to reform itself from 
: within and clean up its act. 

There's "frank and honest debate", then there's "putting up with Craig",
which is a tad different.  The latter involves being bombarded regularly
with tons of stuff that you'll never get around to reading (as witness
that Craig doesn't understand half of it either). Furthermore, discussion
ceases only when you agree 110% with Craig. 

For those gentle readers who have never encountered Craig Arfman before, 
trust me, this has been going on for a long time. His time on the SALT-L 
mailing list a few months back was almost identical to his stay here. Any 
time anyone mentioned releasing a fish - any thread, anywhere - Arfy was 
on him like a wino on a bottle of Thunderbird. Which means of course that 
3 out of 4 posts were bombed by him, making virtually all other traffic 
grind to a halt. He was pretty definite in his belief that all fish that 
were released were destined to die immediately, and he'd quote vast lists 
of studies to back up his position. Of course, under more detailed 
questioning, he said he *always* released fish which were under the size 
limits (or from "inedible" species). Which means, I guess, that it's okay 
for *these* fish to die.

No folks, Craig meets the classic definition of a fanatic - unable to 
change his mind, unable to change the subject.

: It is to NZF’s credit that they were willing to publish 
: dissenting viewpoints such as mine. However eventually 
: pressure from advertisers and  
: major “Sport” fishing organizations as far away as Hawaii 
: and Florida, caused NZF’s editor to inform me that he was 
: unwilling to publish any more articles relating to ethics 
: or questioning the concept of “Sport” and that Animal Rights 
: was absolutely off-limits as a topic. I have since resigned my
: association with NZF.

Let's see if I get this straight - does "Ebony" make room for editorial
input from the Klan? Why then should a publication for fishermen provide a
forum for someone who hates so many of us for so little reason? Face it
Arfy, the "animal rights" movement exists solely to impose urban values
(and, BTW, ignorant know-nothing values developed in a vacuum by city kids
with no exposure *what the &^%$ ever* to hunting, fishing, trapping, etc)
on the rest of us, especially rural folks, who they despise. It's raw
hatred, it's ignorance, and it's no more socially redeeming than the crap
peddled by the Klan, the Nazis and similar scum. 

Grow up Craig, and find some other place to play.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Fry                 [email-masked]
3798 Woodland Drive     voice: (604) 368-9315
Trail, BC               data:  (604) 368-9341
Canada   V1R 2V7        ><<<@>  ><<<@>
----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Arklier)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 08:56:46 GMT

My question is, what are you trying to do posting to the alt.fishing
newsgroup besides pissing people off? Other than a few who also make
posts like this, there is no one here who enjoys or even listens to
this kind of post. We've all heard it all before. What are you, a
troll or something? You're just wasting your breath and our time. 

And yes, I love to fish. It is a legal activity and I intend to enjoy
a sport I've loved since childhood. And while I sometimes kill (yes,
kill) the fish I catch, just like any other animal would, I like to
think I'm a lot more humane to the fish than a cat or otter would be.
Really guys, you should get out there and see what the natural  world
is all about. 

While I do not condone the obvious acts of cruelty you gave as
examples, I can tell you from personal experience, incidents like
these are the exception, not the rule. Does everyone in your movement
break into medical labs armed with guns to 'liberate' diseased test
subjects? I rest my case.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Arklier

"Watch the face! I just had it chromed!"

---

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Smith)
Date: 30 Apr 1996 16:32:03 GMT

John H. Kim ([email-masked]) wrote:
: I think your memory is overstating the really obnoxious behavior
: you've witnessed (which makes a really big impression).  I've
: seen some outlandish behavior myself, but I'd attribute it to
: only about 5% of the fishermen I've seen.

Remember a while back when people were shooting each other on the 
California freeway system?  Boy were those motorists violent.  I
sure was hoping that they would start banning cars.  Actually, the
most outlandish behavior I think I've seen by fishermen was by people
who cut in front of you in the boat launch lane, and those who see
you catching fish and feel that they can pull up a seat and fish right 
beside you.  On the scale of human atrocities, that's not too bad.

There is no reasoning with some people, and I count rabid PETA
activists among them.  Nevertheless, John, you posted a great 
response a long time ago to a thread about whether or not fish
feel pain.  You based it on biology, and talked about why fish
aren't suffocating when they are pulled out of water.  I wish I
would have saved it.  Care to repost?  

--
Jeff Smith				       Graduate student
[email-masked]			       Materials Science & Engineering
http://www.msc.cornell.edu/~jeffs	       Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

---

From: Craig Arfman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 08:50:53 +1300

Arklier wrote:
> newsgroup besides pissing people off? 

What I am attempting to do here is to get "sport" fishers to consider 
the consequences of their actions and reconsider what they are doing.

>Other than a few who also make

I'm not surprised. Anyone who can convince themselves that they are 
"fighting" a fish which is only trying to escape, or that leaving dead 
fish rotting on the bottom is "Conservation" is going to 
be hard to reason with.
 
> a sport I've loved since childhood.

> "Watch the face! I just had it chromed!"

I agree with you on one thing, this thread has gone on long enough 
already. I would however make one final plea that "Sport" fishers (and 
catch-and-release practitioners in particular)examine their consciences, 
reconsider their actions and stop preaching "conservation" while 
practicing environmental vandalism.
- Craig Arfman

---

From: [email-masked] (mary bridge)
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 05:32:41 GMT

>practicing environmental vandalism.

Bye Craig (I hope)
Denny

---

From: [email-masked] (Mike Brush)
Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 08:27:01 -0400

> fish rotting on the bottom is "Conservation" is going to 

Good God man, it's a fish.  It's not like we're talking about a child. 
look around you.  why don't you take your energy somewhere else.  Dunblain
Scotland comes to mind. You could protest mad men and their insanity.  Why
kill 16 innocent people.  That's a real cause, one I'm sure anyone here
would support. 
  
> practicing environmental vandalism.

My conscience is clear

-- 

Just another day.
The CH-147, gone but not forgotten!!

---

From: [email-masked] (John H. Kim)
Date: 1 May 1996 23:47:18 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
>beside you.  On the scale of human atrocities, that's not too bad.

I've seen people shoot at sea lions, throw firecrackers into the
water, deliberately try to hook birds, catch fish and leave them
on the pier, etc.  Now that I think about it, I did do a lot of
pier fishing in high school, and behavior amongst those fishing
off boats isn't as bad.  I'd say about 2% for "hardcore" boat 
fishermen.

>would have saved it.  Care to repost?  

Unfortunately I don't save these things either.  :)

In a nutshell, the sensation of suffocation you feel is due to
carbon dioxide buildup in your lungs.  If someone were to remove
all the oxygen in the air, you would die never feeling a thing.
If there is enough oxygen but the CO2 concentration is high (like
on submarines), the air is "stale" and you feel short of breath
and anxious/panicky.  For that matter, all you have to do is
breathe to get rid of the suffocation sensation (but not the
axiousness) -- that's why plastic bags are so dangerous.

As far as I know, fish have no similar "suffocation" sensation.
-- 
John H. Kim
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: Von Dollen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 15:27:05 -0700

> subjects? I rest my case.

yeah you tell 'em

---

From: Craig Arfman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 21:47:35 +1300

> Catch and Release is a true act of conservation.  The gentle release of
> said fish results in far less kill ratio than taking all you catch for the
> table.

You have missed the point. A food harvesting fisher STOPS fishing after 
he has taken enough to meet his needs. Many C&R fishers who fish to 
amuse themselves by fighting fish that can't fight back, NEVER stop 
killing, they just calls it "Sport" or "Conservation". The food 
harvester, (assuming he or she is competent) would leave a lot less dead 
fish rotting on the bottom than, the C&R fanatic who is convinced he 
does no damage, and therefore need excercise no restraint.
- Craig

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Nmi Renna)
Date: 10 May 1996 13:22:43 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Craig Arfman  <[email-masked]> wrote:
[SNIP]
>does no damage, and therefore need excercise no restraint.

And I dare say this point has some merit. But let's take your 10% average
mortality on a limit of 6 fish. A C&R fisherman would have to catch 60
fish to kill as many (on average) as the food harvester, right? Know
any holes where I can catch 60 fish in a day? I don't. I usually catch
about 4 or 5. On a really good day it might be 10-15. Granted that the
dead fish in the C&R case are not eaten by the fisherman but they are no
more dead than the ones that become human food. If you could get past
the convenient catch phrases and diatribe you might be able to see that,
while there may be some theoretical world where C&R fishermen are hauling in
fish so fast that they actually kill more fish than those who keep all
they catch, in practice this is rarely the case.

The only exceptions I can think of, in which the catch could reach such
high numbers, are those where schools of hungry fish are encountered.
These are usually in deep sea applications (or sometimes surf) and, as far
as I know there is little C&R going on there.

>- Craig

Christopher Renna

---

From: [email-masked](brett rowley)
Date: 11 May 1996 02:31:54 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Chris Nmi
>as I know there is little C&R going on there.
Christopher,
Your logic is impeccable.  However, I work at a place where catching 60
fish in a day's fishing is not an unusual occurrence.  Granted, it is a
privately owned and managed sport fishery, and not the usual type.  If
we experienced anything near to 10% mortality, then we would quickly
run out of fish for the many fishermen we get.  On the contrary, I must
go electrofishing to try and thin the bass population as there are too
many to economically keep fed.  As best as I can tell, our C&R
mortalities are less than 1%.  As many as 1500 fish are caught and
released in a typical weekend and I seldom see any dead fish, on the
surface, or the bottom (shallow and gin clear water).  We do teach our
fishermen the proper techniques for handling our fish and restrict gear
to our specs.  The fish population is managed for quick recovery from
fishing pressure by supplemental feeding after each fishing group
leaves.  This keeps the fish fat, healthy, and unwary.  I see our fish
as a resource to be managed for its value in the pursuit of sport, not
as a resource to be consumed.  The fish are bred to be cuaght by
careful selective breeding and also bred for strength, durability,
rapid growth, large size, etc.  Since becoming a biologist nearly
twenty years ago, and a fish culturist, I have learned how truly
valuable a fish such as a bass is.  Its value is on the line, not in
the skillet.  It takes over ten pounds of live fish to grow a bass one
pound.  This makes bass an expensive resource to be conserved, rather
than consumed.  That is why I work to see to it that they are indeed
conserved and properly cared for.  Thanks for your support,

Brett Rowley
Fisheries Biologist
Great Lakes Sportfishing Resort and Koi Breeding Farm
West Columbia, Texas

http://home.cdsnet.net/~dearlix/index.html

---

From: [email-masked] (John H. Kim)
Date: 11 May 1996 13:52:00 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Chris Nmi Renna <[email-masked]> wrote:
>about 4 or 5. On a really good day it might be 10-15.

It's not exactly that simple.  You're assuming C&R and C&K fisherman
are equal and interchangable.  They're not.  Every C&R fisherman will
not become a C&K fisherman, nor will every C&K fisherman become a C&R
fisherman (the counterargument is that the C&K fisherman will switch
to C&R after catching his limit - which also isn't always true).  Also,
I suspect the number of C&R fishermen is greater than the number of C&K
fishermen.

That is, take the marlin fishery where (in California) the limit is two
fish, and maybe 70%-90% of the fishery is C&R.  It's easily conceivable
that the C&R population kills more fish than the C&K population.  If the
fishery were to be made C&K-only, many of the C&R folks might give it
up altogether because of all the marlin they would end up killing.  The
point being that they're already killing marlin via C&R, they just don't
know it -- a C&K-only policy makes them acutely aware of their impact on
the fishery.

However...

>they catch, in practice this is rarely the case.

I agree, it's rarely the case.  It's just an unusual exception that's
irresistable to bring up when someone says that C&R always kills fewer
fish than C&K.  :)

-- 
John H. Kim            There are only two industries that call their
[email-masked]          customers 'users,' and one of them is illegal.
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Brian L Costlow)
Date: 14 May 1996 12:55:52 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Robert Bender <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I bet the dink eats beef & pork too. Maybe this person should go see them 
> butcher pigs that is cruel, but also I do not do it so the ham tastes 
> just fine to me.

This raises an interesting point. I think *more* people should have to
kill their own food on occasion. It would make a lot of the meat-eating
anti-fishing&hunting crowd think twice before they condemn us.

It would also teach people some respect for where there food comes from
and teach them a little about real life.

Slightly off topic, but I am reminded of a radio bit I heard last Thanksgiving.
I was riding in a cab to O'Hare in Chicago. Some Howard Stern imitator
was replaying a segment where his studio assistant went to a turkey farm and
was supposed to kill a turkey. The young lady went hysterical, refused to do it,
then was nearly physically ill when someone else did it for her.

I remember thinking--her grandma, who understood something of the relationship
between the land, the plants, and the animals (including us), and who probably
lived through the depression, would probably have happily killed turkeys all day
just to take a few home.

But the young lady, raised on a diet of shrink-wrapped ground beef and Walt
Disney movies, now believes the taking of animal life to be evil, and not
just a part of nature. We have raised an entire generation in which the majority
of people think like this young lady.

Folks, there is no point in arguing over the 'pain' fish feel, when our rabid
consumption of water tables and gross pollution of what's left is ruining
not just sport fishing in some areas, but ruining ecological systems.

So if you really want to make a differnce, fight pollution, and not fishing.
Understand and accept where you fit into the food chain. Catching and
eating a fish is no more morally repugnant than picking blackberries. Of
course I catch and release, but not by choice, I release when the good of
the fishery requires it, and usually that's the case when the fishery has
been damaged by something
other than sport fishing.

Brian
"Who can't eat fish from the nearby Ohio river due to toxic dioxin levels, even
though the river is cleaner that it's been his whole life"
"Who thinks ham tastes best when you raised, slaughtered, butchered, and
smoked it yourself"
Costlow