Hunting for Sport vs. Hunting for Food
As I mentioned in a previous post, I was chagrined to learn that most New England fly-fisherman preach the code of catch-and-release. Now, I have been practicing catch and release ninety per cent of the time as a bass fisherman, but I always kept one or two for breakfast. I also go hunting two or three times a year, and I always eat everything I kill. My stance is, take one or two mature animals that have had a chance to breed, and leave the youngsters be.
I don't want to address in detail all the various arguments for and against hunting and fishing, but I well mention three common ones. The "hunting is cruel" argument is a losing one if you purchase mass-produced grocery store meat, and a winning one if you forsake your incisors and become a vegetarian. That "hunters wreck the environment" doesn't hold up considering the $185M a year in license fees benefiting state conservation efforts, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act that puts 11% of guns and ammo purchases back into conservation, and the uncounted millions of charitable dollars donated by sportsmen who want to see habitat protected. Finally, the argument that "hunters are all drunk republican gun nuts" is loony. You're looking at one who is none of the three, and there are many more like me.
Now that that's out of the way, I want to address an important question brought to my attention by Blake: is catch-and-release cruel?
This is an argument I'd never heard before, because catch-and-release has always been beyond reproach. But basically it goes like this: C&R causes enormous stress to fish. In the case of trout, you can often kill a fish by playing it too long. Thus if you are there to harvest fish to replace what you would eat from the grocery store, take what you need and get out of the water. If you are fishing purely for sport, then find a new hobby.
What a concept. Thank you, Blake, for that mind-expanding query. It is one that seems aimed directly at the most hallowed of sportsmen: the New England fly-fisherman.
I'd like to begin by saying that the eat-or-go-home stance would take a lot of people out of the sport, thereby reducing some of the economic benefits laid out above. I could also add that one expert fly-fisherman can fish out a stream and harvest all the mature fish. This would hurt the breeding population and ultimately keep others from fishing the river and caring about the habitat.
"But so what?" you say. At least the fisherman won't be stressing all those fish. But what about the children? How many four-year-olds have experienced the supreme joy of catching a 3-inch sunfish on a worm? I certainly did, and it may have made a lifetime outdoorsman out of me.
Second, is it better for a population of fish to die a long slow death due to pollution, rather than experience some stress from sportsmen? Trout are famously pollutant-intolerable, and only through the results of conservationists and fisherman are those rivers being cleaned.
Furthermore, in Adirondack lakes, the effects of acid rain out of the midwest have brought mercury levels in fish to a nearly inedible level. If you can't eat the fish because of mercury, and you can't fish for sport, then no one will be fishing. And no one will be caring about the existence of those fish populations.
In conclusion, I respect any hunter or fisherman who only takes what he will eat and makes a positive benefit on the habitat and game population. And doesn't leave his game to rot in the freezer -- for nothing is more shameful than that.
There ends my argument, but feel free to carry on the debate in my comments section. I'll be shopping on www.flyshack.com for some of the flies I lost last weekend.
I don't want to address in detail all the various arguments for and against hunting and fishing, but I well mention three common ones. The "hunting is cruel" argument is a losing one if you purchase mass-produced grocery store meat, and a winning one if you forsake your incisors and become a vegetarian. That "hunters wreck the environment" doesn't hold up considering the $185M a year in license fees benefiting state conservation efforts, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act that puts 11% of guns and ammo purchases back into conservation, and the uncounted millions of charitable dollars donated by sportsmen who want to see habitat protected. Finally, the argument that "hunters are all drunk republican gun nuts" is loony. You're looking at one who is none of the three, and there are many more like me.
Now that that's out of the way, I want to address an important question brought to my attention by Blake: is catch-and-release cruel?
This is an argument I'd never heard before, because catch-and-release has always been beyond reproach. But basically it goes like this: C&R causes enormous stress to fish. In the case of trout, you can often kill a fish by playing it too long. Thus if you are there to harvest fish to replace what you would eat from the grocery store, take what you need and get out of the water. If you are fishing purely for sport, then find a new hobby.
What a concept. Thank you, Blake, for that mind-expanding query. It is one that seems aimed directly at the most hallowed of sportsmen: the New England fly-fisherman.
I'd like to begin by saying that the eat-or-go-home stance would take a lot of people out of the sport, thereby reducing some of the economic benefits laid out above. I could also add that one expert fly-fisherman can fish out a stream and harvest all the mature fish. This would hurt the breeding population and ultimately keep others from fishing the river and caring about the habitat.
"But so what?" you say. At least the fisherman won't be stressing all those fish. But what about the children? How many four-year-olds have experienced the supreme joy of catching a 3-inch sunfish on a worm? I certainly did, and it may have made a lifetime outdoorsman out of me.
Second, is it better for a population of fish to die a long slow death due to pollution, rather than experience some stress from sportsmen? Trout are famously pollutant-intolerable, and only through the results of conservationists and fisherman are those rivers being cleaned.
Furthermore, in Adirondack lakes, the effects of acid rain out of the midwest have brought mercury levels in fish to a nearly inedible level. If you can't eat the fish because of mercury, and you can't fish for sport, then no one will be fishing. And no one will be caring about the existence of those fish populations.
In conclusion, I respect any hunter or fisherman who only takes what he will eat and makes a positive benefit on the habitat and game population. And doesn't leave his game to rot in the freezer -- for nothing is more shameful than that.
There ends my argument, but feel free to carry on the debate in my comments section. I'll be shopping on www.flyshack.com for some of the flies I lost last weekend.
posted by Porterman at 7:38 AM
1 Comments:
Thanks for promoting this ethical structure, which I surely didn't pioneer. This past weekend I did some fishing for the first time since I was about seven, and I thought about this matter quite a bit. Before I share my little story, let me clarify my position:
1. Torturing your dog is considered immoral. I guess that makes sense, although Porterman could debate that point. Let's just assume that it's wrong to torture animals, including fish.
2. I have a hard time understanding how fishing and hunting can be considered a sport. Putting a human with the latest human-developed technology against an animal with almost no intelligence doesn't seem like a fair fight. Does it impress anyone that we can outsmart fish and deer? If deer had guns and fish had hooks, it might be interesting. Sure, it's fun to be outdoors gathering food, but there is no sport.
3. If you are trying to catch a large fish and you get one that is too small, no problem. You accidently caught an animal that was harvested early, so you throw it back. That's fine. If it swallowed the hook and is going to die, don't throw it back.
4. Collecting bait is also acceptable. If you pick up a worm and smash it to death, that is wrong. If you put it on a hook and eat the fish you catch, the worm served a purpose.
So I was down on the Vineyard this past weekend, where some of my girlfriend's family was participating in the famous fishing derby they have there. They were returning with 30lb striped bass and 15lb bluefish. At the derby, what you can't use you can donate to elderly residents on the island! They grilled the fillets, and I took the heads and racks and made fish chowder. We used every part of the fish, less entrails, for food. I was proud to be using every part of the animal possible. These animals were treated with the most respect possible. Still, I was more interested in the beach than fishing, so I didn't spend a lot of time holding a rod. Moral analysis: fishing can be competitive without wasting life.
One evening I went to the derby weigh-in on the docks, and we spent some time squidding. Somehow, I was the only one to catch any squid, and I got two. Once they were in the bucket, my girlfriend's uncle pointed out how the squid changed color as they died. (Incidentally, the first one I hauled up went flying behind me, landing on the hood of a nearby SUV and leaving a nasty ink splash. The other inked me and others in the face.) I was happy to let them die, but we added water into the bucket instead. Were we only delaying the inevitable?
So there's another question: when do you kill your prey? Immediately? If so, they might not be as fresh. On the other hand, you don't want the animal to be too stressed. I waited with the squid until we got home, and I rinsed them in fresh water and threw them in the fridge. When I rinsed them, they put on quite a light show, and I have to admit I prolonged the washing to check them out. Perhaps it would have been better if I cleaned them on the dock?
I saw some guy fishing for chub -- a bait fish. Every time he hauled one in, he immediately slammed it into the pier to kill it. Although it looked horrible, he was putting the fish out of their misery.
Anyhow, now that I've had grilled fresh-caught bluefish, there is no doubt in my mind that fishing is the way to go. However, it's dinner, not sport.
Post a Comment
<< Home