I am watching a show on Netflix called Fishpeople. It’s well made and has a very pro spear fishing segment. It is also supported by Patagonia.

Also in 10 minutes the spear fishing segment lays out an excellent case for hunting.

https://www.netflix.com/title/80196139

I am always surprised at my animal rights friends who have no issues eating fish. They never realize how bloody fishing decks get.

We hunters should demand/ expect/ get the same respect that spear fishermen get from society. It’s the same thing except hunting is a lot easier.

Mike

Fish don't scream, plus, girls don't find them cuddly!

quote:

Originally posted by lee440:
Fish don't scream, plus, girls don't find them cuddly!

Yeah and fish are slimy.

Not so fast, gents.
PETA has publically called out the town of Fishkill, New York, to change its name!
Cal

True, fish get no respect at all from the anti-humans [not a typo].

Just another example of how irrational our enemies are.

PETA wanted to change the the word "Fish" to "Sea Kittens"

Oh, they're "out there", and in more ways than one.

Here's an interesting read Mike.

Fish Have Feelings. Does That Mean We're Torturing Them?

Inside the weirdly deep, surprisingly fraught field of fish pain

By: David Ferry, Outsideonline(dot)com

August 17, 2016

Ask any experienced angler about their favorite part of fly-fishing, and you’re liable to get a single reply: the fight. To set your hook in a trout’s lip is to invite an arm-wrestling match against a subaquatic bowling pin made of primal rage. It’s why many of us fish.

In the midst of that adrenaline rush, it’s safe to say that few pause to wonder what it must feel like to be on the other end of the line, struggling against the tug of a metal hook impaled through your lip. Does it hurt? Do the creatures suffer when they begin to asphyxiate as they’re held out of water for the requisite photo?

These are the questions Brian Key sought to answer earlier this year. In a commentary for a new academic journal called Animal Sentience, the developmental neurobiology professor at the University of Queensland determined that fish lack the brain structure required for feeling pain. “What then do noxious stimuli”—that is, painful events, like getting pierced with a hook—“feel like to a fish? The evidence best supports the idea that they don’t feel like anything to a fish.”

Key’s line—the same one grandfathers have told kids casting into lakes for generations—may have seemed innocuous, but the opinion set the sleepy field of ichthyology, or fish zoology, on fire. His paper struck a nerve with animal pain researchers, garnering more than 40 formal responses from academics around the world—and all but three disagreed with Key’s assertions. One respondent compared Key’s argument to “a ramshackle structure gaping with holes and pieced together from imperfectly understood neuroscience and often faulty literature citations.”

“People got very upset, and some of the commentaries were not kind,” says Culum Brown, a behavioral ecologist who studies fish at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. “The broad consensus from the scientific community is that fish most likely feel pain, and it is time governments display courage enough to act,” Brown wrote.

The backlash shouldn’t surprise. In the past decade, researchers have produced a steady stream of evidence suggesting that fish do indeed feel pain. They’ve shown that the animals have pain receptors in their brains, learn to avoid painful situations, and show signs of stress when confined in uncomfortable spaces. But actually proving what fish feel is nearly impossible. All scientists can do is poke or prod or shock them and observe their responses.

Assuming the overwhelming majority of researchers are right, the finding presents the millions of discerning catch-and-release recreationists and hundreds of millions of fish eaters around the world with a moral quandary: How much pain is too much for us to bear?

The answer could have real-world policy effects on the fishing industry, which pulls in between 1.7 and 3 trillion fish each year. Animal rights groups, such as PETA, argue that the haul amounts to animal cruelty. Closer to home, what does this mean for the piscavores of the world? Is there a pain-dependent case for choosing chicken or beef, which can be humanely raised and slaughtered, over fish? And what about the millions of us who find solace casting into the riffles of a deserted stream? Is sportfishing—or even catch-and-release fly-fishing—“animal abuse” and “torture,” as fish advocate Mary Finelli claims?

Continued here: https://www.outsideonline.com/...-were-torturing-them

I am leaning towards just getting a bite. Maybe lures with no hooks is the future.

Mike

Because fish aren't cute/cuddly, or 'iconic' like elephant and lion.

If they ever manage to get hunting banned, they will come after fishing full force.

Ultimately, these are 'full totalitarian rule' type people. Which is why environmentalists are like watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the inside!

quote:

If they ever manage to get hunting banned, they will come after fishing full force.

Thatv is about the size of it.

Because if they go fire fish as well, they have nothing to eat!

Meat eating hunters = very intelligent.
Meat eaters = intelligent
Fish eaters = less intelligent
Vegetarians = no intelligence!