FISHING AND CRUELTY

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21707, 14 February 1936, Page 14

FISHING AND CRUELTY

TWO POINTS 0? VIEW

THE ANGLER AND HIS CRITICS

I„■ ■ ■ r ■■> l/• - L,. ■. MAN, THE TROUT, THE BULLY, AND LESSER CREATURES

“We like to think that man has reached a higher, plane of civilisation, and because dumb animals may at times be. cruel to each other there is no reason why man should be crtiei to them.” , ■ “My -view is-that all this talk about cruelty in fishing is all bunkum.” These diametrically opposed views were expressed to “The Press” yesterday when a reporter, sought the opinions of fishermen and others on the controversy in which Mr Zahe Grey features, in. .Australia, The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has very fixed views, and anglers are equally definite, “Fishing for food is all right,” said Mr H, P. Bridge, president of the Canterbury Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, “but, like the killing of any other animal for food, - the method employed should be the most humane and scientific known to man. The infliction of pain to animals and fish for the thrill and enjoyment, I j thiid& is’, to. be, condemned, for I cannot conceive anyone obtaining pleasure from the mere sport of killing. It is true that we have to observe the laws of natural increase and to preserve the balance of living between animals, fish, and human beings, but, again I think that such law• should be prosecuted in the most kindly way. “The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is particularly concerned about the quality of the fishing tackle used in deep-sea fishing, for, if it is reliably informed, much of the tackle is of an exceptionally barbarous and brutal character. It is reported that the insides of fish are often drawn through their mouths, and I, personally,” said Mr Bridges, “cannot conceive of anybody looking upon such treatment undisturbed m ms finer feelings. s “As to trout and salmon fishing the society as an organisation has no quarrel with the practice, provided again that the results are for food. In this activity, or sport, II you would like to term, it such, the society thinks that the fish should be landed in the quickest and best manner and that they should be killed as soon as possible. Correction by Society ‘The society feels that there are so many instances of wanton cruelty that for the moment its efforts should be directed more to correction in this field, because it realises that to a certain extent the public, or a large part of it, is not fully educated to the point to which the members of the society themselves feel that they are. The efforts of the society are directed to Win progressively the goodwill of the people in the treatment of animals and fish. The society thinks it would be a mistake to press for the abolition of the lighter forms of cruelty and so alienate the support of many people who do not go quite as far as we do in our views. “We are absolutely opposed to the use of live bait in the sport of fishing, as we believe this to be quite unnecessary, .and there would appear to be a want in the mental make-up of those who do use live bait. , . “A recent correspondent of ‘The Press’ thinks that because one fish preys on another that constitutes good reason why man should be equally cruel and ruthless in fishing, but we like to think that man has reached a higher plane of civilisation, and because dumb creatures may at tmies.be cruel to each, other there is no reason why man should be cruel to them. It would be logical to claim that man had a right to torment a murderer,” concluded Mr Bridge, “but thank goodness we have passed the stage where human., beings were Illtreated in that way.” An Angler’s Arguments Definite views were expressed by Mr Edgar Stead, an enthusiastic angler and one of the Dominion’s best-known natural history authorities, ‘The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ought to consider that every trout I kill is saving a number of bullies from a somewhat sticky end,” said Mr Stead. “They would otherwise be chewed up in .the mouth of the fish or they would be swallowed whole, to achieve death by suffocation in the gastric juices of the fish,” The killing of a trout saved hundreds of bullies, he added, and what was the difference between a man killing a trout and a trout killing the bullies? The trout kept the bullies in check, the bullies kept the creatures bn which they fed in check, those creatures kept smaller creatures in check, and so ad infinitum. Other fishermen said that fish had been caught with other hooks embedded in their mouths, showing that they suffered no pain from them. -