FishProfiles.com Message Forums

As we all know, some environmental groups are calling for sport fishing to be eliminated. A biological opinion is a scientific study that attempts to predict accurately how human activities in or near a river, such as fishing and dam operations, would affect species in danger of extinction. Federal permits for activities that could harm protected species are based on those opinions.

Do you believe that sport fishing should be eliminated? Why or why not?

I say no.

because most pools, rivers etc where sport fishing takes place are well looked after and paid for by the fishermen, if fishing was banned these areas would be left to 'rot' which could be more harmful to the fish in the long run.

www.blooming-brilliant.co.uk

I don't think it should be eliminated...it's a big market, you can't really just eliminate it. And even so...I think that it need not be eliminated, but rather precautions set up. If something drastic is happening, take, coral reefs being harmed for example, then I'd say something needs to be done...

I don't really understand the question.


[hr width='40%'][font color="#000080"]
Life’s tough,
Get a helmet.
[/font]

-Formerly known as the Ferretfish

I also vote No.

I think that much good comes from sport fishing both economically and environmentally. There are many bad examples out there but guys like me have a bit of a hate in our heart for the people that do not have the respect for our natural land and water areas that they deserve.

55G Planted tank thread
19G Container Pond
[IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/Wingsdlc/Ric

First of all, I vote "No"

So, you're basically asking if sport fishing should be banned for the good of endangered species, right? Sport fishing makes an amazingly negligable impact on fish stocks. If you want to protect certain species then I suggest you ban commercial trawlers in the oceans, those are the guys that make the biggest impact on fish stocks. Blackfish, seabass, striped bass, sand eels, bluefish, fluke, flounder - these are just a handful of species that have been heavily impacted by commercial trawling on the Atlantic coast. Add to that cod in the North Atlantic, salmon in the Pacific - the list goes on. Sport fishing couldn't make a dent in those stocks, but new, efficient and, as it turns out, devestating methods of commercial fishing have SERIOUSLY depleted them. But no one's going to ban commercial vessels or limit the ways they fish, because that's where the majority of consumers get their fish from - and eating fish is good for you, and it's delicious. So that's not gonna happen.

Now, coral reefs are a different story. They get beat up by both large vessels AND small time fishermen. With the exception of Australia, most coral reefs tend to be around islands and land masses that are pretty poor economically, and the rule of law in a lot of these places is not very strong. You can say "protect the reefs" all you want, but around these islands in the south pacific and carribbean, it's so easy for a guy to go out in a little boat, drop a load of dynamite overboard and wait for the fish to come up. He's just feeding himself and his family, but there's really no economic means of regulating the practice - are these goverments going to spend all of their money on police to sit in boats on coral reefs 24/7? There are more pressing needs in developing areas.

I guess my point in this whole rant is, when it comes to protecting endangered species, sport fishing is the least of your worries, by far.

---

Back in the saddle!

i just went fishing for two days, and i say no, sure there are harmful things, but there area alot of people that catch and release the fish.

No.

i mean, one line with one hook? the damage that it can do is minimal.

And to be honest, sport fishing implies that they are fishing for the fight, not for food, they more often than not release the fish.

Trawlers, and the like, they should be monitored closely, in fact, any sort of netting should be.

Whaling should be banned outright.
I understand that sometimes research needs to be done, but I do think that there is a better way to research a species than killing and eating your subjects. totally OT, I know, but I figure i can slip it in here




For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

"there is a better way to research a species than killing and eating your subjects."

Understandably for whaling, but thanks to hunters we have a heck of a lot more data on waterfowl than we do on songbirds.

No, sport fishing should not be banned. The money that pays for fishing liscences, etc. goes right back into preserving the fish and their habitat.

><>

No.

Nope, one of the many things to do here in the "wilderness" of the U.P.

-Keith#2

http://www.ozarkgames.com

Enviornmental groups should turn their focus towards fish cowboying, trawling, and other such actions in which hundreds of thousands of indivdual fish are snagged by a single ship.


"yes."

Any explanation behind this, d_d, or was it just an attempt at trolling? ;]

I say no. My boyfriend and I go fishing all the time in small lakes. We catch fish and most of the time release them. Sometimes we transport them to his lake but we dont hurt the fish. Its a hobby like anything else..a sport. Most people who do fish release them afterwards.

*Kristin*

To be honest I am undecided. I have never fished other than catching what I was to eat. I personally find fishing boring do not shout at me!!

Picture the scene I walk the dogs (newfoundlands who love to swim), I get up early go to the river / lake and let them charge into the water. Throw the dummy floats for them etc just to have some git come up to me and demand I put my dogs on leads as they are scarring away the fish. Wow now hang on, they do not own the lake, they do not need a permit to fish there, but they think they are God. Why cannot we all use the lake? Any way who wants to sit on a muddy river bed in the UK in the rain for 24 hrs plus with a thermos flask and packed lunch. Just sitting reading a newspaper waiting and waiting and waiting. Nope not me I am far to energetic.

As for whether its cruel? A hook in a fishes mouth will stretch a mouth over years and years, remember other people also catch that fish. One hook does little damage repeated hooking over years must do some damage, skin can only repair so much without leaving scar tissue etc, what of the stress that fish goes under? What would you do if a child with a little hook on wire kept trying to fish your tank fish out?

Just playing devils advecote someone has to.

Like I said it does not bother me as I do not do it. But watch out fox hunting is now banned and angling is on the next hit list!!

That was a homework question wasn't it?

Anyway, I do not think it should be banned. If you're going to ban something, ban the much more destructive commercial fishing. Besides, like hunting, sport fishing can be a good way of preventing overpopulation of a certain species.

Yes, I would say, unless you are catching the fish to eat it and its not an endangered species.

I agree with the fact that even though you catch the fish and release it back, it causes stress. Hunting has been banned on lots of other animals, or atleast restricted to a great degree because it has contributed (even if not majorly) to the depleting numbers of endangered species.

Sport fishing should be eliminated.