Talk:Angling

August 2005

Some of this stuff should be looked at, particularly the bodies of text advocating against using certain live baits, using circle/barbless hooks, and practicing catch-and-release. The way it worded makes it seem like a disguised soapbox rant directed in second-person. I happen to agree with it for the most part, but that isn't what Wikipedia is for. Not to mention the catch and release section is structured terribly. I may reword them myself...

This topic contains material previously in the fishing article - before I rewrote it!

I don't think this angling article is ideal, I will leave to others who know the subject better to sort it out.

Possibly should be merged with Sport fishing.

Gaius Cornelius 22:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Completed

I just now completed a major revision of this article from two different IPs. As a fishery scientist, I feel it's NPOV, but that's not to say that it couldn't stand some improvement. In any case, how do people feel about removing the "Expert" designation from this article?

It is now looking very much better and I think it would be appropriate to remove the expert attention template. Gaius Cornelius 17:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There's a bit in the 'Artificial Baits' section I don't understand. "A common way to fish a soft plastic worm is the Texas Rig". It doesn't make sense but I'm confused so I don't know what to do. RandomGoldfish (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Blood sport

Following the same reasoning as can be found in the Fishing discussion page, I move for the removal of the blood sport tag from this article. — Dave 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Angling is simply a method of fishing. Angling can be used for food, subsistence or commercial fishing and is not synonymous with sport. Although I agree that sport and recreational fishing are blood sports, angling is a larger term which is not, necessarily, a sport. — Dave 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Fish pain research

In the interest of balance regarding current fish pain thinking, I have added reference and a link to Prof James Roses' research regarding fish brain structures and the effect these have on the possibility of fish experiencing pain in the same way as humans. I think this reference is appropriate and balances the others which are negative toward angling--Jonathan shields 08:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Fish pain research

It seems completely appropriate for this article to note that "angling" has been criticized by animal rights activists for cruelty, but physiological detail about whether or not fish feel pain seems misplaced in this article. That information is useful, but it's information about fish -- not fishing (or angling).YeahIKnow 00:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fish pain

I agree. The removal of all the external links on fish pain has cut away unnecessary detail I think. If Sneddons' research is cited though, I think Roses'should be too. All to often Sneddons research is quoted as "proof" this fish feel pain as humans do while any suggestions to the contrary are ignored. Jonathan shields 13:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely.SAFTAG 17:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Sport fishing

After looking at the two articles, it seems to be that they could easily be merged together as they cover the same subjects. Radagast83 20:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I chose actually to merge Sport fishing into Fishing for the time being. See the talk page there for more info. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's take out the silly bits

1) The debate about "pain" has no real relevance to what should otherwise be a factual account of angling.

2) The instructive matter on how to "xyz", likewise is a distraction and should go somewhere else.

I'm not game to do such a large edit so I'll leave it up for discussion. SAFTAG 17:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the whole C&R bit should be removed as it is duplicated almost verbatim in it's own section.SAFTAG 17:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Do fish feel pain?

I've just reverted some interesting argument by 137.166.4.130 regarding whether fish feel pain when hooked. It sounds only marginally reasonable to me, and I'd like to see a few references before putting up a strong statement to the effect that fish don't feel pain when hooked into the article.--inks 00:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Until we learn to speak with fish, it is in the strictest sense impossible to say for certain whether hooked fish feel pain. Comparisons of nerves, brain function etc will only ever allow educated guesses. In this situation, a bit of common sense goes a long way. As a fishermen, I see what fish feed on; some very nasty, spikey stuff like little fish, crayfish, coral, etc... I've also seen a number of fish get hooked on a lure, get off, and turn around and eat it again. Not likely behaviour if being hooked caused pain. Years of observing fish also show they fight when they feel the pull of the line, NOT when they are hooked, and NOT because the hook causes them pain. Common sense suggests that fish DO have tough insensitive mouths, that fish WOULN'T be able to feed otherwise, and that a hook in their mouths DOESN'T cause pain. Codman 04:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

We should really remove this debate from wikipedia as it doesn't really present any FACTS relevant to angling. Personally, I find this critique to be worth reading [1]

Here's a vote to keep the pain stuff. Trying to find information on that very subject was my reason for coming to this page - and if not here, where?

Without knowing exactly what proportion of the populace are anglers, I'd still wager that at least as many people are interested in the issue of suffering as there are people interested in fishing.

On the specific point, Rose's critique of the Sneddon article seems to be predicated on a narrow, anthropocentric and rather disingenuous view of what pain is. Rose maintains that fish don't have the neural structures to feel pain as we do, ergo they don't feel pain. This is solipsistic bollocks: fish - according to the research - have nociceptor responses that can produce an analogue of something that, in us, would be called pain. And if they receive enough of that stimulus, it will presumably cause them stress as it does in other animals. It's an evolutionary adaptation that preserves tissue from damage, and it doesn't start in amphibians. If fish didn't have such neural structures, they would do what human lepers and other animals with damaged nerves do to their flesh: wear it away on rocks.

Whether we should care about the pain of a fish is the real issue. Do we consider pulling the wings off a fly a bad thing? That's a separate argument, but to try to side-step it by pretending that fish are somehow unique, nerveless freaks is a weaselly cop-out.

--Cdavis999 (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole Criticism section is pretty short and well-referenced. I recall when this was being edited and it took awhile to achieve some balance. I think it adds to the angling article and should stay. Bob98133 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This section is fine: balanced, succinct, well cited, and relevant to the topic. Just because we don't really know doesn't mean this is not a legitimate topic, and it is a topic that interests many people. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether or not fish can feel pain should be in the general "fish" article. This is a biological question, directly pertaining to the physiology of fish. People will come to this article looking for information on angling, not physiology of a fish's biological capabilities. 205.172.134.23 (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 05/01/2009

Yes, I think you have a point, and I have inserted a section in fish. However, it is particularly of concern to many anglers, so I think something here is relevant as well. It's difficult to pinpoint where it should be. There could equally be a section on pain in the fishing article. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep the section - for reasons cited above by Geronimo and others. Bob98133 (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I recommend moving this seciton to the Wiki "Pain" article, under the already existing "In other species" section. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain>

Or the "Fish" article, where it would be much more relevant information on an article all about fish, rather than just angling.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish> 205.172.134.23 (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 05/01/2009

Hmmm, yes. I've added some stuff on pain in both fish and lobsters to the article on pain. Now maybe it is spread around a tad too much? --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A recent edit to remove this section disregards existing discussion. I agree with rvt. Bob98133 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Under the 'do fish feel pain' section: "These test have also been criticised as hypocritical in that they themselves cause apparent distress to fish."

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Whoever thinks this is ignorant of the scientific process. You're a moron if you respond to scientific tests by attacking the 'hypocrisy' of the tester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.110.235 (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sunfish

Can somebody in the know disambiguate the link to Sunfish? I don't know enough to do it myself.

OK, good point. I'll get on it.

fishermen/fishers

Fishers is used almost exclusively by media in Canada. Fisherman falls into that category of plural nouns that have assumed masculine gender through usage but are objected to since they exclude women. While spokesman, chairman, anchorman, etc. are still in wide usage, spokesperson, chairperson, news anchor, and other non-gender specific terms are becoming more common usage. Fishing and hunting organization have been trying to appeal more to women. I think that part of this should be to use a gender-neutral term to describe one who participates in the activity, so I think that "fisherman" should be replaced with "fisher" wherever it appears inthe article (perhaps with a short note explaining why). Bob98133 (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue needs wider input and there is further a discussion at WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

keeping the catch

I have again removed this section as pointless and unreferenced. It is clear from the link to the fishing article that anglers catch fish with the intent of keeping them for whatever reasons. If not, the catch and release section would make no sense since it might be the primary reason for fishing. Unless there are references about the percentage/number of anglers who consume fish as opposed to releasing them, or documentation that these anglers actually eat the fish, this section is of no value. Bob98133 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been slow removing the section because of the bit about people near or below the poverty line. Worldwide, it is a major aspect of angling, but maybe you are right to remove it. It applies to what is more accurately called sustenance fishing (for survival), and not recreational fishing, though I guess there is a bit of a grey area where they overlap somewhat. There is an article called artisan fishing, where there is much more overlap. For example, there are a lot of recreational fishers in Russia, but when times are tough, a lot of the recreational fishing becomes sustenance fishing as well. Recreational fishing had its origins in sustenance fishing. There may be a case for a separate article on sustenance fishing, since it is not quite the same as artisan fishing. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I may be wrong, but angling to me implies recreational fishing, not sustenance fishing. As such, it relies on lots of equipment, such as rods or reels. Even though fish caught this way may be used for sustenance, I think that most sustenance fishing attempts to be more efficient than angling, such as through the use of nets. Bob98133 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Angling basically means fishing with an "angle", ie, a hook. You are still angling if you use a handline and hook without a rod. In the context of commercial and artisan fisheries the term line fishing is usually used, instead of "angling". Line fishing techniques have always been used commercially and artisanally (though netting is more widely used). Today, large industrial level line fishing vessels are purpose built so they can operate equipment for pole and line fishing or trolling for tuna and billfish, longline fishing for all kinds of fish, and even jigging for cod and squid. These are all commercial angling techniques. This article, though it is called just "angling", is really about recreational angling. Perhaps it could be renamed "Recreational angling".--Geronimo20 (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I surrender, Geronimo! You know far more about this than I do. My initial objection was to the pointless section, but I missed that aspect of sustenance fishing. By the way, is the word angling used more in UK, Australia or other parts of the world? I live in the US where the word fishing is almost always used to mean angling. I associate angling with British usage, not that it changes anything about the article. I would support the change to "Recreational angling" which might be more clear. Bob98133 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely the term is used more often in British countries, but it is still used quite a lot in the US, as is shown here --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Motivation

I like the "Motivations" section. Interesting stuff. However, the last sentence, "Use as food was not cited as a motivation for angling", is a little assuming. If people cite "catching a lot of fish" or "catching a big fish" as motivations for fishing...why do you think they want to catch a lot or a big fish?

Mounting a fish on on a wall is also not listed as a motivation for fishing, but people do that. It would be kind of silly to list every action that is not specifically listed in that particular study.

I don't like that this page is being dominated by 2 users. I'm sorry the section I added was not well referenced. Most of wikipedia is not well referenced, and that's not really a reason to remove those sections.

I am learning how to reference. This page should be editted by experts in the field (i.e., people who fish). I know that fishing for food is a major motivation for fishers. I am out there all the time, and I see it first hand. This fact deserves to be properly represented in this article that is for the public. This article exists to present facts.

I am going to take my time and write up a new section for this article. It will be well referenced and fair. It will probably take me a while. I would appreciate fair consideration for its inclusion once it is completed.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.134.23 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. More editors are always needed - but aren't you the editor who just blanked the page and replaced it with:== FISH FLESH GIVE IT TO ME RAW AND WRIGLING!!! == ? What was that about? And "wriggling" needs another g.

I agree with you that the sentence about fishing for food not being mentioned could be removed. I think I put that in there since I was redoing "Keeping the catch" which was about food use.

I think you might misunderstand the referencing process in Wiki. It is always great when an expert participates in editing, but that certainly isn't a requirement. I'm certainly no expert on fishing but if I see something that I think is wrong in an article, I do know how to do research and find references. Sometimes the research disproves what I think is right, but even so, I just add the reference to the article so the next person who is curious can click to the source. If I find new things, I add them with references. I end up learning about things I'm interested in that way.

Wiki has a few pages about formatting refs and looking at properly formatted refs in existing articles is also helpful to learn how to do them. Have fun. Bob98133 (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm kind of new to wiki editting as you can tell, so I appreciate it.

Oh yeah, and that weird edit was a co-worker...I guess its a quote from Lord of the Rings or something... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.134.23 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tagging

The 'capacity for pain' section has been tagged for NPOV because it contains solely evidence and arguments that support the notion that fish feel pain. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 05:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the NPOV tag, but I think that adding referenced material from those who disagree would make it stronger. On the other hand, it seems obvious that any animal with a nervous system that avoids, and learns to avoid, painful stimuli is responding in a consistent way to these stimuli. Pain would be considered as the stimulus for the same type of reactions by humans, so I don't see this as a great leap of faith. Bob98133 (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Pain is a subjective experience, and there are serious arguments that it requires a central nervous system of a certain complexity to experience it: namely that the brain centers which experience pain evolved with reptiles and also exist in mammals and birds. Without any representation of that the section has a POV problem. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The most serious of the arguments you mention is put forth by avid trout fisherman and scientist James Rose. He claims that fish lack the intellectual capacity to recognize and conceptualize pain. Dozens of other scientists refute this with physiological evidence that fish possess pain receptors and retreat from painful stimuli; so the argument isn't whether fish experience pain but whether they identify it as pain which Rose believes is essential to calling it pain. Similar arguments against animal emotions, use of language, tools, etc, have been refuted in similar ways. It's a rather shallow, self-centered argument, but properly referenced it could be included. Bob98133 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit to this section and given a direction to a new article, Pain in fish, for further information. Does this meet POV concerns? --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with addition of the Rose material, as I said above. The text definitely leans towards saying that fish can feel pain, but I think that at this point, a respectable majority of scientists concur. The addition of Grandin's comment is also warranted since she is known for an overview of animal perception. Good job, Geronimo. I think the POV concerns have been addressed and the tag can be removed. Bob98133 (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All right then. _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark^{bugs and goblins} 21:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

New content - references

Epipelagic - it is my understanding that an editor entering new content is responsible for supplying a reference. Thanks for supplying one. I wasn't interested in supplying a reference since, in this case, I am OK either without the content, or with referenced content. Bob98133 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)