An interesting viewpoint CBR.
To me when it comes to angling, catch and release is....unnecessary and, at best, wounds fish to no purpose. Catch and consume (whatever the initial motivation) is fine. But a strong argument can be made that anglers cleaned up the rivers more effectively than every ecologist and bleeding heart - so more power to them!
As i fish mainly in the sea the plan is the eat everything i catch, problem is the seas here in Greece are dramatically over fished, so it's tough to catch something that's big enough to eat.
I've taken smaller (still legal) fish home but by the time they're grilled and the bones removed there is barely a thumb full of meat left, so unless it's large enough for a meal i'll just return it in the hope it breeds so one day in the future i can have a decent meal out of one of it's offspring.
So long as you kill for a reason (which need not be food, eradicating vermin or other good reason is fine), then what is wrong with taking pride in a contest against a magnificent animal? If a man stalks and shoots a venerable stag, simply because it old and a high point stag, is it more cruel than to let it die of starvation over Winter or of infected wounds post rut (the normal fate of old stags)?
Red
Wrong is a tough one.
In some cultures they cook and eat insects.
Some have a culture where the offspring live with their parents well into their 30's
Some folks smoke knowing the harm it is causing to them
Legally none are wrong, but by the same token none really appeal to me either.
Legally these guys did nothing wrong.
As a fisherman i'm certainly not in a place or moral high ground to condemn them
I can see the draw of the challenge in landing a 720lb shark, a fish that's well known for putting up a fight.
I've never caught anything anywhere near as big as that, but have still enjoyed the challenge of a big fish caught of light gear, so i can understand that.
I've eaten shark and i think the statement "They also said the meat was shared among a large group of family and friends" although possibly factually correct doesn't mean most of the meat was eaten.
The meat may of been distributed but how much of the animal was thrown out?
Not that our society doesn't throw out millions and millions of tons of wasted animals each year, i just think it's a bit deceiving.
I don't see the draw in taken trophy pics though, the supposed intent is "look at how manly i am to have killed this strong dangerous creature"
The reality is the odds are stacked monumentally high for the hunter.
Don't get me wrong the guys must have put up one hell of a effort over a long time to reign that shark in, they showed tenacity, strength and determination and my hat is off to them for that.
The act of killing the shark showed none of the above though.
Ok they say that it wouldn't have survived as it was too weak.
I'm calling BS on that.
1/ What qualifies them to that opinion, was there a qualified shark expert on-board?
2/ How hard did the try to revive it, bet it wasn't anywhere near as long as it took to land it
Legal wrong is usually pretty black and white, morally wrong although a bit more blurry depending on who and where you ask is usually fairly black and white and although i support them being able to fish whatever they want within the bounds of the law, i do find a nod dishonest about their statement of the meat being used and i find the poses for the trophy pics distasteful.
That's not just this instance though it's making trophies out of animals in general.
Agreed that shark isn't on my list of favorite fish for the table; at least not knowingly. I say "knowingly" because it's not uncommon for some seafood restaurants here to stamp shark meat (or ray wings) into other shapes and pass it off as more desirable fish such as scallops. Like most coastal residents, I can tell the difference but most tourists can't.
Yes those fishermen were proud of their catch; not what I'd call "flaunting" exactly and I too have and still do keep certain specimens as trophies. So do the area conservation organizations for that matter. And yes it is a cultural thing here, but I don't think I's necessarily attribute it to suring up their "manhood" as it's just as common among women here. For that matter, would you refuse to pose once the reporters show up with cameras?
In my experience it tends to be a machismo thing which is usually males but also a smaller proportion of females.
I'm no psychologist but my guess is it's some sort of statement of dominance over an animal and a confidence boost to have the pics shown of trophies on the wall.
Please don't interpret that as me "having a go" as we all have similar things, be it photos of our travels, momentous, dangerous pets, younger partners, flashy cars etc etc etc
It's just different societies have different views on different things.
Have no problem with hunting or fishing if it's done legally and respectfully, i can understand the draw, for me personally i find using dead animals as trophies as distasteful.
so it's mainly for fun or the challenge to me, rather than sustenance.
