If you're fishing to eat, then fine... All you larat makan, you fish la.

Don't fish just for the sake of your enjoyment 'fighting' the fish... You might enjoy it. The fish don't. They're fighting for their lives.

After you defeated and landed the fish, you release it again... to fish for another day... If that's not cruel, I don't think anything is...
BRB Imma go play 'fishing' with a cat... you know, put food in the hook... entice the cat to eat that food... ah you know the drill

u belong to mars...go back..earth's not safe for folks like u.....

if u think fishing is cruel, u must be blind all these while to other 'sports'... 

What other sports?

Bull fighting? Yes it's cruel...

Cock fighting? Yup...

Same as sport fishing...

Live with it... Pipu got their own view too you know... Jangan nak sakit juboq sangat pipu call your 'sport' cruel

Which just shows ts knows nothing about catch and release.

Peeple do catch and release because they wanna give a chance for the fish to breed.  If every person brings back every fish from big to small, what would be left ? Ever heard of OVERFISHING ? Never thought of that eh?
Pikir perut je

If anglers so want to give the fish chance to breed... why not DON'T FISH AT ALL after you catch your dinner.

Catch whatever you need to eat... and then go home...

Such an irony... I put bait in hook to tempt the fish to eat the hook so that after it eats the hook I can release it back for a chance for it to breed...
jackiechan.jpg

Anglers care passionately about the protection of fish stocks and do more than any other group to protect and improve freshwater and salwater environments

Do Fish Feel Pain? Not as Humans Do, Study Suggests

Aug. 8, 2013 — Fish do not feel pain the way humans do. That is the conclusion drawn by an international team of researchers consisting of neurobiologists, behavioural ecologists and fishery scientists. One contributor to the landmark study was Prof. Dr. Robert Arlinghaus of the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries and of the Humboldt University in Berlin.

On July 13th a revised animal protection act has come into effect in Germany. But anyone who expects it to contain concrete statements regarding the handling of fish will be disappointed. Legislators seemingly had already found their answer to the fish issue. Accordingly, fish are sentient vertebrates who must be protected against cruel acts performed by humans against animals. Anyone in Germany who, without due cause, kills vertebrates or inflicts severe pain or suffering on them has to face penal consequences as well as severe fines or even prison sentences. Now, the question of whether or not fish are really able to feel pain or suffer in human terms is once again on the agenda.
A final decision would have far-reaching consequences for millions of anglers, fishers, aquarists, fish farmers and fish scientists. To this end, a research team consisting of seven people has examined all significant studies on the subject of fish pain. During their research the scientists from Europe, Canada, Australia and the USA have discovered many deficiencies. These are the authors’ main points of criticism: Fish do not have the neuro-physiological capacity for a conscious awareness of pain. In addition, behavioural reactions by fish to seemingly painful impulses were evaluated according to human criteria and were thus misinterpreted. There is still no final proof that fish can feel pain.

This is how it works for humans

To be able to understand the researchers’ criticism you first have to comprehend how pain perception works for humans. Injuries stimulate what is known as nociceptors. These receptors send electrical signals through nerve-lines and the spinal cord to the cerebral cortex (neocortex). With full awareness, this is where they are processed into a sensation of pain. However, even severe injuries do not necessarily have to result in an experience of pain. As an emotional state, pain can for example be intensified through engendering fear and it can also be mentally constructed without any tissue damage. Conversely, any stimulation of the nociceptors can be unconsciously processed without the organism having an experience of pain. This principle is used in cases such as anaesthesia. It is for this reason that pain research distinguishes between a conscious awareness of pain and an unconscious processing of impulses through nociception, the latter of which can also lead to complex hormonal reactions, behavioural responses as well as to learning avoidance reactions. Therefore, nociceptive reactions can never be equated with pain, and are thus, strictly speaking, no prerequisite for pain.

Fish are not comparable to humans in terms of anatomy and physiology

Unlike humans fish do not possess a neocortex, which is the first indicator of doubt regarding the pain awareness of fish. Furthermore, certain nerve fibres in mammals (known as c-nociceptors) have been shown to be involved in the sensation of intense experiences of pain. All primitive cartilaginous fish subject to the study, such as sharks and rays, show a complete lack of these fibres and all bony fish – which includes all common types of fish such as carp and trout – very rarely have them. In this respect, the physiological prerequisites for a conscious experience of pain are hardly developed in fish. However, bony fish certainly possess simple nociceptors and they do of course show reactions to injuries and other interventions. But it is not known whether this is perceived as pain.

There is often a lack of distinction between conscious pain and unconscious nociception

The current overview-study raises the complaint that a great majority of all published studies evaluate a fish’s reaction to a seemingly painful impulse - such as rubbing the injured body part against an object or the discontinuation of the feed intake - as an indication of pain. However, this methodology does not prove verifiably whether the reaction was due to a conscious sensation of pain or an unconscious impulse perception by means of nociception, or a combination of the two. Basically, it is very difficult to deduct underlying emotional states based on behavioural responses. Moreover, fish often show only minor or no reactions at all to interventions which would be extremely painful to us and to other mammals. Pain killers such as morphine that are effective for humans were either ineffective in fish or were only effective in astronomically high doses that, for small mammals, would have meant immediate death from shock. These findings suggest that fish either have absolutely no awareness of pain in human terms or they react completely different to pain. By and large, it is absolutely not advisable to interpret the behaviour of fish from a human perspective.

What does all this mean for those who use fish?

In legal terms it is forbidden to inflict pain, suffering or harm on animals without due cause according to §1 of the German Animal Protection Act. However, the criteria for when such acts are punishable are exclusively tied to the animal’s ability to feel pain and suffering in accordance with § 17 of the very same Act. The new study severely doubts that fish are aware of pain as defined by human terms. Therefore, it should actually no longer constitute a criminal offence if, for example, an angler releases a harvestable fish at his own discretion instead of eating it. However, at a legal and moral level, the recently published doubts regarding the awareness of pain in fish do not release anybody from their responsibility of having to justify all uses of fishes in a socially acceptable way and to minimise any form of stress and damage to the fish when interacting with it.
 

Anglers united - "We care for the fish so we put hooks in their mouth!"

it's never too late to learn..and admit ur mistake.. 

Anglers united - "We care for the fish so we put hooks in their mouth!"

nopes 

we catch and release to make sure there will always be future generations of fish species.

Give them a chance to breed. Unlike you who only thinks of your own perut.

What if you don't fish at all? You don't have to release any animal to feel mulia...

At least its an activity that brings us closer to nature. Not everyone enjoys staring at the computer 24/7

Gaaaahahahhahahahhahaha... OHWOW.0jpg

closer to nature...

Haaaaaaaaaaaaahahhahahahahhahahahahha

Hooked on a Cruel Sport
Finding gratification in the suffering of another isn't sport. It's sadism.
by Jeff Jacoby

I'm not a vegetarian. I eat meat, fish, and fowl. I don't oppose experimenting on animals when necessary for medical research. I like zoos. I have no moral objection to wearing fur or leather. I think it's okay to keep pet dogs on a leash and birds in a cage. And while I admire the work of the American Humane Association, I am no supporter of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) or its fanatic agenda.

But I do think sport fishing is cruel.

By sport fishing I mean catch-and-release fishing -- fishing for fun and adventure, not for food. I have no quarrel with the man who takes a salmon or trout out of the water and eats it for dinner, even if he greatly enjoys the taking. What appalls me is fishing for its own sake. I don't doubt that it can be thrilling to drag a fish through the water by a barbed hook in its mouth, or that there is pleasure in making it struggle frantically, or that it is exciting to force a wild creature to exhaust itself in a desperate bid to get free. I don't deny the allure of it all. But finding gratification in the suffering of another isn't sport. It's sadism.

One of PETA's billboards shows a dog with a barbed hook through its lip, and asks: "If you wouldn't do this to a dog, why do it to a fish?" PETA's analogies are frequently tasteless and morally repugnant, but this one is exactly right. No one would throw Fido a Milk-Bone with a hook hidden inside and then, when the barb had pierced his mouth and he was trying violently to shake it loose, drag him to a place where he couldn't breathe. Anyone who did such a thing would be condemned for his brutality. Is it any less brutal to do it to a fish?

Writing a few years ago in Orion, a magazine about nature and culture, essayist and avid outdoorsman Ted Kerasote opened a piece about the ethics of catch-and-release fishing with a quote from a fellow outdoorsman, "the philosopher, mountaineer, and former angler Jack Turner."
"Imagine using worms and flies to catch mountain bluebirds or pine grosbeaks," Turner told him, "or maybe eagles and ospreys, and hauling them around on 50 feet of line while they tried to get away. Then when you landed them, you'd release them. No one would tolerate that sort of thing with birds. But we will for fish because they're underwater and out of sight."

I can hear the indignant reply of countless anglers: Fish are different! Unlike dogs and birds and other advanced animals, fish don't feel pain. The hook doesn't hurt them.

But there is mounting evidence that fish do feel pain. A team of marine biologists at Edinburgh's Roslin Institute make the case in a paper just published by the Royal Society, one of Britain's leading scientific institutes. Their experiments with rainbow trout prove the presence of pain receptors in fish, and show that fish undergoing a "potentially painful experience" react with "profound behavioral and physiological changes . . . over a prolonged period comparable to those observed in higher mammals."

Other studies have demonstrated the agitated responses of fish to painful conditions, from rapid respiration to color changes to the secretion of stress hormones. Does this mean that a fish feels pain in just the way we do, or that its small brain can "understand" the painful event? No. It does mean that the ordeal of being hooked through the mouth, yanked at the end of a fishing line, and prevented from breathing each time its body leaves the water is intensely unpleasant and distressing. To put a fish through that ordeal in order to eat fresh fish is one thing. But to do it for fun?

Anglers tell themselves that catch-and-release fishing is more humane and nature-friendly than catching fish and killing them. That strikes me as a conscience-salving fib. Hurting an animal for enjoyment is never nature-friendly, even if the animal doesn't die. Sport fishing is clearly more cruel than hunting. Hunters don't torment their prey or force it to engage in frenzied combat. They aim to kill the animal, as quickly and painlessly as possible. But how many sport fisherman want a quick kill? Where's the excitement in that?

"We angle because we like the fight," Kerasote writes. "Otherwise all of us would be using hookless [flies] and not one angler in 10,000 does. The hook allows us to control and exert power over fish, over one of the most beautiful and seductive forms of nature, and then, because we're nice to the fish, releasing them 'unharmed,' we can receive both psychic dispensation and blessing. Needless to say, if you think about this relationship carefully, it's not a comforting one, for it is a game of dominance followed by cathartic pardons, which . . . is one of the hallmarks of an abusive relationship." (His essay in Orion, by the way, was titled "Catch and Deny.")

I'm not blind to the beauty of fishing, to the peace many find in it, to the connection it affords to the water and the surrounding landscape. But any sport that depends for its enjoyability on forcing an animal to fight for its life is wrong. Wrong for what it does to the fish. Even more wrong for what it does to the fisherman.

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48944011.html?mobile=yes
I can paste wall of text too... And I'm not inflicting any pain/injury whatsoever to any animal by doing so...

agree with ts. Pipu hurt the fish, then release the fish back into water, let it suffer with the injury caused by human