I think that targeting a person based upon their profession is a tactic best reserved for the last resort; otherwise, I personally believe that the greater of problems regarding this matter is that of the overfishing of various species.

I toured Scandinavia during 2006 - predominately Iceland and the Faeroe Islands - where the main rôle of society revolves solely around the fishing industry (for the records Canada and Alaska are too) and has done for centuries. While the best solution for a society should be the most prosperous and moral of choices, basing a decision due to its economic effects does little to think in a forward direction. They have long lived off the ocean but are respectful of that ocean; and it is with that the best solution – if possible – is to moderate the excess of fishing. I do agree that fishing down at the ol’ pier with the younglings is a mere ripple within the ocean – but that ripple can expand and become a typhoon instead. It is all relative.

As for double standards - oh what a dilemma that is! It is something that remains rife throughout society and maybe always will; some people are adjusted to watching a human die either in a fictitious movie or the most barbaric of sights without bother; yet when an animal may die there exists more sentiment that possible reserved for a human.

Regards, D.McLennan

Ya cant evolve on an empty stomach.

Braniacs unite in your empty head and empty stomachs into your evolutionary dead ends. Small mercies.

Author clearly doesnt understand the 'theory' of evolution and might starts with Darwin's 'Origin of the Species.'

Whilst at it, maybe the author can lament the evil, un-evolved lion for eating a gazelle.

Of course, we arent part of the natural scheme, we arent animals , we are ahem, civilised, evolved hoomun beans. Ah, life must look so good thru deluded rose coloured glasses.

OLO, please exercise some basic standards when selecting article contributions, because this one is about as amatuerish as it gets.

Well Daphne, I am bruised by your rejection. But I wonder if you have ever tried hunting or even just one of its variants, fishing.

There’s something very primal about it and today’s socially aware persons take great pride in the fact that while holding Nature in very high regard, they also go to a lot of trouble to demonstrate that they are so much better than all the other omnivores out there. They simultaneously pretend to revere the rest of the biosphere, yet they are revolted by the things naturally that occur within that same system.

Daphne’s article says to me that she is the ultimate elitist, living in denial, better than all the other animals that kill and eat animals. Me, I rather enjoy being just another animal. Pretending to be a little god is a tad pretentious, non?

But what would I eat? I don't consume land animals.

I'm having a bit of lend but one could equally argue against eating all animals why be selective about marine life. Of course overfishing is a problem as is the effect of pollution and plastic on marine life but this should be the issue not some attempt at maligning the weekend fisherman.

No mention of population sustainability as a relevant issue? This aspect keeps getting overlooked and shoved firmly under the carpet because it does not fit in with our "growth at all costs" mentality.

Just don't leave your plastic bags lying around they get stuck in my beak.

It's good to see that those who poured scorn on Daphne's wishes are so enthusiastic. Perhaps they were all apprentice long-line fishermen, did their time, became journeymen, and are now master baiters.

Forgive those who oppose you Daphne for they know not what they do.

Ignore the emissions from the blow-hard windbags who remain joyful in their ignorance. Allow these windbags to continue gluttonising over our oceans' dwindling fish supplies.

And the fish treats now available - oh my. And what of the Atlantic salmon cutlets? Now that's a real luxury. Mind you, I trust all consumers are suffiently prudent to read the small print which advises "farmed product." Perhaps the windbags may then perform their own research to gain a basic knowledge of the contaminants they are ingesting from our "innovative" aquaculture industry:

http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio217/2005/ncm3/risks.htm

http://www.salmonfarmmonitor.org/intlnewsfebruary2004.shtml

Can we but hope that the windbags will spare a thought for those cultures who are totally dependent on marine life for their staple diet? Will they spare a thought for the people of the Arctic - the Greenland Inuits who are now force-fed the toxins from the fallout of the West's moral slide into industrial and economic recklessness:

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2145

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:_GnCmrFCe9gJ:www.bluevoice.org/sections/ocean/arctic.shtml+Inuits+greenland+health+impacts+POPs&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=au&lr=lang_en

But then Daphne, why should these blowhard windbags give a cocky's backside about environmental inequalities when they continue to salivate over the fruits of the poisoned tree which the corporate and private eco vandals promote, protect and nurture?

http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2004/SOCER2004.pdf