Fishing for Sport vs. Fishing for Food Which is More Cruel - 550 Words

Fishing for Sport vs. Fishing for Food: Which is More Cruel? (Essay Sample) Content: Students NameCourseTutorDate of SubmissionFishing for Sport vs. Fishing for Food: Which is more cruel?Across Centuries, fishing has been a way of life and a necessary commercial and subsistence activity for humanity, providing valuable food, employment, social and economic benefits to millions the world over. Although the majority of people fish for food, recreational or sports fishing in which people fish for pleasure or competition has become increasingly common. In 2011, for example, it was estimated that 33.1 million Americans engaged in sports fishing spending a whopping US$ 41.8 billion on fishing equipment, lodging, food, memberships, subscriptions, licenses and permits (Albala 512). Compared to fishing for human consumption which has long been regarded as a noble economic endeavor, recreational activity is purposeless, unethical, and immensely cruel.Sports fishing, which is responsible for almost 25% of all fishing activities, is an overly cruel activity tha t exposes millions of fish to adverse conditions. According to Albala (512), fish released after being caught often lose their protective coating making them vulnerable to diseases. The oxygen depletion also leads to dangerous build-ups of lactic acid in the fishs muscles while damaging the delicate fins and mouth of the fish. Furthermore, experts concur that catch and release fish victims are often weakened and unable to swim away making them vulnerable to predators. A Recent study by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation revealed that up to 43% of fish died within six days after being caught and released (Albala 512).Researchers and animal rights activists have shown that, fish experience pain and suffering in the process of being captured. Aas (121) contends that it is indeed true that fish experience some degree of stress and pain hence fishing should not be justified by any means other than subsistence. The fact that fish is not used for food, but instead dumped, pla yed with or tortured for pleasure also makes the whole practice cruel and unethical. Given the in-depth understanding and recognition of what caught and released fish go through, the process should be banned. Hilborn and Ulrike (21) document that, when fish are yanked from the water, they suffocate, their gills collapse and the swim bladder rupture due to sudden changes in pressure.To illustrate the extent of cruelty to fish during the sports fishing process, the Royal Society conducted numerous experiments (Hilborn and Ulrike 21). The research found that the fish caught and released often experienced intense fear and pain during the process. Additionally, the fish subjected to the process were often so traumatized and injured that they sank to the bottom hence were unable to rejoin their school (Hilborn and Ulrike 21). The fish have also been found to remain motionless for extended periods of time while one-third eventually die within two weeks. Furthermore, whereas sporting should be between equally matched opponents, sports fishing mainly involves a struggle between the intelligent human being and a defenseless, smaller, wounded and terr...

Trump and Wharton

Trump and Wharton August 23 Donald Trump went to Wharton. In case anybody missed this newsflash (photo credit: Michael Vadon). We previously wrote about how Donald Trump has been dropping the fact that he went to Wharton quite a bit on the campaign trail of late. One reader wrote in to us mentioning that its great exposure for Wharton but it would be better if hed mention the University of Pennsylvania too sometimes, not just Wharton. After all, Wharton is part of the University of Pennsylvania. This reader suggested that the University of Pennsylvania has a branding problem and we dont completely disagree. Weve corrected many people over the years who confuse the prestigious University of Pennsylvania, say, with Penn State. No offense, Penn State, but its not University of Pennsylvania, in terms of academics. Oh no, we just invited Penn State loyalists to write in with some angry comments. Oh well. Anyhow, theres a piece in The Daily Pennsylvanian, the newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania, that discusses Donald Trumps undergraduate education and we figured wed share it with our readers, since our post on Trump did generate quite a bit of traffic. Like him or not, the man is a media machine. What can we say. Heres what Dan Spinelli wrote in his piece on Trump in The Daily Pennsylvanian: Whenever his intellectual credibility is questioned or mocked, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is quick to remind everyone where he attended college. I went to the Wharton School of Finance, he said multiple times in a July 11 speech in Phoenix, Ariz. I’m, like, a really smart person.  Trump transferred into Wharton’s undergraduate program — then known as the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce — after spending two years at Fordham University in New York. He graduated in 1968  and has embraced the school’s card-carrying prestige ever since. He sure has. The piece goes on to say, In an Aug. 16 television interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, he described the school as probably the hardest there is to get into. He added, Some of the great business minds in the world have gone to Wharton. Why do you have to tell us all the time that you went to Wharton? moderator Chuck Todd asked. People know you’re successful. They know it’s a great business school, Trump replied.  Despite  Donald Trumps  repeated touting of his Wharton diploma, the school has declined to comment to various news organizations about the famous alumIn my opinion, that [Wharton] degree doesn’t prove very much, but a lot of people I do business with take it very seriously, and it’s considered very prestigious, Trump wrote. Do you believe that Trumps flaunting of his Wharton degree while stumping on the campaign trail is good or bad for Wharton and the larger University of Pennsylvania? Were curious to hear what our readers think so be sure to post a Comment below. Oh, and be sure to note how Donald Trump may well have been admitted to Wharton because of a friendly favor from an admissions officer who happened to know his older brother. Who you know can matter. Anyone who suggests otherwise happens to be incorrect.