Do ugly creatures also count?

Inotice with interest the reactions of people regarding the recent catch of the giant marlin off Richards Bay.

Especially interesting is that almost all those who object to the catch refer to the creature’s beauty.

It is, for sure, a magnificent animal. But is that a real basis for complaint?

Why is it that only those creatures that are splendid-looking, or cute or furry and cuddly get this type of ‘ag shame’ response?

All creatures should be afforded equal sympathy and support. The loss of a 30kg mussel cracker is far more serious.

To my knowledge, marlin are not endangered, breed fairly quickly and are found in relative abundance.

Ironically, the only time the beauty of a billfish is seen is when it is brought onto a boat or to shore.

Why is there no outcry about the sharks that are killed in the shark nets for the deception that this would give some protection (read, ‘pleasure’) to bathers?

But of course sharks are not deemed as being attractive or striking (quite the opposite, they are mean and ugly), so who cares if they are wilfully slaughtered?

And I would assume that those who are against the killing of animals per se do not eat biltong, wear leather shoes and belts or enjoy a braai.

There are such double standards out there.

‘Tag and release’ every marlin is the outcry; ‘fillet and don’t release’ applies to all other fish.

The fact is: mankind was given dominance over the creatures of the earth.

With wise and careful management and respect, the bounty of the earth and seas can be harvested for every generation to come.

Without pollution and other environmental disasters, it is a renewable resource.

And in the greater scheme of things, the loss of one giant marlin is negligible compared with the rape of the ocean at the hands of long liners. COUNT UGLY