Chiff and Fipple Forums

kkrell wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:

kkrell wrote:...he cut his girlfriend's brakes in order to make a crack pipe...

Words fail.

Brakes, too. What do they teach kids in school, anyway?

Apparently not "Them's the brakes." Them's the breaks...

OK, there's not really anything wrong with this BBC article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us- ... from-above
"Why a plane is dropping trout into a lake from above"

Seriously, did they think they could drop them from below? Planey don't do that.

Probably just another frustrated poet.

kkrell wrote:Planey don't do that.

Do I detect a pop cultural reference, here? If so, I'm in the dark.

Moving on: "They [who?] say this mode of transport is less stressful for the fish compared to previous methods and that 95% [compared to...?] of them survive the journey." All more or less plausible so far, but the "journey" aside, what are the stats on the stress of impact when being dumped from on high? Since when are fish not fragile things? If I were dropped into a lake from a plane, I would not end up in better condition than if I went in from a boat. I call rubbish on the concept.

Nanohedron wrote:All well and good, but it says nothing of the stress of impact when being dumped from on high.

I guess if you are a living fish the journey ends (one way or another) after you hit the lake.

david_h wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:All well and good, but it says nothing of the stress of impact when being dumped from on high.

I read it that the journey ends after they hit the water.

Aw, jeez. You caught me in another of my habitual edits. Same meaning, though.

But yeah, I think you've got it right.

Ha Ha, then you caught me doing the same.

Just look at us. Mortifying.

Nanohedron wrote:Just look at us. Mystifying.

benhall.1 wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:Just look at us. Mystifying.

Oh, no, you don't. You're just being naughty.

Nanohedron wrote:

benhall.1 wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:Just look at us. Mystifying.

Oh, no, you don't. You're just being naughty.

Who? Moi?

heh heh

Nanohedron wrote:...the stress of impact when being dumped from on high.

It’s likely less than the stress of being dumped on from high.

Adroitly put. I'm not sure I want to presume to confer comparative values on physical vs emotional stress, but thank you for reminding me of it. Do fish feel fear? I'd stake my life on it. Of course they do. What else drives self-preservation? And will they suffer internal damage from being dropped from a plane, and feel pain? I think I'd stake my life on that, too. Trout aren't as physically hardy as humans, and even with our added advantage of possibly being able to right ourselves for minimum injury, we'd still come out of it pretty sore ourselves, if not black and blue, or worse. Human injury upon hitting the water from very high places is well-documented; my money says a trout stands even less chance. Do fish feel fear and pain the same way we do? I have no way of knowing. But I don't see differences, if they exist, as an important qualifier. Striking fear in beings and causing them pain is unfortunate enough when we have to eat, and sometimes we have no choice in that. But dumping fish from high up in a plane to hit a lake below - simply because it's convenient - strikes me as beastly when more humane ways are to hand.

I'll get off my high horse now.

Nanohedron wrote:Striking fear in beings and causing them pain is unfortunate enough when we have to eat, and sometimes we have no choice in that. But dumping fish from high up in a plane to hit a lake below - simply because it's convenient - strikes me as beastly when more humane ways are to hand.

I'd want to know much more about it and what its effects might be before I signed up to that. The images show the fish being dumped along with a load of water. What ameliorating effect might that have? Would the fish being contained within water, which then hits water, sufficiently cushion the impact? Do fish end up diving, kind of head first, into the water before impact? They might. Fish - especially fish like trout and other of the salmon family - are used to jumping. they must have a method of re-entry, as it were.

Nanohedron wrote:Trout aren't as physically hardy as humans, and even with our added advantage of possibly being able to right ourselves for minimum injury, we'd still come out of it pretty sore ourselves, if not black and blue, or worse. Human injury upon hitting the water from very high places is well-documented; my money says a trout stands even less chance.

I dunno. It says thay are small fish. Small animals can survive long falls. Their terminal velocity is a lot less than a human. And fish are a better shape for entering water than humans.

benhall.1 wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:Striking fear in beings and causing them pain is unfortunate enough when we have to eat, and sometimes we have no choice in that. But dumping fish from high up in a plane to hit a lake below - simply because it's convenient - strikes me as beastly when more humane ways are to hand.

I'd want to know much more about it and what its effects might be before I signed up to that. The images show the fish being dumped along with a load of water. What ameliorating effect might that have? Would the fish being contained within water, which then hits water, sufficiently cushion the impact? Do fish end up diving, kind of head first, into the water before impact? They might. Fish - especially fish like trout and other of the salmon family - are used to jumping. they must have a method of re-entry, as it were.

david_h wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:Trout aren't as physically hardy as humans, and even with our added advantage of possibly being able to right ourselves for minimum injury, we'd still come out of it pretty sore ourselves, if not black and blue, or worse. Human injury upon hitting the water from very high places is well-documented; my money says a trout stands even less chance.

I dunno. It says thay are small fish. Small animals can survive long falls. Their terminal velocity is a lot less than a human. And fish are a better shape for entering water than humans.

And I'll admit these things occurred to me later. I also realize that you can't expect a curiosity-news blurb to offer real stats, but one would think anything calling itself "BBC" might go a step further than "they say". But maybe I'm being naive there.

I do hope your points make all the difference. But we're guessing, and that's why I wanted better stats. 95%? What was the attrition rate before, and if it was worse, then why? Trout may be small, but in a fall like that, they can't control how they land. This isn't a natural leap, and landing sidewise from such a height isn't the same as headfirst. I would still expect them to be stunned, and that can't be good. The effects are worth considering.

All I know is that responsible sport fisherfolk make a point of slipping their returned catches into the water rather than tossing them, to land however they may. One would think that the fish's welfare has maybe just a little something to do with it...

And no, I'm not with PETA. Those folks go way too hysterically far for me, calling milk "white blood" and fish "sea kittens". The very idea... I have better ways to be crazy, thank you.