Anyone who thinks that their interest in catching fish with the “best bait” is more important than the pain and suffering inflicted on these helpless animals is a sorry excuse for a human being. Survival situation and need to catch food? That’s different. Wanting to catch the biggest bass in the lake? Not so much.
>>Anyone who thinks that their interest in catching fish with the “best bait” is more important than the pain and suffering inflicted on these helpless animals is a sorry excuse for a human being. <<
I understand where you are coming, but the devil is in the details. Your statement begs a question: Knowing that a kitten does not have the cranial capacity of a human being, nore the living experience necessary to interpret pain the way you or I - or even a just born infant - do, how much pain and suffering do you think is involved regarding using the kitten as bait? How about if it was a baby squirrel or Mouse? Where do we draw the line and who gets to draw that line, and based on what justification.
I guess, what I am saying is that I can think it is disgusting, but I don’t have the authority to stop them, just as a PETA member thinks eating bacon is disgusting but they don’t have the authority to stop me from eating it.
So when does a person or entity have the authority to stop one person from eating or otherwise damaging a non-human animal? My take would be when that animal is someone elses property. It is really all about property rights - at least that is how I read the constitution.