Should vegetarians' ideology exclude them from the sport of fishing?

That would depend on why they're vegetarian. If they just don't eat meat because they don't like it, or can't digest it, then they might have no problem with killing an animal. It doesn't really matter what anyone thinks somebody should be comfortable with, it matters whether they are comfortable with it or not. If they don't want to do something that's up to them, whether it makes sense to others or not.

by Jennifer Muirhead

I suppose some folk are vegetarians for health reasons. Maybe this would excuse them for wearing leather goods and going fishing.

by grann

The underlying philosophy for becoming vegetarian would need to be explored. Some people are vegetarian due to their religion and if they religion also prescribes being compassionate to all animals, then obviously they wouldn't fish. As Jennifer said if the reasons are more due to taste preferences, then fishing will probably not hold a moral value.

by Happy Mom

If they were a vegetarian because they didn't want to participate in cruelty to animals, then I would imagine that would rule out fishing as a pastime. If they're a vegetarian for health reasons then I guess not.

by Sarah Bell

I guess those who go to the extent of not wearing leather out of compassion towards animals would obviously not fish. And if they are then they should win the hypocrisy award!!

by Smita

No. You can fish without actually eating the fish. And it can be fun - provided you actually catch something!

by Matteo Lor

Any sentence with a "should" in it implies judgement. Vegetarians are vegetarians for many reasons so to tell them what they "should" be doing makes me uncomfortable. Speaking on behalf of this vegetarian, even when I was not a vegetarian I was not in to blood sports. I have had experience of both sides of the eating paradigm, and I have decided that on either side I have never been comfortable with judgement and universal applications of "shoulds"

by Shelley Murphy