Fishing Ethics - Catch, Photo, Release

FOR SALE

FOR SALE - I HAVE A FISH CAT PANTHER PONTOON BOAT THAT WAS PURCHASED NEW THIS SPRING AND ONLY USED ONCE. I PAID $650 AND AM ASKING $500. I HAVE ADDED A ROD HOLDER AND A STORAGE UNIT THAT FITS ON THE BACK OF THE SEAT.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

I started this section thinking that I was going to write one chapter on PETA. After reading the first part of their position on fishing I realized that this was a larger than one chapter job. I am going to have to break it up into smaller more manageable pieces. A few chapters on the positions these fine folks take are a worthwhile exercise. Their positions are common sense with non-fishing types. When the rubber hits the road do they really make sense or are they just doing the feel good thing that is mostly unfounded and all too common these days? We'll try to find out so that we can respond in an intelligent rather than an emotional fashion to folks that ask these common questions about fishing. See the PETA manifesto for yourself at fishinghurts.com.

Doesn't it Hurt the Fish?

PETA, of course, claims that it does. PETA places a great deal of stock in a combined Roslin Institute and the University of Edinburgh study in which the lead reasearcher (Dr Lynne Sneddon) concludes "profound behavioural and physiological changes" shown by the trout after exposure to noxious substances are comparable to those seen in higher mammals. Ok, well that certainly is possible. So what exactly is underneath of this conclusion?

The "experiment" consisted of injecting bee venom and acetic acid into the lips of laboratory trout and observing that the fish displayed a "rocking" motion after these treatments. The conclusion that the researchers drew from the rocking motion was that fish can "perceive" pain. To their credit they did perform similar actions on a control group and did not record the same behavior.

The second part of their study was to record the electrical signals that are passing from the trout's lips to their brains. The conclusion that was drawn from the presence and pattern of the signals was that these were consistent with the manner in which pain receptors operate in humans. This activity "strongly suggests" that the lips of fish contain pain receptors.

Given the frequency of which this study is cited by animal rights activists we can draw the conclusion that this study was a watershed moment for the cause. The real concern is that this study is one of just a handful that draw the "fish do feel pain" conclusion.

Now on to our guy Dr. James P. Rose. Dr. Rose has written a response to the conclusions of Dr. Sneddon that simply boils down to this statement "The bottom line of this critique is that any attempt to show pain in fish must use valid criteria, including proof of conscious awareness, particularly a kind of awareness that is meaningfully like ours.". The questionable definition of pain that was used in the Roslin study essentially invalidates the conclusion drawn.

According to Dr. Rose 's response, in order for pain to actually exist the organism must be capable of experiencing the pain. He uses the analogy of a severely brain damaged individual that is demonstrating complex physical activity but are unconscious and unable to feel pain. I would go a step further and say that while having your appendix removed you were placed under a general and felt absolutely no pain during the procedure. Dr. Rose's position is that while fish may exhibit reflexive/responsive reactions to external stimuli they are not capable of processing pain they way a conscious humam processes pain. Very much like being under anasthetic during an appendix operation.

What do you think, do fish feel pain?

More reading:


1. Rose, J.D. (2002). The neurobehavioral nature of fishes and the question of awareness and pain. Reviews in Fisheries Science 10(1), 1-38.
2. Critique of paper by Sneddon, Braithwaite and Gentle claiming to show that trout feel pain.
3. Fishing for theories

Eating Fish is Dangerous?

Here is the PETA claim: "Like the flesh of other animals, fish flesh contains excessive amounts of protein, fat, and cholesterol. Fish (and shellfish) can accumulate extremely high levels of toxins (as much as 9 million times that of the water in which they live) such as PCB's, dioxins, mercury, lead, and arsenic, which can cause health problems ranging from kidney damage and impaired mental development to cancer and even death."

So then, if I eat catfish or oysters once a week then will I die prematurely because I did? Maybe so but this is seems to be another case of overreacting to a some isolated incidents. Let me explain...there exist harmful organisms and chemicals in everything that we consume as food products. Some of these things are naturally occurring and some are introduced by the processing and handling of the food products.

Most of the biological organisms can managed by your purchasing, handling, and preparation processes. A simple Google will reveal a large body of information on how to manage seafood properly. A fair number of these suggestions are simply common sense and follow standards that should normally be accounted for no matter if you are preparing seafood, beef, chicken, or whatever. Being a catch, photo, and release fisherman I buy my seafood products from a reputable seafood vendor. Find a place that you can trust, purchase, prepare, and consume the seafood on the day that you bring it home. I am of the opinion that established vendors that sell only fresh seafood are the wisest choice. They understand the handling and processing procedures and have a personal stake in you not getting sick from their product. Simply put, and like most things in life, it is your responsibility to educate yourself before before you act.

What about the harmful chemicals in seafood? The bottom line here is that nobody really knows the answer to this. There are studies that draw conclusions in both directions. My take is that if you like seafood then you should eat seafood. Just make sure that it is only a part of a balanced diet and not your sole source of nutriton. I don't think that reasonable sources of healthy diet information such as the American Heart Association and the American Dietetic Association would advise you that it was safe in moderation if it wasn't.

What we have to remember here is that PETA has an agenda that they are promoting that is inconsistent with a majority of people's lifestyles. The real problem is that their mission is to take away your choice by spinning the facts to support their pre-determined conclusions.

Fishing hurts other animals?

The claim here is that "Every year, fishers leave behind a trail of tackle victims that includes millions of birds, turtles, bats, and other animals who suffer debilitating injuries or slowly starve to death after swallowing fishhooks or becoming entangled in fishing line.". While we understand that this is certainly true, my common sense tells me that it seems a little bit exaggerated to say millions. There are side effects to everything that we do in life. Our challenge is to minimize the adverse impact of those side effects on our resources and environment.

A balanced more practical approach is in order here. PETA supports a "ban on fishing in National Parks.". How about a ban on people (exception for PETA members in good standing) in the National Parks. Wouldn't that be 100% effective? It is exactly this kind of radicalism that causes me to immediately question their credibility.

What is PETA doing to help besides a 100% ban? Well, I didn't look through everything but it seems their "campaign" hasn't done a whole bunch of anything in an organized way since about 2001. What might be the cause of their lack of action? My guess, lack of support based on outragous claims that just don't ring true to most people.

Well then, tell me what the sportsmen doing for the cause? Here is one of many examples...On November 12, 2003 the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs went to their state legislature to request a license fee increase. Why would they be asking to have their license fees increased? Partly because of this "There are habitat projects waiting to be completed; conservation officer vacancies that need filled; and many other services that stand to be reduced if increased funding isn’t provided in the near future.".

My overall point here is that we take care of our own. We do watch out for the health of our resources but we could do better. Total bans are simply knee jerk, feel good approached that don't really account for a reasoned balance of concerns. My advice to PETA...lay off the grandiose claims and join up with some folks that are really accomplishing some good. My advice to us...carry out your trash, don't take more than you need, and pay attention to the rules.

PETA’s "Jesus Campaign" ISN’T BIBLICAL

A billboard along Interstate 27 near Amarillo, Texas, boldly proclaimed, "Jesus was a vegetarian. Show respect for God’s creatures - follow Him." It caused such uproar that the advertising company that hoisted the astounding proclamation removed the controversial message...

I cannot, in good conscience, reproduce the entire argument here for permission reasons. Please go to this Gods Great Outdoors page PETA’s "Jesus Campaign" ISN’T BIBLICAL for the full text. It is beautiful!