I am compelled to write about this. There are many ethical rules that anglers live by, and some of them contradict each other. I have reservations about fishing. I don't enjoy killing. When I see blood on the bottom of my boat, or on my hands, I don't rejoice. When I do kill a fish, I do it because I will be eating it, and my wife will be eating it, and anyone else who happens to be with us. I have never, and I will never kill a fish to hang it on the wall. But killing or releasing is not the only ethical question in fishing.
The first question should not be "should I release this fish I have caught?" but rather "should I fish these waters?" Like any recreational angler, I have heard the catch and release arguments many times. The conclusion of the argument is always the same: when we catch fish, we should release them. The reasons differ from angler to angler, but it usually comes down to conservation. I am a member of Trout Unlimited Canada, and the chapter I belong to is working for the conservation of the Chateauguay River in Quebec, and most of the vocal members believe that we can save the wild Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) population by releasing them after the catch.
All kinds of efforts are made by catch and release anglers, the use of barbless hooks or pinched barbs on conventional hooks, unhooking a fish without handling it, fishing in a way to hook the fish in the mouth rather than "foul-hooking" in the gills or further down the digestive tract, there are even special nets used to impart less damage to the protective layer of fish. Despite all of these efforts, some released fish still die. I've heard mortality numbers as high as 80% and as low as 5% and everything in between. There are numerous studies on numerous species, but there is yet to be a study where it is shown that 100% of released fish survive.
Rather than to enter the debate on catch and release, I'd like to think about it differently. Since even by catch and release we end up killing fish, I think the question should be: "am I willing to kill fish in these waters?" If we take the best-case scenario of 5% mortality, we actually kill one in every twenty fish that we release. Let's remember that the best case scenario must involve that we have used a barbless hook, the fish never left the water, was never handled, the hook was taken out cleanly from the lip of the fish, and the fish was played for less than 5 minutes before it was released. If any of these conditions was not met, we have to hike the mortality rate. But let's for the moment stay with 5%. So we are killing one fish for every twenty. If we are fishing in waters that have plenty of fish, and we are only catching the fish that there are plenty of, then I'd say this may be acceptable, though I do think a dead fish that is not on a dinner plate is a waste.
However, if we are fishing a body of water with a precarious fish population, then I'd rather not kill any fish. This means not fishing at all. The unfortunate consequence of catch and release is that anglers who practice it have developed a clean conscience and live under the illusion that their practice has no negative impact on the ecosystem. The fact is that a guide who takes clients out and catches and releases twenty fish in a day and goes out three or four days per week is responsible for killing more fish than an angler who goes out once per week and catches two fish and eats both.
Fishing is a predatory act, whether or not we release our prey. The question is, which waters should we prey in, and which should we leave undisturbed?
No comments:
Post a Comment