And this got me thinking a little more. Are we anglers just a bunch of posers? How often have you heard the sentiment, “Fishing isn’t about the fish, it’s about ___” (fill in the blank with your favorite ending). Or maybe, “I didn’t catch any fish, but that’s OK because ___” (again, fill it in). Or some other cliché? Downplaying the importance of catching fish is a crock! (I know because I’ve used the clichés plenty of times too.) If it wasn’t about the fish, we’d be hikers, not anglers. We’d be called “waders,” not fishermen (or fisherwomen).
Do we like to respond with the lie because we think it’s some sort of noble or eloquent response? Or because we don’t want to be seen as competitive. Or is it just a lame excuse for not catching fish? Sure, we can still have a good time out of doors even if we get skunked. But the fish is the goal. Fishing is about the fish. Is it only about the fish? Probably not, but I don’t want to go there because I’ve got a nice rant worked up and that would just dampen my fiery words.
If you truly think fishing isn’t about the fish, make a deal with me: Determine the approximate number of times you fish in a year and the average length of each outing. Agree to go that number of times for that length each time the rest of this year, but you’re not allowed to take any fishing stuff with you. Whaddaya say? Yeah, I thought so!
So can we drop the pretense and just man-up with our true feelings that it is about the fish. And this brings me to my real topic: Can we admit other things about fishing, things we want to tiptoe around just as much?
Like, does it matter if fish feel pain? Or, does it matter if fish feel pain exactly like humans–physically and psychologically?
This is where you’ll want to pooh-pooh me: “But fish don’t feel pain the same way humans do, so it doesn’t matter.”
OK then, let’s drop the pain issue and look at this: Why aren’t there birdermen? You think I’m kidding, don’t you? I’m not. You tell me why people don’t “bait” hooks with artificial flies, or other artificial bird food substitutes, and wait in bushes and trees to catch birds so that they can release them to catch again.
- Birds are wary, which would provide excellent opportunities to practice one’s stalking skills.
- They are just as lovely as fish, coming in a wide variety of colors, shapes, sizes, etc.
- They are found in exotic locales giving the birderman great excuses for traveling the world in search of species x.
- I’m sure they would put on an excellent display when they strike the artificial, thereby giving that little adrenaline rush of surprise for the birderman.
- Some entertaining flapping and thrashing would surely commence when hooked.
- I imagine the beak is much tougher than a fish mouth, thereby lessening the potential concern of mouth damage (although the eyes are just as close to the mouth).
- Raptors would probably give one heck of a fight and take some careful playing on 7x tippet so they could be released again for the next birderman.
- No slime.
- You wouldn’t have to get waders or drift boats unless you wanted to bird for waterfowl (the emperor penguin would be a fun one).
- Winter birding would be a lot warmer because you could avoid the water.
- Plenty of urban birding opportunities.
- You could still have just as much fun buying all the doodads and thingies for catching birds.
- You could pluck a few feathers from the bird for your next pattern you tie up.
- Etc., etc.
So why fish? Really, give me a reason why bird hooking shouldn’t become as much of a sport as fishing. I dare you. No, I double-dog dare you!
I’m looking into how we can respond to those who are anti-fishing because their ranks will grow, I guarantee it. Do you think the angling community can give a valid response to anti-fishing groups if we do not know for ourselves why we are fishermen and not birdermen (or some other species)?
Caveats: Serious responses only. I’m looking for responses that deal primarily with the ethics of it (not “historical” reasons, i.e. there is a long history to fishing and birding would be a new sport making it too hard to, blah, blah, blah). I will play devil’s advocate and try to refute your attempts (I’m hoping I can’t). And please, no coup de grâce triple-dog dare retaliation questions back to your host.
Interesting birdermen here, but they weren’t the catch-and-release birdermen.
Scott,
I think it impossible to discuss the ethics of catch and release [fly] fishing vs catch and release birding without discussing the history of both sports, or better the history of fishing vs the history of upland and water fowl hunting. Catch and release fishing is a relatively new practice in the grand scheme of things.
In the past fishing or bird hunting was done for the practical purpose of survival. An unsuccessful outing might have meant going hungry, and so both sports evolved to techniques with proven results. In the case of bird hunting, shotguns, and for fishing rods and lines where nets were not practical or legal. It is also important to note that in many cases and for a couple of centuries angling (at least in the rivers, lakes and ponds) and hunting were the domain of the landed gentry, which also drove the development of the techniques employed today.
Another big difference is that when fowl are domesticated and you need dinner the medium in which they exist allows you to run out to the yard, catch one and stuff it in a pot. While domesticated fish still dwell in water and must be caught via net or hook.
As fishing and fowling became more recreational pastimes and not a necessity, the techniques used to procure “game” became codified and a matter of legality. And as more and more people pursued these recreational pastime it became important to put limits on harvest. Both angling and fowling groups now have specific groups that promote the conservation, and habit preservation.
It is only in areas where hunting and angling become recreation activities that the ethics of the activity become a discussion point. A hungry subsistence hunter/fisher really doesn’t have these philosophical discussion. He just wants to feed his belly.
The big difference between recreational bird hunting and recreational angling is that with codified techniques only anglers can practice catch and release, as a 12 gauge is not very forgiving. Though there is some degree of mortality to released fish greatly determined by the fighting techniques, the handling techniques and the water conditions. Then the question becomes is catch and release and the possibility of causing fish pain relevant?
My personal take. Well, have caught a fish, released it, watched is skulk on the bottom for 5 minutes and caught it again a few minutes later. I don’t think that being caught and released greatly modifies a fishes behavior. Fish the Green below the dam, most of the fish have been caught dozens of times. They know the routine. They don’t struggle, instead nonchalantly lay limply waiting to be returned to the water (see I can anthropomorphize fish behavior also).
I fish to fish. I harvest fish from time to time. I also fish to experience nature. I love the electric feel of a fish transmitted to my hand through a thine line to my rod. If the fish experience pain, well frankly I guess I don’t care. I wouldn’t call it callousness rather an understanding that the fish is a resource and while a living one still not a sentient being. When released it will likely live, and likely be fooled again by an angler at some later date.
Kevin, Thanks for the comment. I’ll take your first several paragraphs as dancing around the issue (although they are some mighty fine moves which I enjoyed–thank you for the insights). But when I’m talking birding, I’m not talking about hunting or playing with game species–I’m talking about using fly rods to catch birds then release them. I’m talking about sticking it to the starlings–give it to the grackle. I’m talking about starting a new movement in which we petition DWR, Audubon, etc. to get behind us and let us catch and release birds like we do fish. Heck, we probably don’t even have to petition to do this with house sparrows or starlings. Shucks, we could even start birdermen competitions.
I’m not talking from a practical point, as in, “Would we succeed,” but rather an ethical point, “Is it just as right to do that to birds as it is to fish?”
But then you got to it: “If the fish experience pain, well frankly I guess I don’t care.” That’s the baby I’m looking for. Who is man enough to admit it? Kevin, you’ve ponied up the first nugget of truth. Thank you!
Come on guys, it’s like AA, the first step is admitting it. “Hi, I’m Cutthroat Stalker. I catch and release fish, and I don’t care if the fish might feel pain.”
Kevin: Ah, actually, domesticated fish are hauled out with nets. They’re called “Atlantic Salmon” and they are ruining our wild Pacific runs.
That aside, birding has become much like catch & release fishing. I do love to EAT trout and have been known to drool while releasing a big brown or rainbow. But I do kill a few for the table, too. (Not grayling or cutts, though.)
Once upon a time I wanted to catch every trout, catch the biggest trout, catch the most selective trout… There are many days now when I work on just one good fish (very subjective definition), and spend much of the time watching otters etc. I can no longer bear going out with “fish counters.” But there was also a time when I couldn’t NOT count…
ER, Yeah, I’m slowly maturing in that direction (my wife says that using the word “mature” in any relation to myself, is inaccurate, but she doesn’t read the blog, so I’ll go ahead and use it). I try not to count fish, but I tend to keep track of the first handful (I don’t think it can be helped, you just know how many you catch when there are so few). I still mentally keep track of the size (rarely actually tape them, just a guesstimate which is good enough for me). I’ve never been too interested in the biggest fish. But I do have a penchant for the prettiest or rarest.
I occasionally kill trout for the table, but rarely because my wife doesn’t like trout (she does like salmon though). I usually take a few grouse and/or pheasant each year for the larder as well (when I can).
Thanks for dropping in.
Hooking birds would just ruffle feathers! Besides, birds can peck at you when you release them and probably crap on you too. Fish are much easier to deal with.
I have always suspected that trout feel pain. The anguish of being caught must really give them a complex even if they are released. I imagine they go and sulk and replay the mistake they made over and over in their little pea-sized brains. “How could I be so stupid to eat that poorly tied Adams? I saw that sharp point sticking out of it and yet I just had to eat it. Am I really that stupid? Next time, I’m going to be more careful!”
Yes, It’s about the catching, but I do enjoy the hiking, the listening to the birds sing, the vistas, the studying of aquatic insects, the solitude (and companionships), and admiring the trout for it’s beauty; both it’s colors and its way of life. As Robert Travers wrote: “I fish because I love the environs where trout are found, which are invariably beautiful…”
Too me, it’s become a complete package and I can honestly say if the catching is not good, the fishing always is.
Robert,
I thought of the pecking, but completely spaced off the potential poo problem–thanks for pointing that out! I’ll have to develop some type of large brimmed hat with poop-resistant properties.
The “enjoying-the-environs” thing is usually true for me to. However, there are times when I just want to catch fish, and if it’s slow, I’m outta there. Like the other week when I was hoping for some caddis fly action of the Blacksmith. High, brown and no surface feeders. It only took me about an hour before I bailed.
Thanks for dropping by to comment!
cutthroat,
I’ve been thinking about this issue for a while, but I have not come up with any real good answers for you.
That “sea kitten” thing is just ridiculous. Unfortunately many people learned their woodlore from the Bambi movie or Animal Planet and have no clue what the real world is like.
There is a good quote at this link – http://www.esf.edu/insideesf/2008/fall/bambi.htm
“Nature is basically a hierarchy of eaters and eaten,” he said. “It’s uncomfortable for people, but that’s the way it works out.”
MDW
Forestrat,
The sea kitten thing is pretty crazy, but dang it, there is that little part of me that says, “Would we ever get away with it if it were someone’s cuddly pet?” The Bambi link was interesting. Definitely a hierarchy, but I’m still talking about those of us who catch and release, not kill and eat. I rarely kill trout, I would imagine I’m over a 99% catch and release angler, so I’m mostly talking to myself in these posts–just trying to deal with it in my own mind. I can’t ever see me giving up fishing, I’d just like to understand my reasons why I feel it’s OK to treat fish this way and not other species. I’ve got about 4 1/2 pages of single spaced writing toward my piece, I hope it’s worth the wait to somebody (mostly me, but hopefully someone else).
I ran across this article about the fish pain thing the other day and thought you might be interested.
http://www.slate.com/id/2219276