Leave a thoughtful comment to this post addressing one of the following issues:
- Do fish suffer when they are caught using typical fly fishing techniques? (you’ll have to supply your own definition of “suffer”)
- What type of person would be interested in a book with this title?
- Is the typical fly fisher cruel? (you’ll have to supply your own definition of “cruel”)
In your comment, please number it 1, 2 or 3 based on which of these three topics you are addressing.
I will draw a lucky winner on Friday, May 14.
Please supply a valid email so I can contact you and get your snail mail address if you are the winner.
Fun idea, Scott.
I’ll go with #3.
I don’t think the typical fly fisher is cruel. However, I think the typical divide between the attitudes of fly anglers and bait/spin anglers is a gross oversimplification, and I don’t know that I’d award too much extra credit for caution to fly anglers (but a little).
I also think “cruel” is a tricky term here. Few anglers are actively cruel in the sense of trying to inflict pain, but some are cruel in their thoughtlessness — not wetting their hands before handling a fish, laying it out on a dry rock for a photo, keeping it out of the water for too long, playing it to exhaustion due to overly light tackle or lack of skill (or too great a concern for landing a fish).
So it’s more than just lip-sticking to worry about (as we know), and I’m not sure what percentage of fly anglers pay attention to the whole gamut of issues (and the Internet conversations are largely self-selecting here — it’s not always what you see streamside).
Hey Justin, thanks for joining the drawing (it looks like you are the first valid entrant – I like you Boone and Kevin, but no chance at the book if you aren’t following the rules
Cruel is a very tricky term (that’s why I’m making you define it), and one I personally think is the most important in defining the whole debate. You mention the fly/bait/spin divide, but I wasn’t even thinking that when I posed the question–I’m thinking in comparison to not fishing at all, not compared to other forms of fishing.
I appreciate the thought you put into your response.
-scott c
I would probably post a reply to win a copy of the book, but my gut tells me the book is little more than thinly disguised propaganda so I am not sure if I would like to win.
Yeah Kevin, I didn’t think you’d buy into it. But looking through the science, I think it’s legit–no propaganda. I know someone who knows her, and he’s sat down with her a few times and says that she is certainly not a PETA-type and has nothing against recreational anglers. She believes in animal welfare, but not animal rights. Also, keep in mind that as a scientist, she probably has done worse things to fish than most of us have. I think the biggest area of concern for her is the commercial fish harvesting and what goes on there. Not that all commercial harvesting should stop, just be a bit more careful in the harvesting.
#3 as well…
The definition of cruel: disposed to inflict pain or suffering; devoid of humane feeling.
So no, I don’t believe the typical fly fisherman is directly cruel. Most get into the sport for a love of nature, the thrill of the hunt, the tug is the drug, and so on. Not to catch fish, then make them directly suffer. However, many would assume that since they’re releasing the fish, all’s well ends well, but don’t realize that certain factors as Justin pointed out can have lingering effects on the survival rate of the fish. A lot of anglers don’t know the proper ways to play, handle and release fish, thus they indirectly could cause suffering to the fish after release. I recently read an article that put it this way: what if we ran a three – five minute sprint then were forced under water for 30 seconds – one minute or more? How we would we handle that? Of course, different biology at play, but you get the point. So, no, anglers are not directly cruel, but lack of knowledge could potentially lend them to being indirectly cruel. Great post, Scott.
Jonathan,
“Disposed” and “inflict” are crucial in the definition.
Many in the animal rights (not animal welfare) sector think that catch and release is worse than catch and kill–more cruel. In fact, to them, that is the cruel part, releasing the fish.
Interesting distinction: direct vs. indirect cruelty. If it’s indirect, can it be cruel?
Thanks for stopping in and adding your voice.
I don’t think “cruel” is probably the right term if it’s indirect, but in that sense, being negligent or apathetic is probably as bad as being cruel.
It makes me think of the discussions I’ve had with non-sportsmen about organizations like Trout Unlimited or Ducks Unlimited. Sure, the people involved kill and injure wildlife, but they also do more for the habitat that many non-sportsmen.
I’m not saying you can add up the good and the bad (and inevitably there’s some bad with hunting of fishing), but it’s a complicating factor in an ethical discussion.
TOPIC 1 – Do fish suffer when they are caught using typical fly fishing techniques? (you’ll have to supply your own definition of “suffer”)
MY RESPONSE – I don’t believe the word “suffer” is applicable. The appropriate word should be “panic.” I think that fish respond to a primal survival instinct, that being to escape.
Hi Joe!
Panic – hmmm… This might be closely related to “suffer” in that “panic,” according to the dictionary, means “An overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety.” I think if fish have the cognition to “panic,” they would to “suffer.” But when you say the “primal survival instinct, that being to escape” this probably means you’re in the the nociception only camp: stimulus/response.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I do think the typical fly fisherman is cruel. When you look at what happens to a trout on being caught…it is apparent from the fish’s reaction that a great amount of stress occurs. Seeing it’s violent thrashing, desperate jumping, determined runs and dives and it’s visible rapid breathing…it is obvious the fish suffers. BUT…as with many things in life…there is another side. The fly fisherman is seldom totally driven by these experiences. Often the fly fisherman fishes for solitude, the wonderful outdoor surroundings where trout and nature coexist, and the desire to see native and wild salmonids in their historic environs. The fisherman donates time, money and talent to the preservation of native stocks, for purchases of land to protect habit and create riparian easements, in obtaining legal decisions which curtail overharvest or restore sustaining water releases in streams and rivers and by educating the public on our wildlife heritage. Fly fisher people cruel? Perhaps…necessary? Absolutely!
Without them I believe our imperiled and endangered trout and salmon would be in more jeopardy than they currently face. Thank you cruel fly fisherman. Maybe singer Nick Lowe sums it up best:
“You gotta be
Cruel to be kind in the right measure,
Cruel to be kind it’s very good sign,
Cruel to be kind means that I love you,
Baby, you’ve gotta be cruel to be kind.”
TB,
I like your boldness on this: anglers are cruel.
Just to be a pain in the butt (I know, not hard for me to do), how about this scenario:
People like dogfighting. They love the dark, smoke-filled barns, the tucked away alleys, the beer-induced vomit aroma of places where the denizens of dogfighting hang out. It’s a balm to their soul. Owners of dogs who fight donate large sums of money to breeders who breed dogs with incredible muscle tone. Beautiful animals! They also donate money to their local PTA for school activities. Etc., etc., etc.
Dogfighting cruel? Yes! Do these other factors make it “necessary” or acceptable?
Aren’t there other ways to “save” the salmonids than by being cruel to them?
Topic 3.
I think the typical fly fisher is more cruel to himself for not catching fish than he is to the actual fish he eventually catches. I have yet to see a cruel fly fisherman, but I have seen plenty of stupid ones. I think as a whole we love the fish we catch and respect them for what they are.
Hey Boone,
I’ve tried in a piece I’ve been working on for almost two years now to argue from the point of this idea of loving and respecting the fish we catch. Of being careful when we handle and release. Etc. It’s tough to argue from that position.
Dog fighting is illegal because the intent is to kill the other dog.
Fly fishing…us catch and release naturalists…our sport isn’t involved in a fight to the death scenario. It is legal.
Good point…but different bones.
Again…relying on Nick:
“Cruel to be kind in the right measure”…senseless killing of an animal which no one is going to eat for sustenance has no place in my book.
Also…unless you have an aquarium…it takes quite the effort if you are not fly fishing to appreciate and see the fish. Dogs…throw em’ a bone…easy.
By the way…I have never fished in a terrible place other than the mosquitoes on the Donner Und Blitzen…the smoked filled barn acutally sounds good when recollection ol’ Donner. I am sure the smoke would dampen the skeeters enthusiasm that we experienced.
No, no, no…this has nothing to do with the legality of the issue, but with whether or not the acts of the owner/angler are cruel. If we have to speak of legality, let’s look at it this way: dogfighting has become illegal because it is cruel to the dog. Shouldn’t catching fish become illegal because it is cruel to the fish.
Your argument is that it is not bad because of other reasons that have nothing to do with the act: the angler enjoys the beauty, peace, serenity, conservation, etc. That’s all a smokescreen (or red herring – or smoked herring). It’s like saying the owner’s who engage in dogfighting aren’t cruel because the owner enjoys the beauty, peace, serenity, conservation, etc.
“senseless killing of an animal which no one is going to eat for sustenance has no place in my book.”
Funny thing, the PETA group would probably prefer the killing of the fish instead of releasing the fish – killing is less cruel in their book.
Now, to the important issue – we need to take up cigar smoking if we return to D und B. And whiskey drinking (the skeeters who make it through the smoke and bite us won’t bother us).
I got the whiskey
You bring the cigars
If we drink the whiskey right away we might get lost following the map to the Grey’s and end up on the DundB by accident
The cigars…might as well smoke them no matter what happens