One such “extinct” trout was the Pyramid Lake strain of the Lahontan cutthroat. Historically found in ancient Lake Lahontan and its tributaries, its territory shrunk as the lake receded. The fish were still found in Pyramid Lake and its tributaries into the early 20th century until the lake became a source of water for irrigation. When the lake levels dropped too far, the Pyramid Lake Lahontans could no longer reach their spawning tributaries. And the fish was thought extinct by the 1940′s.

In the 1970′s, a fish was found in the Pilot Peak range in Utah that didn’t belong in the Utah mountains. Don Duff sent information to Dr. Robert Behnke about this fish. Dr. Behnke identified the fish as the missing Pyramid Lake strain of the Lahontan cutthroat. (I hope to provide more of this story at a later time.) These fish have subsequently been restored to Pyramid Lake. A brood stock has been kept at Pilot Peak to help supplement the National Hatchery’s brood stock. The Pilot Peak project is on the property of Steve Doudy, who has been the caretaker of the population in the creek and in the brood stock (both of which are on his property).

This past Wednesday I had the privilege of spending the day with Dr. Behnke and some of the morning with Don Duff and Steve Doudy at the Pilot Peak brood ponds where we planned on helping spawn the Lahontan cutthroats. (More about the Pilot Peak project in another post later.)

Interestingly enough, Dr. Behnke, who was so instrumental in the identification of this strain of cutthroat, had never been to the Pilot Peak brood ponds. So my fishing buddy, Dan Line, decided to invite him. Since our trip seeking the extinct Alvord cutthroat a couple of years ago, we (actually Dan) have been in contact with Dr. Behnke as efforts have been made to try and keep at least a phenotypical remnant population of the Alvords alive. Dan invited Dr. Behnke to spend the morning with us at Pilot Peak and then help us give a presentation later that evening to our local TU chapter (Cache Anglers) about the Alvords.

My memory stinks—I’m lucky to remember details of what happened yesterday, let alone a year or more ago. Dr. Behnke’s got an incredible memory. The day was filled with his remembrances. Just ask him a question and he would fill us in with all the minutiae of dates, people, places and events. It was incredible to learn firsthand a few of the many things Dr. Behnke has been involved in with the conservation efforts of native fish and also with the furthering the world’s knowledge about fish.

I would imagine that someone as knowledgeable and experienced as Dr. Behnke could easily become snooty, arrogant or condescending, but he was extremely polite, patient and entertaining. And there is a fiery side to him as well, especially when it comes to tracking a fish’s ancestry through meristics versus genetics (Dr. Behnke is firmly in the meristic camp). (Hopefully some more about this topic in another post.)

I think I’ll write a couple other posts about this day and issues and conversations that surrounded it. I just needed to get a post up now while I had the time and inclination to write it. Hopefully I’ll become a bit more of a regular writer again.

Don Duff  is another instrumental and passionate man when it comes to fish. I’ll have a post dedicated to him later too.

PS The next issue of Rise Forms is nearing completion (Scott’s been a very busy man, and therefore very lazy about anything writing related, but things are getting better.)

The practice of catch-and-release seems to be a commandment, not to be violated. When scientists or environmentalists or even widely admired writers on the sport politely suggest that it sometimes makes sense to keep and eat what is hooked, the reaction can be indignant.

Why is that? What if nature might be better off if we eat fish that are invasive species, for example? Does research show whether fish feel pain?

Read the comments left after each of the six panelists make their point. It is telling to see how “regular” people stand on the issues.

Maybe this will jump start more serious discussion on fish and pain? We’ll see.

Leave a thoughtful comment to this post addressing one of the following issues:

1. Do fish suffer when they are caught using typical fly fishing techniques? (you’ll have to supply your own definition of “suffer”)
2. What type of person would be interested in a book with this title?
3. 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.

There are a lot of imponderables in the annals of angling. You, I’m sure, have attempted to ponder many of them. One of the interesting aspects of fly fishing for this angler, is the cerebral aspect. There are so many variables at work when fishing, it’s a wonder we catch anything.

Have you ever had a particular question about fish behavior that science might be able to answer? How would you like to design your own experiment to answer your burning question? If only there was funding for such unimportant things as angling questions. Well, there just might be!

Eccles (of Turning Over Small Stones fame) said the following:

In the last month or so I have had a few conversations with fish biologists, proper ecologist, evolutionary biologist, physiologist type people. In the banter about this and that a question was asked by one of them which took me back a little.

“What experiments would you like to see done?”

“Eh?” [that was Eccles' reply]

“Well there are some students who are keen to run things and we could possibly rustle up a bit of seed funding if there is some academic rigour attached. The facilities are there so what would you do?”

Eccles is graciously passing on the opportunity to you, the inquisitive angler. Get over to his site, read the post, then answer his two questions. Pretty simple.

I have a quest. The quest involves answering several related questions. I won’t list them all, but the following two questions should give an idea as to the basic gist of them:

• Do fish suffer when they are caught using standard fly fishing techniques?
• Is angling cruel?

I have explored these types of questions in at least four posts on my blog (see links to them at the bottom of this post). And, frankly, I’ve been a bit disappointed at the lack of response. It seems like it is a topic that fly anglers do not want to discuss. I guess I can’t really blame them, who wants to think about their possible cruelty?

Over the years, the discussion has usually hinged on the aspect of whether or not fish feel pain. Various experiments have been carried out, and, depending on where one stands on the issue, various conclusions have been reached. One thing everyone seems to agree on is that “we” are right and “they” are wrong.

Which perfectly illustrates how the issue has been exacerbated through an “Us” versus “Them” mentality. Much of the writing produced in the debate has come from a person who is passionate about one side or the other, typically either someone from the angling community or someone from an animal rights group.

This is as good as spot as any to address two important, and quite different, terms: animal rights and animal welfare. Many groups espousing animal rights believe that animals have equal rights with humans (and in some extreme cases, an animal’s “rights” trump a human’s). The most well known group in favor of animal rights is PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Animal welfare advocates believe that animals can have benefits to humans, but that the animal should be treated as humanely as possible, give the situation. One of the biggest groups supporting animal welfare is AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association). These two groups are often at odds with each other.

Many anglers hear the words “animal welfare” and mistakenly think “animal rights” and begin bashing the views of those speaking on behalf of the welfare of animals. In a research paper from 2007 titled “Animal welfare perspectives on recreational angling” by Steven J. Cooke and Lynne U. Sneddon, they state that “informed anglers and fisheries managers can adopt practices to improve the welfare of angled fish.” They do not advocate the eradication of catch and release, but rather suggest that certain methods be observed to reduce potential pain and suffering. Many animal welfare groups are not against recreational angling.

One of the things most often missing in the debate is clear (to the lay person), reasoned (data, not emotion) and unbiased information concerning the issue. Enter Dr. Braithwaite and her book, Do Fish Feel Pain?

To illustrate a point made above, this is from the first paragraph of the preface, in which Braithwaite describes reactions from an Op-Ed piece she published in the Los Angeles Times regarding fish pain:

After the article appeared, the newspaper and I received letters and emails. These were of two sorts. Some told me that I was persecuting anglers by spreading untruths and myths—wasn’t it clear to everyone that fish don’t feel pain? But the others wanted to know why I bothered to investigate the question—wasn’t it clear to everyone that fish do feel pain?

This is an interesting reaction, in which it is clear to pretty much everyone, except for those who are most worried about the potential for scientific results to change their recreational lifestyle, that fish feel pain.

But that wasn’t her point. Rather than tell you about her point, I’ll let her speak for herself.

I had a certain amount of sympathy with both camps. I could identify with those who believed I was threatening the angling community. That was not my intention, but there had been a great deal of inaccurate information written about research on pain in fish so it was understandable that some people were being defensive. On the other hand, how were the others to know that no scientific analysis of even the basics of fish pain had been conducted before the turn of this century?

Those polarized reactions, which also played out on various websites, prompted me to wonder whether there was need for a fuller account of the science behind the fish pain debate. The result is this book.

My goal in writing this book has been to provide the background to promote informed discussion. Like other animal welfare debates, constructively arguing about fish welfare requires that we understand the issues, that we review evidence and discuss this appropriately. In the book, I examine what we know so far about pain in fish, and whether it is meaningful to discuss fish welfare at all. After reading this book, I hope you will be in a position to make up your own mind. I have no axe to grind—I choose to eat fish and I experiment on them, but while I have been fishing in the past, I am not an active angler though I have many friends and colleagues who are.

This is a difficult topic to cover, and one that will take great skill to do it justice. Having spent much time on my own reading, and trying to write, about the topic, I know that it is more than just the science behind pain. There are at least three branches of inquiry involved when tackling the topic: science, psychology and philosophy. Braithwaite also realizes this when she says, “As the book began to take shape, it became clear that the fish pain debate probes questions about science, welfare and ethics.”

I am looking forward to the continued reading, exploring and writing about this new book. From what I have read so far (the preface and chapter 1), I believe Dr. Braithwaite when she says she has no axe to grind. I believe this book could be a great asset to the serious inquirer.

I will probably post updates for each chapter or two (there are seven chapters in the book, containing 184 pages).

The book is published by Oxford University Press. The bulletin from Oxford Press says it’s available May 20. However, Amazon is selling copies (I don’t know if they are shipping yet).

Full disclosure: I received a free review copy, although I do not know the author and am in no way affiliated with Oxford University Press or any of its designees.

http://scarles.org/blog/cutthroat-stalker/1173/fish-pain-here-we-go-again/
http://scarles.org/blog/cutthroat-stalker/1186/hooking-things-survey/
http://scarles.org/blog/cutthroat-stalker/1246/css-double-dog-dare-why-not-birdermen/
http://scarles.org/blog/cutthroat-stalker/2120/gotta-again/

Yellowstone NP is making another concerted effort to stem the tide of non-native fish within the park, called “The Native Fish Conservation Plan.” There are several sources to find out more. The Island Park News has a quick overview of what the park is doing. The park has a home page to find out more. They are currently taking public comments, and you can go to this page to add your voice. You can see the detailed letter sent from Walter Wiese, Head Guide at Parks’ Fly Shop in Gardiner, MT to get some ideas (if you need them).