Is Fly Fishing Humane?

[RabbiEE]

As a rabbi and a fly fisher, one of the most common questions I get asked is about the ethics of fly fishing. Is it morally acceptable to spend one’s free-time taking a trout from the river, either to return it shortly to the stream or to eat it for food? Is fly fishing humane?

When fly-fishing for food, I feel on solid ethical ground. To catch a large beautiful rainbow trout, take it home and then fry up the fillets with olive oil, salt and a bit of pepper, is a delicious dinner. Even when fly fishing for food, I take steps to make the process as humane as possible. I never use a creel, to keep a fish alive for hours in the water, which seems cruel. If I decide to keep a trout, I kill the fish immediately. To keep it fresh, I bring a cooler filled with ice on every fly fishing trip.

I also use a very sharp knife, and I kill the fish quickly by removing it head, hoping to minimize the pain. These steps that I take were inspired by the Jewish kosher laws, a collection of rules for how and what a Jew may eat. One law states that in order for a piece of meat to be kosher, the cow must be slaughtered with a very sharp knife that has no nicks or cracks within it. That way, the cow is killed instantly and without pain. I try to end the life of the trout in a kosher-like and humane manner.

While I sometimes fly fish for food, most often I practice catch and release fishing. If I and all of the other fly fishers out there kept or killed every fish we caught, the rivers and streams and lakes would soon be empty of fish. Catch and release fly fishing is necessary to preserve those beautiful and special places where the trout live. I probably keep only one out of every dozen fish that I catch.

We can all take steps to make the catch and release process humane and ethical. When I hook a trout, I do not play it to exhaustion, since the fish may not survive even if released. I always dip my hands in the stream before holding a trout, since the oils on my skin will harm the fish. I also try to minimize the time that the fish is out of the water, quickly removing the hook from its mouth and releasing it back to the stream.

Even when I practice catch and release fishing, I suspect that the trout that I reel in are not having such a great time. But they will all live to see another day. To practice catch and release fishing is to acknowledge that trout are precious. With our expensive fly rods and exquisitely tied flies, we may have the ability to catch many fish on a stream. We also have the responsibility to treat a trout with respect and dignity, for a fish is a beautiful living creature whose source is ultimately divine.

When fly fishing, I still sometimes feel a little bit guilty. And I am not sure there is any way around it. In fact, I would say that feeling guilty about fly fishing is probably a good thing, if that feeling motivates us to be as humane as possible with the fish. Fly-fishing is a wonderful activity that can lead us to feel close to nature. And it can also be ethically challenging. Our task is to make fly-fishing, and all activities in our lives, as ethical and upright as possible.

 

[JackM]

I agree with your sentiments substantially, though I rarely feel guilty in C & R fishing except when I negligently injure a fish. I do, however, sometimes feel "silly" for enjoying tricking a dull (mentally) creature for my mere entertainment.

 

[Padraic]

RabiEE,

I expect that many of the responses you get will not be very respectful. As a moderator here, I'll try to watch the thread but I just wanted to warn you for anything I don't catch in time.

To respond to your concerns... trout are not people. They don't have a good time or a bad time... they just exist. So I don't feel bad for giving them a "bad time" when I catch and release trout. I also don't worry about the pain I inflict. I've seen trout bust off the line and swim away. They appear to behave normally, once the tension of the line is taken away. So I don't think that the hook "hurts" the way it would hurt me. Certainly, fish don't have the same nervous system people do. If they did, they couldn't exist in streams that freeze over in the winter. I've held my hands in streams like that, and it hurts horribly after just a brief moment. So I don't worry about inflicting emotional or physical pain.

If I do feel guilty, it's that I am not doing something more useful. Flyfishing is, afterall, a time-consuming passion. However, it also inspires me and many others to do good. We work for educating people about the value of environment, push for cleaning up impaired streams and do much of such work ourselves along to name a few examples.

 

[Wulff-Man]

Well stated, RabbiEE. I feel pretty much the same way. But I don't have much of a problem with the "humane" question, although I have thought about it in the past. My feeling is that it hinges on the degree of "awareness" and "intelligence" of the animal. I certainly wouldn't catch a dog or cat with a hook and drag them around, but, on the other end of the scale, I have no problem stepping on a spider. (Buddhists may feel otherwise, but I'm not a Buddhist.) I think that a fish doesn't feel much pain from the hook (as JayL and others have said, otherwise they would come running to you to avoid the pain instead of swimming away while jerking on it). They have a natural flight and preservation instinct, and so probably experience fear on some level, but I don't think it's like the fear we experience. So, basically they are a "low" life form of low intelligence, low enough that what we do to them while catching them and handling them well doesn't cross the boundary of "inhumane". If I felt otherwise, I wouldn't do it.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

RabbiEE,

I find I have a very simular ethic and thought process as you do. To get around the moral dilema that C and R flyfishing can create, I set my own personal "creel rules" for the day depending on my use for trout as food on a given day and what the stream can support in terms of creel in my opinion. Even if I'm fishing a small wild stream, I might have a rule that I would keep one trout over 20" that day if I can catch it. Now, I never catch that trout that big, and may never creel a fish on that stream. However, it allows me to be catching fish with the intention of them being food, and then release them using conservation of a resource as my guiding ethical principle there.

 

[FarmerDave]

Well Rabbi, this is always a difficult discussion. first allow me to compliment you on how well it was written.

My own opinion on this is very similar to Padraic. I try not to attach human emotion to fish, and fish don't have rights.

It is a shame that we even have to defend fishing in todays society, but more and more often, we do. Face it. Whether we keep or release our catch, we are exploiting fish for our own pleasure. Is that really unethical? I don't think so. It isn't like we are blowing up bullfrogs for fun, or cooking ants under a magnifying lense, but we are fisning simply for our pleasure. IMHO, C&R fishing is on about the same level as keeping animals as pets. But some people argue that even that is unethical.

 

[scotto]

"To practice catch and release fishing is to acknowledge that trout are precious. With our expensive fly rods and exquisitely tied flies, we may have the ability to catch many fish on a stream. We also have the responsibility to treat a trout with respect and dignity, for a fish is a beautiful living creature whose source is ultimately divine. "

Rabbi, I would like to thank you for well-written, well-reasoned post, especially the quote above.

I agree with your points. A point some may disagree with is keeping fish, I practice C&R in freshwater, but do keep a few fish(only enough to eat while fresh, not to stock the freezer) from the salt for consumption. Quick dispatch and careful storage make for more delicious fish. I also agree with the other posters regarding what the fish feels. I don't believe fish experience the same sensations of pain felt by mammals.

 

[FarmerDave]

Wulff-Man wrote:
Well stated, RabbiEE. I feel pretty much the same way. But I don't have much of a problem with the "humane" question, although I have thought about it in the past. My feeling is that it hinges on the degree of "awareness" and "intelligence" of the animal. I certainly wouldn't catch a dog or cat with a hook and drag them around, but, on the other end of the scale, I have no problem stepping on a spider. (Buddhists may feel otherwise, but I'm not a Buddhist.) I think that a fish doesn't feel much pain from the hook (as JayL and others have said, otherwise they would come running to you to avoid the pain instead of swimming away while jerking on it). They have a natural flight and preservation instinct, and so probably experience fear on some level, but I don't think it's like the fear we experience. So, basically they are a "low" life form of low intelligence, low enough that what we do to them while catching them and handling them well doesn't cross the boundary of "inhumane". If I felt otherwise, I wouldn't do it.

Hey Wulff-Man, I can't let this one go.

First you say: "My feeling is that it hinges on the degree of "awareness" and "intelligence" of the animal. I certainly wouldn't catch a dog or cat with a hook and drag them around, but, on the other end of the scale, I have no problem stepping on a spider. "

Then you say: "I think that a fish doesn't feel much pain from the hook, otherwise they would come running to you to avoid the pain instead of swimming away while jerking on it)."

Hmmm, Grab your cat by the tail and see if his first instinct is to pull or back up towards you to relieve the pressure. He may eventually come towards you, but his intentions won't be to "relieve" pain. :lol:

 

[tabasco_joe]

Well said Rabi. I think the most important thing is to come to our own personal conviction. The people I have issue with are the ones like PETA trying to impose their moral conclusion on me. To me the fish does not have a sole. Tha's the difference between humane and human.

 

[flyfishermanj]

Rabbi,

You do make some good points, having a brother who is a minister and fishing with him and other men of the cloth. I have encountered this topic before. Padriac hits the nail on the head:

"Flyfishing is, afterall, a time-consuming passion. However, it also inspires me and many others to do good. We work for educating people about the value of environment, push for cleaning up impaired streams and do much of such work ourselves along to name a few examples"

Not being able to fish is inhumane to me. Fish live by a different set of rules, "Eat or be Eaten" .

As for the C&R thing, If we didn't pratice it, we would be reading about fishing in the history books.

JH

 

[ian_brown]

"To me the fish does not have a sole."

Sole? They don't even have feet. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

 

[Wulff-Man]

FarmerDave wrote:
Hey Wulff-Man, I can't let this one go.

First you say: "My feeling is that it hinges on the degree of "awareness" and "intelligence" of the animal. I certainly wouldn't catch a dog or cat with a hook and drag them around, but, on the other end of the scale, I have no problem stepping on a spider. "

Then you say: "I think that a fish doesn't feel much pain from the hook, otherwise they would come running to you to avoid the pain instead of swimming away while jerking on it)."

Hmmm, Grab your cat by the tail and see if his first instinct is to pull or back up towards you to relieve the pressure. He may eventually come towards you, but his intentions won't be to "relieve" pain. :lol:

My cat's first instinct will be to turn around and bite and claw the bejeeses out of me! If another cat's first reaction is to run, I think that he will stop pulling away if it's very painful. A fish continues to struggle against the hook until he's too tired to do it any longer.

I found your comment about blowing up frogs and burning ants with a magnifying glass kind of interesting, since it seems to contradict my "it's OK if it's a low life form" philosophy. I guess there's more to this. If you are "sadistically" torturing any life form, just for the pleasure of doing it, it is wrong if only because it is sadism that, as far as I'm concerned, is deviant and a human character flaw that can also manifest itself in other evil ways, including how you treat other people. This is also coming up now following the Michael Vick issue, with some people trying to defend him with a "they are only animals" argument.

 

[Maurice]

ian_brown wrote:
"To me the fish does not have a sole."

Sole? They don't even have feet. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Now that's funny....I don't care who you are..... :lol:

Seriously though...regarding the posters question, I would copy the original post onto one of those little prayer card like thingies that the Catholics use and whip one out when asked if if what I was doing was humane. Sometimes the answer is not so much black and white as it is the understanding of the persons point of view while commiting the act. That is to say...it is easier to reason with understanding.

Good Post....try not to derail it Dave.

 

[littlejuniata]

Interesting topic. Didn't we all do catch and release with chicks when we were younger?

 

[albatross]

My thinking paralells that of Padraic and flyfishermanj. I have little or no problem ethically with how I'm treating the fish, but I do struggle sometimes with my selfcenteredness (if that's a word) in induging so much of my time in an activity that does little to benefit my fellow man. I rationalize it somewhat by looking at fly fishing as preventive mental health for me.

Like most folks on this board I'm primarily catch and release although I have no problem with the occasional meal. I may kill a half dozen fish a year for food. I'm less likely to kill a wild fish for food, but I won't rule that out in a watershed with a healthy wild population.

 

[FarmerDave]

Let's not forget that studies have shown that fishing is also therapeutic. therapeutic for us, and also give the fish some aerobic exercise.

 

[FarmerDave]

Maurice wrote:

Good Post....try not to derail it Dave.

Who, me???

Shut up, Jack. :-D

 

[Maurice]

FarmerDave wrote:

Maurice wrote:

Good Post....try not to derail it Dave.

Who, me???

Shut up, Jack. :-D

Fortunately Wulff's first name is Dave too... :lol:

FWIW....I read your post and said...here we go.....this post will be 5 pages long by tomorrow. It was out of line to say that and I aplogize.


Now, back to the issue at hand...pulling fish around by their nose.

I think if you intend to not harm them and educate yourself to maximize your success at such, it is humane.

As for feeling guilty about spending so much time fishing when you could be helping mankind...gimme a break, you guys don't fish that much. Here is a thought....if it bothers you, find a charity or non profit group. volunteer a percentage of your fishing time toward the benefit of others. If you are not doing this plan to, if you don't its just lip service.

Maurice

 

[govtmule]

"oh i wish i wish i hadn't killed that fish"

 

[FarmerDave]

No need to apologize Maurice. My first response was "I resemble that remark!" but I changed it.

Now, back to the issue. You said: "I think if you intend to not harm them and educate yourself to maximize your success at such, it is humane. "

With all due respect, I don't think that particular argument holds water (depending on ones definition of "harm"). If my intent was not to harm fish, I wouldn't fish. I look at it this way. I know that when I fish, there is a good chance there will be some harm to some individual fish. That is, if I am successful. However, I am OK with that. My goal is to catch lots of fish, but with a minimum of harm to the fish (unless i want to eat some). If for some reason, a fish dies because of me, I know that it does not go to waste. It simply completes the cycle.

Like i said, it is a very difficult question.

Edit: I think we agree, After further review, I think I just interpreted your comments a little different from what you intended.