Attention Anglers.........

John A. Quayle blueoval at SGI.NET
Thu May 15 06:33:42 MDT 2003

By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

May 11, 2003

     I'm not a vegetarian.  I eat poultry, fish, and fowl.  I don't oppose
experimenting on animals when necessary for medical research.  I like
zoos.  I have no moral objection to wearing fur or leather.  I think it's
okay to keep pet dogs on a leash and birds in a cage.  And while I admire
the work of the American Humane Association, I am no supporter of PETA
(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) or its fanatic agenda.

     But I do think sport fishing is cruel.

     By sport fishing I mean catch-and-release fishing -- fishing for fun
and adventure, not for food.  I have no quarrel with the man who takes a
salmon or trout out of the water and eats it for dinner, even if he greatly
enjoys the taking.  What appalls me is fishing for its own sake.  I don't
doubt that it can be thrilling to drag a fish through the water by a barbed
hook in its mouth, or that there is pleasure in making it struggle
frantically, or that it is exciting to force a wild creature to exhaust
itself in a desperate bid to get free.  I don't deny the allure of it
all.  But finding gratification in the suffering of another isn't
sport.  It's sadism.

     One of PETA's billboards shows a dog with a barbed hook through its
lip, and asks: "If you wouldn't do this to a dog, why do it to a
fish?"  PETA's analogies are frequently tasteless and morally repugnant,
but this one is exactly right.  No one would throw Fido a Milk-Bone with a
hook hidden inside and then, when the barb had pierced his mouth and he was
trying violently to shake it loose, drag him to a place where he couldn't
breathe.  Anyone who did such a thing would be condemned for his
brutality.  Is it any less brutal to do it to a fish?

     Writing a few years ago in Orion, a magazine about nature and culture,
essayist and avid outdoorsman Ted Kerasote opened a piece about the ethics
of catch-and-release fishing with a quote from a fellow outdoorsman, "the
philosopher, mountaineer, and former angler Jack Turner."

     "Imagine using worms and flies to catch mountain bluebirds or pine
grosbeaks," Turner told him, "or maybe eagles and ospreys, and hauling them
around on 50 feet of line while they tried to get away.  Then when you
landed them, you'd release them.  No one would tolerate that sort of thing
with birds.  But we will for fish because they're underwater and out of sight."

     I can hear the indignant reply of countless anglers: Fish are
different!  Unlike dogs and birds and other advanced animals, fish don't
feel pain.  The hook doesn't hurt them.

     But there is mounting evidence that fish *do* feel pain.  A team of
marine biologists at Edinburgh's Roslin Institute make the case in a paper
just published by the Royal Society, one of Britain's leading scientific
institutes.  Their experiments with rainbow trout prove the presence of
pain receptors in fish, and show that fish undergoing a "potentially
painful experience" react with "profound behavioral and physiological
changes . . . over a prolonged period comparable to those observed in
higher mammals."

     Other studies have demonstrated the agitated responses of fish to
painful conditions, from rapid respiration to color changes to the
secretion of stress hormones.  Does this mean that a fish feels pain in
just the way we do, or that its small brain can "understand" the painful
event?  No.  It *does* mean that the ordeal of being hooked through the
mouth, yanked at the end of a fishing line, and prevented from breathing
each time its body leaves the water is intensely unpleasant and
distressing.  To put a fish through that ordeal in order to eat fresh fish
is one thing.  But to do it for fun?

     Anglers tell themselves that catch-and-release fishing is more humane
and nature-friendly than catching fish and killing them.  That strikes me
as a conscience-salving fib.  Hurting an animal for enjoyment is never
nature-friendly, even if the animal doesn't die.  Sport fishing is clearly
more cruel than hunting.  Hunters don't torment their prey or force it to
engage in frenzied combat.  They aim to kill the animal, as quickly and
painlessly as possible.  But how many sport fisherman want a quick
kill?  Where's the excitement in that?

     "We angle because we like the fight," Kerasote writes.  "Otherwise all
of us would be using hookless [flies] and not one angler in 10,000
does.  The hook allows us to control and exert power over fish, over one of
the most beautiful and seductive forms of nature, and then, because we're
nice to the fish, releasing them 'unharmed,' we can receive both psychic
dispensation and blessing.  Needless to say, if you think about this
relationship carefully, it's not a comforting one, for it is a game of
dominance followed by cathartic pardons, which . . . is one of the
hallmarks of an abusive relationship."  (His essay in Orion, by the way,
was titled "Catch and Deny.")

     I'm not blind to the beauty of fishing, to the peace many find in it,
to the connection it affords to the water and the surrounding
landscape.  But any sport that depends for its enjoyability on forcing an
animal to fight for its life is wrong.  Wrong for what it does to the
fish.  Even more wrong for what it does to the fisher.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

## --

To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) Jeff Jacoby's mailing list, please
visit <> To see a month's
worth of his recent columns, go to

Jeff Jacoby welcomes comments and reads all his mail.  Unfortunately, he
receives so many letters that he cannot answer each one personally.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/2003

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list