by Allan Taylor

Created on: August 31, 2008

I have taken the NO (sometimes) position in order to have a say on the matter.

I have pondered over this question to understand its meaning which is not obvious to me and I could be wrong in my final interpretation.

My puzzlement stems largely from never having fished in a wholly catch-and-release area, although I have caught trout in 12 different countries. A clue to its meaning is that the question is partly endorsed by an organization called PETA, which stands for "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals".

Can it be that members of PETA object to legalized (regulated) catch-and-release streams on the grounds that it is harmful to the fish? Do they consider such activity to be unsporting and equivalent to deliberate torture of wild animals purely for the perverse pleasure of a few fly fishermen? Are they Animal Rights Activists moving into the fishing scene?

I don't know. What I can say is that the fly fishermen who enjoy this type of fishing do their utmost not to harm the fish, and often go to the extreme of using barbless hooks to more easily release the fish they do catch.

This would seem to be an honorable activity for any angler. So is this a case of extended zealotism whereby no fish should be harmed or no animal be slaughtered? Should we all be vegetarians? The proposition is puzzling to me but the idea is worthy of debate.

I think that the question is very locality specific, where it may have some logic, but in the broader scheme of things it fades away to be unuseful as a concept.

For example, in South Australia where I live, in the Murray River system it is mandatory to kill all European carp caught. They grow to 10 kg or more in size and provide some recreational fishing. However, they are an introduced species and management have declared them a noxious fish, unwanted because they compete with the more desirable native cod and perches, and trout. So the idea of "catch-and-release" is a NO NO with regard to carp.

In some localities where red-fin (English perch) breed prolifically and yield very small fish the regulations encourage the angler to kill all fish caught. This helps to reduce the population and allows the growth of larger specimens as the food supply is limited. Once again NO "catch-and-release".

Animal Rights Activists have their belief system and deplore cruelty to animals (and fish presumably). However, in the management of animals, man has to control the outcome to maximize the benefit to himself, rather than the animal. What we do, transposed to the human sphere, I suppose is equivalent to murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing which is not acceptable for humans, but if wisely applied to animals and fish it can be of considerable benefit to mankind.

For example, in Australia wildlife management declares nationally, or locally, certain living things to be noxious and be killed or eradicated. These include foxes, feral cats, rabbits, cane toads, European carp, blackberry, feral olive, gorse and dozens more species. In their country of origin they may well be acceptable and not an environmental problem, but here they are NOT "caught-and-released".

All the anglers I know, whether fly, spin or bait fishermen and most are all three, are responsible anglers and practice "catch-and-release" with undersize fish and only keep those bigger ones suitable for processing for the dining table when need be. Education is the best approach to fish conservation rather than excessive regulation.

Ends

Learn more about this author, Allan Taylor.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.