On Angling as an Act of Cruelty

List, Charles J.

doi:10.5840/enviroethics199719323

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When used excessively, it can contribute to anthropogenic eutrophication (Arlinghaus and Mehner, unpublished data) and lead to a substantial reduction in benthic fauna (Cryer and Edwards 1987). The ethical considerations of harming vertebrates by catch‐and‐release angling or by keeping fish alive for bait in keep nets or buckets is a major source of debate among animal welfare and rights groups on the one hand and inland fishermen and their lobby groups on the other (Maitland 1995; De Leeuw 1996; List 1997). However, recent studies on holding fish in keep nets suggest that the fish are not unduly stressed until the density held is high (Pottinger 1997; Raat et al .…”

Section: Description Of Inland Fisheries Of Developed Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In northern industrialized countries, the inland fisheries sector has long been dominated by recreational fisheries, which normally exploit fish for leisure or subsistence and provide many (poorly investigated) benefits to society. Various factors constrain the development and existence of inland fisheries, such as local user conflicts, low social priority and inadequate research and funding. In many cases, however, degradation of the environment and loss of aquatic habitat are the predominant concerns for the sustainability of inland fisheries. The need for concerted effort to prevent and reduce environmental degradation, as well as conservation of freshwater fish and fisheries as renewable common pool resources or entities in their own right is the greatest challenge facing sustainable development of inland waters. In inland fisheries management, the declining quality of the aquatic environment coupled with long‐term inadequate and often inappropriate fisheries management has led to an emphasis on enhancement practices, such as stocking, to mitigate anthropogenic stress. However, this is not always the most appropriate management approach. Therefore, there is an urgent need to alter many traditional inland fisheries management practices and systems to focus on sustainable development. This paper reviews the literature regarding the inputs needed for sustainability of inland fisheries in industrialized countries. To understand better the problems facing sustainable inland fisheries management, the inland fisheries environment, its benefits, negative impacts and constraints, as well as historical management, paradigms, trends and current practices are described. Major philosophical shifts, challenges and promising integrated management approaches are envisaged in a holistic framework. The following are considered key elements for sustainable development of inland fisheries: communication, information dissemination, education, institutional restructuring, marketing outreach, management plans, decision analysis, socioeconomic evaluation and research into the human dimension, in addition to traditional biological and ecological sciences. If these inputs are integrated with traditional fisheries management practices, the prospects for sustainability in the inland fisheries will be enhanced.

show abstract

Section: Description Of Inland Fisheries Of Developed Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stakeholders must not be myopic, rather adopting broader views when considering and interpreting the complexities associated with catch-and-release angling ethics. We leave that debate to other outlets (e.g., see dialogue in the journal ''Environmental Ethics''; de Leeuw, 1996;Chipeniuk, 1997;List, 1997). We believe that research by scientists, industry, and anglers has the potential to further minimize the effects of catch-andrelease fishing on individual fish and fisheries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has been much debate about the ethics of recreational fishing, and in particular catch-andrelease (e.g., de Leeuw, 1996;Chipeniuk, 1997;List, 1997;Balon, 2000). In some jurisdictions such as Germany, all fish captured by anglers must be retained in accordance with animal welfare regulations Steffens and Winkel, 2002;Aas et al, 2002).…”

Section: Catch-and-releasementioning

confidence: 99%

Animal welfare perspectives on recreational angling

Cooke

Sneddon

2007

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

135

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fish captured by recreational anglers are often released either voluntarily or because of harvest regulations in a process called ''catch-and-release''. Catch-and-release angling is thought to be beneficial for the conservation of fish stocks based on the premise that most of the fish that are released survive. However, expanding interest in animal welfare has promoted debate regarding the ethics of catch-and-release angling. There is a growing recognition that fish can consciously experience nociception and that they have some capacity to experience pain and fear. Indeed, empirical anatomical, physiological, and behavioural evidence supports the notion that fish could experience these two forms of suffering (i.e., pain and fear). Based on that premise, we examine existing catch-and-release research from a welfare perspective to determine the extent to which potential pain and suffering could be caused. There are numerous studies that provide analyses of the consequences of catch-and-release on the individual demonstrating physical injury, sublethal alterations in behaviour, physiology, or fitness, and mortality. Collectively, this research suggests that all recreational fishing results in some level of injury and stress to an individual fish. However, the severity of injury, magnitude of stress, and potential for mortality varies extensively in response to a variety of factors. Interestingly, this information can be used to identify strategies that anglers may adopt that minimize these effects through changes in either gear (e.g., type of hook, bait, or net) or angling practices (e.g., duration of fight and air exposure, fishing during extreme environmental conditions, fishing during the reproductive period). Although aspects of the catch-and-release angling experience cannot be refined (e.g., the need to physically hook the fish), we argue that informed anglers and fisheries managers can adopt practices to improve the welfare of angled fish. Although consideration of fish welfare is somewhat abstract to most anglers and fisheries managers, ultimately it benefits the individual fish, while simultaneously benefiting the fish population and fishery. Greater integration of welfare consideration into recreational and commercial fisheries should promote innovative solutions to minimize pain and suffering, which should also enhance conservation and management. #

show abstract

“…From a philosophical perspective, it is important to reflect on whether it is acceptable to portray recreational anglers as cruel. Various authors have argued that this assertion is flawed because recreational anglers lack cruel intentions, which is true irrespective of whether fishes are able to experience pain and suffer or not (Chipeniuk, 1997; List, 1997; Olsen, 2003; Schwab, 2003).…”

Section: The Suffering‐centred Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting pragmatic and suffering‐centred approaches to fish welfare in recreational angling

Arlinghaus

Schwab²,

Cooke

et al. 2009

Journal of Fish Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two views dealing with fish welfare in recreational fishing are discussed in an effort to stimulate the current discourse on the topic. The pragmatic approach asks whether and how strongly recreational fishing compromises the health and fitness of individual fishes and what can be done to avoid or mitigate such effects. Its implementation rests on accepting recreational fishing as a principally legitimate activity. The second approach to fish welfare focuses on suffering and pain in fishes and is usually morally prescriptive. Its central tenet is that some or all recreational fishing practices may be unacceptable unless sufficient benefits to humans are created, which justify the supposedly cruel treatment of the fishes. The pragmatic approach to fish welfare is preferred because it relies on objectively measurable variables of impaired fish welfare (e.g. physiological, behavioural or fitness indicators) and does not question recreational fishing on moral grounds. Contrary to a suffering-centred approach to fish welfare, a pragmatic perspective emphasizes positive messages and facilitates constructive dialogue among stakeholders. In contrast, a suffering-centred approach to fish welfare tends to promote tension and enduring conflict that cannot be reconciled objectively and thus should be avoided.

show abstract

On Angling as an Act of Cruelty

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe

Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe

Animal welfare perspectives on recreational angling

Contrasting pragmatic and suffering‐centred approaches to fish welfare in recreational angling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About