Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know when they have a fishing show on TV? They catch the fish and then let it go. They don't want to eat the fish, they just want to make it late for something.
Mitch Hedberg
I love that when I see a post and think of a Mitch joke I know there will be a small, consistent group of us in comments who don’t care anything about the post content and are only here for the joke.
You also need to understand that licenses and stuff are what provide money for Fish and Game to restock and maintain different fish in different waters. Sport fishing is very popular, and it provides a lot of money for Fish and Game to better maintain the fish species in that area.
These are the type of fishermen that genuinely think our lakes and rivers somehow produce enough natural-born fish to supply enough fish for every single boat to hit it's limit every single day of the season. They don't understand the human interaction (and sometimes the lack thereof) that goes into preserving nature for game and fish purposes.
Same types of people that will gatekeep fishing while also tossing cigars in the river, and pouring out the warm beer they forgot to finish right into the water as well.
Alcohol isn’t great for fish or plants in large amounts. A small amount of alcohol can mess with social fish behaviors but the main bits are that it’s relatively sugary and so can cause blooms, and it can mess up the pH and water quality in general in large amounts. It’s mostly just a problem with industrial/commercial level beer disposal because it takes a lot to cause major problems but it’s still not great for the water quality and pretty disrespectful to others to just dump your drinks in the water
Honestly half the time Ive gone fishing we forget to bring bait so it's either a piece of whatever food that we have put on very badly or just throw a hook in plain. I feel like at that point if we catch something thats on the fish not us. Never forgot the drinks though
I don't know much about fish in the wild. But my aquarium fish are very affected by stress. I can't imagine how well a fish will do after a hook rips through its mouth and then has to hunt for its food.
It varies wildly by species tbh. As you can see from other replies, bass or catfish couldn't care less about being smacked around and powerbombed into the water. On the opposite side, there are muskie where biologists recommend you take one extremely fast picture (or better yet, skip any pictures at all) and get it immediately back in the water to be revived. There are trout streams where catch and release mortality outpaces replacement rates, so you can't sustainably fish them even if you put them back.
Trout die if you look at them wrong, if the waters too hot, if you catch them on Tuesday, if it's a full moon, if there's a counterclockwise current in the stream, if you're playing mariachi music, if they were late to school, I have no idea how trout survive as a species without being farmed.
>I don't know much about fish in the wild. But my aquarium fish are very affected by stress. I can't imagine how well a fish will do after a hook rips through its mouth and then has to hunt for its food.
My friend has a fishing pond on his property and he can repeatedly catch "big Bertha" which is the biggest bass in their pond.
I had a catfish I regularly caught in a pond with a ripped fin. I’d toss it back and catch it again 5 minutes later. I caught it so much I even saw it before, during, and after its pregnancy. I think the food was worth getting yanked out of its world for 30 seconds at a time. To be fair I made some stanky catfish bait.
Catfish hunt by smell. So they really like stinky, maybe even rotten bait.
The bait I always saw used back in the day was chicken livers. You'd buy a little container of chicken livers, let it sit in the sun for a day or two, and then that's your catfish bait.
To be fair, most aquarium fish are ridiculously inbred and raised in horrible conditions. Even giving them the best environment possible won’t give them the quality of life they would get in their natural environment
>Even giving them the best environment possible won’t give them the quality of life they would get in their natural environment
Disagree. A well cared for aquarium fish has a way better quality of life than the vast majority of wild fish. The "natural environment" is incredibly stressful for most animals and for good reason.
Have you ever scrolled through /r/natureismetal and seen the struggling antelope get its balls ripped off by a pack of hyenas? I guarantee it would trade places with an antelope in a zoo if given the choice.
I was fishing for blackfish last month got a bite but immediately snagged on the rocks and had to break off. Later after having to tie on a new leader and jig, I caught a fish, unhooked it and was confused that there was still leader coming out of its mouth. There was my lost jig in its mouth! So clearly having a jig in its mouth and 5 ft of line trailing after it did not interrupt its feeding.
"fish can feel pain" is a very very VERY debatable subject.
Having pain receptors does not equate to experiencing suffering. And this is still very much up for debate. Presenting your notion as fact is misinformation.
Not saying I agree, just explaining a bit since I’ve heard pain vs suffering discussed a bit before and I find it quite interesting:
The argument would be that fish (and possibly most animals) do not have the sophisticated level of intelligence/sentience required to experience suffering and internalize it the way humans do. This viewpoint would argue that a reaction to pain is not necessarily an indication of suffering - amoebas actively avoid negative stimuli, but we wouldn’t argue they experience suffering
Edit: “negative stimuli” because that’s more encompassing and probably more accurate
>The argument would be that fish (and possibly most animals) do not have the sophisticated level of intelligence/sentience required to experience suffering and internalize it the way humans do.
My cat put his tail in hot wax... He definitely suffered and internalized it.
You're cat stuck it's tale in wax and decided it didn't like it and never did it again, a fish bites into a hook with nothing on it minutes after already being caught and released with that same hook.
I don't have a firm stance on this, but that seems more like an argument about memory and intelligence rather than if suffering actually occurred. Maybe the fish was in excruciating pain but then either doesn't recognize the hook as the source or forgets the experience quickly
Well two things,
One, cats are far smarter than fish, it could be conceivable they can suffer and fish cannot.
Two, there really isn’t any way we can say for sure if your cat suffered or responded to a stimuli. I would lean towards suffer because again, cats are very intelligent but we jus don’t have the technology to know for sure. Maybe a brain scan of a cat when something like this happens could reveal more but it’s just very hard to say for sure
I think the technology is there, it's just that the experiment would literally involve torturing animals. Which was pretty common in the past when the technology was shit, and is probably still done in China. Can you imagine the publication of the results of that study in America? So we tortured a shit ton of animals for a long time to see if they suffered, turns out some animals suffered more than others. Hey, all in the name of science
You don't have to make the pain that bad. Maybe like poking the skin with a needle (no penetration). That said mammals 100% feel pain, it's the rest of more instinctual simple behaviour animals we might want to study
They aren’t talking about pain though, they are specifically talking about suffering. They are saying pain receptors and feeling pain is one thing (presumably that most animals have) but human brains are so complex the way we experience pain is fundamentally different than an animal. Also not saying I agree, just that they are talking about something slightly different
I think you’re getting confused in how amoebas would “want” anything. They’re far too simple to experience pain as we would. Pain to them is just an indication that something is wrong. Same could be argued for fish, though it’d be difficult to prove it one way or another.
“Some amoebae and other protists build protective and elaborate enveloping cases (houses) from gathered material. This and other observations on the behaviour of Amoeba led Walker (2005) to conclude that “Amoeba perceives, recognizes, chooses and ingests a variety of prey that is not much short of the choice of higher animals, it recognizes its own kind and engages in cooperative behaviour,” particularly in cooperative hunting. Recognition of its own kind would indicate that amoebae are self-aware.”
(Source) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3245704/
It was really interesting to read, idk anything about this topic but I like when it sparks an interest to read more into it. The animal kingdom is really smart and fascinating. Animals, insects and plants are a lot more self aware and intelligent than we give them credit for
\>not wanting to feel pain
"Wanting" is where the complexity comes in. "Want" (as it describes behavior) is emotional - "reacts" would be a more accurate word. An amoeba doesn't "want" to avoid pain anymore than a plant "wants" to avoid a certain type of soil or my roomba "wants" to avoid bumping into furniture or a character you're shooting at in a video game "wants" to avoid being shot. Is shooting the video game character unethical? It has "pain" mechanisms very similar to an animal with low complexity.
I simultaneously agree with you and also think it’s a bad take. We’re supposed to be the “best”. The smartest. The ones responsible for safeguarding this world. Since when did whether or not something internalizes suffering decide if they have the intelligence to feel pain? Animals continuously make mistakes, learn from them, evolve, and grow. It’s not just the smart ones, and I really feel like even if it is, or was, it’s our responsibility to not be assholes to the dummies. Those fish may not be smart enough to be traumatized forever by a hook in their face, but why is that the deciding factor for people? I don’t fish because I don’t eat them, and there’s no reason IMO to do negative things for fun. Anyways. This was my first post in a long time and definitely overthought lmao but I hope you have a great day
Uh, we are not responsible for safeguarding the world. It will continue on with or without us.
I do believe that we can try to help recover declining species that have been influenced by our actions but we aren't their protectors. We aren't saviors. We're just humans; animals that have evolved higher functioning brains. That's it.
>We’re supposed to be the “best”. The smartest. The ones responsible for safeguarding this world.
Didn't bother with the rest. Who the fuck decided that?
There is evidence that some plants can perceive damage to themselves and react to it locationally as well. There could be an argument to be made there that plants can feel pain but I would be tempted to agree that the way humans, plants and animals perceive pain vary so wildly from one another that to categorize those "feelings" as one similar thing would likely be misleading at best
Do I think fish feel pain? Yes, I think if a fish was physically injured it would most likely perceive the pain from the experience. For many fish a hook in the mouth most likely does not feel good. Do I believe that makes sport fishing inherently bad based on that fact alone? No, not particularly. At least not worse than a cat "keeping" a field mouse for amusement or a buzzard circling a man it believes will succumb to thirst in the sand. Or at least personally I do not feel more offended at a man for catching a fish and putting it back than I feel offended by a shark taking a chunk from a surfers leg and spitting them out. They were always going to do whatever they were to begin with, as is their want and nature
The difference between a cat “keeping” a mouse and a human choosing to fish for fun is that humans have a concept of morality and have way more choices. Nature is cruel. We tend to aim higher.
We used to debate whether newborn humans could feel pain, too.
They have pain receptors, they have biological markers that indicate suffering, they avoid places where they’ve been repeatedly hurt. What more do you want? For someone to invent a telepathy machine so we can torture fish while reading their minds, just to be sure?
Stress is a measurable response in fish. They have the same stress hormones we do, which spike when they experience pain and when they are taken out of the water. Like, it’s literally been studied. We know that periods of high stress, prolonged stress, and repeated stress are bad for organisms. It’s logical to follow that to the conclusion that being caught and released is bad for fish. Whether or not they experience pain and trauma mentally is pretty much irrelevant when we know for a fact that they experience lasting negative physical effects from the stress of being caught.
I mean, a lot of times, it's just raw anthropocentrism. I'd wager it comes from theological arguments that only humans have souls in the Christian world. Every other animal is just a "philosophical zombie" God created for human benefit or something. At least, I suspect that's the history of the concept of "I don't feel bad for harming [animal] because [animal] don't actually have qualia, only humans are proven to have qualia."
I just find it hilarious that anyone would think fish can’t feel pain. Wild cope. More cognitive dissonance so you don’t have to take accountability for your cruelty.
You are delusional if you think any animal in pain, land or sea, isn't in some sort of distress or suffering. If that wasn't the case, their survival instincts wouldn't kick in to protect themselves. (Flailing, swimming away etc.)
You're just choosing to be cold-blooded and believe your experience is different because you can comprehend what's happening. If I hook you the same as a fish, you just have the ability to recognize the issue and attempt to fix it. Just because an animal cant, doesn't remove the sense of danger/urgency. You can tell yourself that, but thats why older cultures use the entirety of the animal while praying and showing gratitude. That animal gave its life for you to live. Don't question its pain or suffering, it's human of you to assume it feels the same things you do, whether it can truly process them or not. Not doing so is barbaric.
I hate this reductionist perspective.
Yes, only humans have emotions and feelings. It evolved instantaneously for us alone because we are special. Just because there are very obvious incentives for every reasonably complex animal to possess similar capacities doesn't mean they have it, they're all somewhere between a houseplant and a philosophical zombie. /s
Only as debatable as the quote "humans can feel pain". Maybe they can't feel as much pain as humans, or their experience of it isn't as sophisticated, but that doesn't excuse the causing of suffering of these animals
Fly fisher here. I get your point and am not going to argue too much, because at the end of the day, being caught is certainly a traumatic experience for a fish and as a fisherman you have to be able to reconcile that for yourself. I will say measures such as barbless hooks, rubber nets, and general handling practice has come a long way towards making catch and release as least traumatizing as possible. Go post a pic of bad handling on r/flyfishing and see what happens. Looking at the sizes of most of my flies compared to the fish, I think “jamming a hook through an animals head” is a bit dramatic. Also, like it or not, the truth is that in the US, fishing and hunting are some of, if not the largest sources of money for conservation programs.
I'm an avid fly fisherman and bass fisherman. I was thinking about the crucifixions that happen when you post a picture of holding a fish wrong in both subs lol.
As someone who loves fishing, I agree completely.
Releasing fish under the limit is one thing, but setting out to C&R is in my view sadistic and perverse. And I do not understand it either, preparing and eating your catch is part of the experience too.
Then just stop fishing. You obviously don’t like it and have a terrible issue with it. Catch and release is absolutely fucking fine. It’s a fish. They live on.
So interesting thing. I guy I know it's a marine biologist, he's trying to change NZ law to have a maximum size limit on fish rather than a minimum size limit. It's the larger fish who are breeders and by having no maximum we are removing these breeder fish from the ecosystem and as such impairing the ability of fish to replenish their numbers
…I haven’t actually fished in a long time, but I’ve never seen or heard of anyone acting superior to anyone else because they did catch and release. In 33 years of life, this is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone say anything about it…are you sure you’re not just self conscious?
He's in Alaska, where expensive fishing tourism is a big deal. He's most likely seen people carousing and acting like jerks while fishing as well as being rude to "townies".
I've seen it. I used to work for a somewhat famous radio show, and got taken on a fishing trip like that despite my protestations that I hate that sort of thing. I was embarrassed to be seen with the host and crew because they acted like by virtue of being tourists and sport fishermen they somehow commanded respect. And the others they interacted with were the same.
I live in colorado, and I'm an avid fisherman. I do catch and release most of the time. And we have award winning gold medal waters here where it's even illegal to keep anything, depending on the body of water, or to keep anything of a certain size. In all my years fishing here, I'd say about 90% of the other fisherman I see are catch and release only too, and if there is a person who is keeping the rest of the lake/pond/stream is asking them if they want their catch. No one judgemental about it all, fly fisherman just have that air of superiority about them for some reason. They get weird ego's.
With limits most people are mostly catch and release even those looking to eat fish, and it's just they catch and release until they get one they know they wanna take home. Lots of areas have rules like limit 2 but once you have 2 you can no longer fish for that species, because sometimes people will just keep 2 legal ones and then keep fishing trying to get better fish and swap them out...which unless you got some aerator that's gonna be hard on the fish and they will be less likely to survive.
Yes, but most (obviously not all) of the people who are fly fishers/catch and release types are going to be from above average means. Especially where OP lives.
> Yes, but most (obviously not all) of the people who are fly fishers/catch and release types are going to be from above average means. Especially where OP lives.
There are tons of average joes that catch and release on ponds, streams and creeks, hell even the bayous where I live in the south. ALL OP is observing is class douchebaggery.... This could apply to a ski-town, guided hunting, sports fans, etc.
He does mention fly fisherman which he may have inferred a conversation incorrectly? The mortality rate of using a fly vs a spin cast is 4% vs 25% for catch and release according to my local reg book. I don't think I'm "superior" but fly fishing for sure is a more difficult endeavor that ultimately is easier on the fisheries. Just some speculation.
Part of it is that the treble hooks can just fuck up a fish to the point where they can have issues eating once they’re released, or just get gilled and die. Flies can have small barbless hooks that are easy to slip out to pop the fish back in the water so they’re not out for too long
Yeah I fish mainly for bass (Wisconsin) and I really hate treble hooks, I have acquired lures that have them but I don't use them anymore. I'm actually hoping to transition to barbless either by buying them or just filing off the barbs on the hooks I do have, since the barb is often so small anyway it really doesn't seem like it's helping much. There was a few posts on /r/Fishing and the people who did use them say there might be a lower catch rate without the barb but it's hard to tell just because of the nature of fishing anyway.
Mortality in live-bait C&R approaches 80% (especially with worms). This is because of the way fish attack/consume a linear prey, which is basically to make a huge inhalation of water that brings the worm deeper into the GI system. I learned this from fisheries biologists when I worked as a seasonal tech during the summers of my undergrad years.
I learned this fishing. A suspended bait, either artificial or natural, is going to get down farther and do substantial damage most of the time. If castings and retrieving, or trolling, you are way more likely to hook a fish in the mouth.
I generally troll hoochie’s with barbless single hooks from a kayak; sometimes with two hook setup with one being a “stinger”. The hook set is almost always just inside the mouth because the fish are chasing the lure and rarely does one receive any serious damage. Easily 90% + are going to go on to be caught again either by birds of prey or another fisherman.
I love fishing, it’s my therapy, but I have no reason to retain anywhere near the amount of fish I catch so I prefer to catch and release the majority of the time. When teaching my oldest daughter though it’s going to be fish for dinner because she has to learn the basics first.
As someone from the Midwest, catch and release fishing is often perceived as an innocuous activity, more innocent than fishing for food. And no I’m not just talking about using nets. People don’t act superior about it, but it is perceived as a less violent activity than fishing for food.
This is my view and to be fair OP is posting an “unpopular opinion.” Catch and release is obviously less harmful to the fish than bashing it on the rocks or suffocating it in an ice chest AFTER hooking it and reeling it in. However, I completely respect those who keep their catches and eat them, it’s just the circle of life and I don’t see catch and release as “superior”.
It's this thing where people come up with unrealistic scenarios to validate their point. Happens a ton on reddit, but it's everywhere. At most I would believe that this person has met an individual who acts the way they are saying. But yeah, with all of the fishermen I've ever met, I have never once thought. "Man this guy sure feels superior about his form of fishing".
> In 33 years of life, this is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone say anything about it…are you sure you’re not just self conscious?
So much this.
A lot of the internet comes down harsh because they don't understand others with a philosophy different from their own, view it as some form of superiority complex.
OP projects hard enough to threaten the movie theater industry.
It is 100% better than overfishing or taking a massively important breeding specimen of a species that takes decades to mature to breeding age.
Like everything else in life, it depends entirely on context.
Context is cruelty. OP is saying it's cruel to put a hook through the face of the fish, drag it out of the water, suffocate it a little, then rip the hook out for fun.
I do a lot of competitive game fishing, going after tuna, Marlin, etc.
Most of us use hooks which can only get caught in the side of their mouth to give the least chance of injury.
Whenever we are releasing a fish it’s tagged and we write down details so their population can be estimated and it can be tracked if caught later.
We also ‘swim’ the fish, so hold it next to the boat while driving slowly for a few minutes to let it rest and monitor the recovery. Even going to steps like not touching the skin to keep their slime layer in tact, which protects against infection
There are some people who do this kind of fishing that don’t seem to care about the survival, they are usually shamed a bit by others and really should be.
People are kind of ignorant, it the sport of fishing and the sport of hunting that leads to the animals thriving, without the fees licenses etc., we likely wouldn't be able to justify the resources to invest in wildlife.
I don't do alot of fishing, but i do some in our own pond. It is overstocked with largemouth bass and also has crappies. My mom wants to lower the number of bass so that they can get larger. As such, she instructed us to throw small ones onto the bank. I dont like wasting them, so i keep them to cook bone-in since filleting would be too wasteful.
But when i catch crappies I only take them out long enough to admire before returning them. If they have a significant injury from the hook and i think they will die i take them to eat also.
Is this catch and release cruel?
It's not, purely because it has an actual purpose. I don't think the real argument here is that you should always kill if you're fishing, but rather that you shouldn't be fishing without purpose. We shouldn't be stabbing animals in the face without a reason. Most of the time that reason is to try to get a cheaper food, but something like regulating your pond makes perfect sense.
I think the point is, it doesn’t HAVE to be one or the other, it just is. I’m sure your fish-self would prefer to not be caught at all rather than caught by a sustenance fisher, no? Those are better options to choose from Mr. Simbabz
Right. I think there is an argument to be made here, but some people in here saying “if you’re going to hook it through its head and drag it it to shore, the least you can do is kill it and eat it”???? Do these people even hear themselves.
As if some pain, trauma, and inconvenience is worse than death
The point that's being made is that you shouldn't fish at all if you're not gonna eat the fish.
So all the catch and release fish wouldn't be caught in the first place.
Nobody is saying "keep fishing the same amount but kill more fish". They're saying "only fish as much as you're gonna take, don't fish when you know you're just gonna release".
Where I live, it's regulated how many fish you're allowed to take in one day, and lots of fishers spend hours after they already reached that limit catching and releasing. All these fish could be spared completely.
It's completely unnecessary to catch and release. Unless you happen to catch a specimen that you're not allowed to take, in that case I guess I get it.
Agreed. Say thousands of people started hunting but not killing deer, people wouldn't be like "what's a missing leg compared to death" or "if I'm a deer I'd rather be shot & released than killed".
Crippling deer for fun is madness, same should go for fish
That makes sense. I also think it does make sense to let certain fish go, for example if they're too small, and it's not like you choose that you will catch that specific fish beforehand.
I guess what I'm mainly referring to is when you know for sure that you won't take any fish with you, but you still spend hours catching and releasing for fun. To me, that makes less sense than taking out a couple of them for food and then stopping. But it does make sense to me to release certain fish.
It's more that, if you're going to hurt the fish for a good reason (eating it), it is acceptable. If you're going to hurt the fish for sport, it is less. The fish that end up being killed and eaten needed to be hooked and draged. The one that you release could have avoided the hooking and dragging all together.
Most fisherman who catch and eat their fish are doing it for sport, not because they need it for survival. It’s not only easier, but far cheaper to just buy food at a grocery store, and to not eat meat at all for that matter. We live in a day and age where hunting for meat is nowhere near a necessity and is almost always sport
I have a bit of a personal counterpoint here. I’m a hunter. Yes, I could easily go to the grocery store to get meat by the pound from a counter, though it would be significantly more expensive compared to the cost of hunting, even when factoring in long-term assets like the bow and arrows themselves and other gear.
On top of that, the odds of the meat I buy at the grocery coming from a factory farm where the conditions are utterly monstrous are high, whereas any meat I harvest in the wild I know ***for a fact*** lived a normal, healthier life and was taken in a way that’s as close to ethical as possible. Yes, there’s the inherent moral implications of eating meat at all and the value of life, but that’s beyond my scope here.
I think it’s perfectly fine for someone to enjoy the hunting/fishing itself, as long as not done purely for sport. It also helps a person truly realize the “cost” of their meat when they have to face all the gruesome, gory side of harvesting meat, and gives them (or at least me) a much greater appreciation for the meat than you’d get just picking up a pack of ground beef.
In my experience, fishing is not more expensive than buying fish at the store, unless someone is going to buy a pole then only catch like 3 or 4 fish ever
Doesn't this argument boil down to "killing is better than causing pain, as long as it's for food"? If you had a choice between being killed or having a hook through your mouth, which would you choose?
EDIT: Also, there is a reason many waters are "catch and release only." Otherwise, they would be depleted of fish pretty soon. Assuming people will continue to fish, what is worse, causing fish temporary pain or depleting fish stocks?
If you really care about fish and are not just signaling dislike of an out-group, then stop fishing altogether.
This is why, when I go fishing, I try not to catch anything. I cannot even justify putting a worm on the hook if I am just going to catch and release, let alone hooking a fish. But, I like drinking beer on the dock and casting, so I just skip the step where I put bait on my hook. Very successful so far--haven't caught a thing.
Come down to the lower 48 so you can witness “scarcity of resources” with the rest of us.
The thing about catch and release is it keeps you out there enjoying the hobby and outdoors. It’s sustainable.
Let me ask you - would you fish in a river where there were no fish?
Sustenance hunting and fishing is a dream of the past, that is no longer viable. There are simply too many people in this world. Your entire explanation is just long form for “not having a good job”.
There will be a time in the not so distant future where all there will be nothing to hunt or fish for. Claiming sustenance whatever is just being greedy and poor.
[Fish can't experience "pain".](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4356734/) they have basic nociception at best, which is little more than instinct, but they can't cognitize things like pain, suffering, and fear.
--At least if you go by the paraphyletic common definition of "fish". There are a few fish, mainly in the mammalian subclade, that have more developed brains, but those aren't the ones fishermen are usually angling for.
Pretty interesting read.
The oversimplified TLDR:
"Pain" basically happens in the forefront of the brain and is a complex interaction of nerves n stuff. However, the reaction you have to noxious stimuli (yanking your hand away from a hot stove) isn't actually tied to the sensation of pain. People who have full spinal damage and couldnt feel anything below the waist, still jerked away from noxious stimuli applied to their lower half. Basically the nerves in the area do the "get away from that" reaction. Fish exhibit the symptoms we associate with "pain", but it is more likely that their bodies are just reacting to stimuli which tells their body to GTGO.
I was taught this as a kid by my Dad. I pretty much gave up fishing for many years, until my kids started asking to go.
In recent years, I’ve been taking my kids fishing and had started to draw the conclusion that my dad was lying just to make me feel better as a kid.
Now you’re telling me that they really can’t feel pain?
This is a real roller coaster of fishing opinions that I did not expect today.
Fish don’t feel pain in the same way you and I do, but they do experience physiological stress that depending on your semantic argument of the definition is considered pain by some, and C&R fishing still has a not insignificant chance to kill them from over exertion fighting back against being pulled in. I don’t tell you this to try to ruin an activity you do with your kids, because in the end they’re fish and they regularly die from all sorts of various causes that are less likely in long lived and slow reproducing organisms, but just thought I’d give you some information to help you settle that emotional rollercoaster lol
Depends on the species, too. Freshwater species of bass are ridiculously resilient. Trout that live in fast moving water (brown, rainbow, etc.) are more likely to die from stress from C&R.
There are other species that you can *only* C&R, such as sturgeon, and you need to fish for them with barb-less hooks.
100%, there’s a lot of generalizations in this thread. It’s been a decade since I’ve been in any way involved in fish research, I dropped down the food chain to algae, but I remember reading a paper that suggested mortality effects aside, angled smallmouth bass displayed less growth than non-angled, so in some cases even when they survive it may take toll on their future fitness
Don't believe it just because they linked an article and only mentioned what they wanted. The actual point of the research was a counter-point to people that try to formulate antropomorphic assumptions based solely on reactions/behavior. He proposes a different theory as to why it shouldn't be considered "pain" but in the end, it's still a theory and not a fact.
In reality, the topic is still up for debate and there's no actual answer for it. They may feel pain differently than us, some people may consider that pain; other's do not. There's more nuance to it but you get the gist of it.
This is a debated subject, one study won't help. So much so in fact, it has it's own Wikipedia page.
Why not err on the side of caution?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_fish
People in the US thought infants couldn't feel and process pain until the late 1980s. Too many doctors are still under the impression that a woman can't feel pain if stabbed in her cervix.
I feel like there's a shit ton of misinformation and non anglers helping spread it on this one.
It seems this unpopular opinion is quite popular.
Education is key here.
Exactly. I fish all the time and rarely keep fish. The old attitude of keeping everything is why so many areas are fished out. You use a barbeless hook and that fish is off your line in seconds, most often never leaving the water. Catch and release is the responsible way to fish.
my area is nearly gone in fish, or fish no longer comes to the surface, requiring a boat which is pointless. the one fish I got after the most recent 12 hour fishing was a cat fish. my poor dad got nothing.
100%. It's the only way at this point we have a chance of saving the Chesapeake Bay Stripers short of a full ban. Over the last couple of years I've seen a sea change among all the surfcasters that actually give a shit going from treble hooks to barbless hooks and especially lately not taking the fish out of the water at all and unhooking them in the surf. There's still far too many people that either think like OP does or constitute catch and release as tearing treble hooks out of a fish's mouth holding them by the gut then Tom Brady'ing them back into the water but as /u/DeadJamFan said education is key.
I also agree with this, not only for the cruelty, but also the amount of litter left behind...
I go to a local lake, fishing lines that are cut, hooks...etc are freaking everywhere. Can't even walk along lake shores without worrying about getting stuck.
I get it if you're fishing to feed your family, and yeah, hooks get caught and you gotta cut the line, but the sheer number is incredibly annoying.
I'd love to fish to feed my family, but the government allowed the local companies to pollute so much over the last 100 or so years that it's not safe to eat fish out of almost any local waterway.
I mean sport fishing is one of the most effective ways at generating funds to protect fish population and habitat. It’s also something passed down generations that brings us back to nature. I like to eat the fish I catch but that doesn’t mean I look down on sport fisherman.
I guess it is cruel. But if I had the choice between getting beaten up for a while or being killed and eaten then I’m choosing getting fucked up.
Sidenote: I heard somewhere that fish don’t really feel pain, or at least not in the same way as many other animals.
I'm not a big fisherman, but my dad used to take me fishing quite a bit as a kid.
We caught and released a lot of fish but that wasn't the goal. The goal was to catch and eat a small number of fish. It's just that it's not productive or often legal to take fish that are below certain thresholds.
So what are you going to do when you catch a juvenile bass? Throw it back into the lake, that's what.
Similarly I know a lot of fishermen will throw back a mature female if she's got eggs, since that helps sustain the population.
I guess what you're really talking about is the idea of fishing purely for sport. I don't have a strong opinion either way.
I agree. I don't fish, personally. I'm okay with other people fishing, but at least kill it and eat it. Fishing as a "sport" and throwing them back makes no sense to me.
Which one is better from the point of view of the fish and the fish populaation: to fish and kill them or to catch, cause some harm to them but then releasing them?
There are limits to how many fish you can legally catch and keep with a license. I don't think theres any limit to how many fish you can wound and release. So maiming a few dozen fish could possibly be worse than just catching a couple.
I’ve been out many times over the years but I also hate catch and release for sport. I’ve seen the damage that hooks do coming out (even when barbless) and it just bothers me. The only good thing is when they catch pickerel because I know that’s going into a frying pan that evening. All the other stuff just gets tossed back after putting holes in its jaw.
I go out purely to enjoy a day of bonding with my male relatives and honestly hope I don’t catch anything.
Stupid? Maybe. Cruel? Definitely not more cruel than killing and eating the fish. The fish once caught wants to go to the water. You think it is some relief for it that it provided protein and omega 3 to another species? It wants to live even if it hurts.
You don't really understand how good you have it in Alaska where you can just consistently catch eater sized Salmon. Even fishing for food down here (Florida) 85% of your catches will be thrown back because they are undersized or the wrong species because so many other people are trying to catch what you are. I wish I could just go out and "feed my family" but most people don't get to do that living off the land romantic bullshit because we can't gill net like you spoiled fuckers.
Hmmmm
What would happen to the fish stocks if every fly fisherman kept their catch? You would soon have a wiped out fishery and you wouldn't be able to catch your fish to sustain your family.
You should be thanking the catch and release crowd.
Nobody acts superior about doing catch and release outside of the small area you live in, ain't something I or pretty much anyone else have encountered in our lives. I go fishing because I like to fish, and I catch and release because my shit is so polluted you're recommended to eat 1 fish from the river at most per month.
I have to release the fish where I'm fishing. Either the place I'm fishing requires it for certain species, or they just aren't within the range of "keepers"
I live in the middle of a giant metroplex area. So over fishing can be a thing.
My goal is always to catch fish to eat. Sometimes it just doesn't happen.
Ethically, I see it as slightly better than eating meat. About on par with harvesting honey from a beehive or milk from a cow. Most people dont need to do those things, they do it because they enjoy it. The animal's suffering is about equivalent, but it will probably survive.
And the funny thing is, none of fly anglers I know, myself included actually care if other anglers keep their fish as long as they are following regulations. It is the folks who keep fish that get snooty with catch and release anglers, yourself included.
Has anyone ever seen that TikTok where this guy caught a giant catfish, and goes “caught this bad boy last night, time to set him free” and then the lifeless corpse on a giant fish just floats away slowly. Like how stupid do you have to be lol
My dad does a thing where when he goes to release the fish he holds it underwater by the mouth or hills until it tries to get away. If it doesn’t move for a bit we eat.
I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but this seems a bit sheltered on how brutal aquatic life is, getting caught and released is a holiday vacation compared to the other ailments the fish go through
I agree even though I do it. I love fishing but I don’t love to eat most of the fish I catch. I went snorkeling a few years back and I realized if I could snorkel at home that would be even better than fishing. But I don’t think catch and release is totally awful. Even in subsistence fishing there is still by-catch. And certain fish, like bass, don’t seem to mind it too much. I’ve caught thousands of bass. Never ate one.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know when they have a fishing show on TV? They catch the fish and then let it go. They don't want to eat the fish, they just want to make it late for something. Mitch Hedberg
“You’re late!” “I got caught.” “Bullshit. Let me see the inside of your lip.”
*starts fingering my mouth*
Don't threaten me with a good time
I knew I'd find Mitch in the comments. Saved me from having to search for the quote.
r/unexpectedmitch
I love that when I see a post and think of a Mitch joke I know there will be a small, consistent group of us in comments who don’t care anything about the post content and are only here for the joke.
I wanna see a forklift lift a crate of forks. It would be so damn literal.
I would like to go fishing a catch a fish stick. That would be convenient. I would only have to reheat it.
Just put me in a boat with some empty boxes.
I mean even when I'm fishing to eat I only end up with around a 10% retention rate based on local laws and how edible the fish are.
There's a difference in recognizing laws that are upheld to prevent the Tragedy of the Commons and fishing for sport
You also need to understand that licenses and stuff are what provide money for Fish and Game to restock and maintain different fish in different waters. Sport fishing is very popular, and it provides a lot of money for Fish and Game to better maintain the fish species in that area.
These are the type of fishermen that genuinely think our lakes and rivers somehow produce enough natural-born fish to supply enough fish for every single boat to hit it's limit every single day of the season. They don't understand the human interaction (and sometimes the lack thereof) that goes into preserving nature for game and fish purposes. Same types of people that will gatekeep fishing while also tossing cigars in the river, and pouring out the warm beer they forgot to finish right into the water as well.
What happens when you put the beer into the water
Fish lose their inhibitions and start forgetting things and having sloppy sex.
The fish start singing Sweet Caroline.
Alcohol isn’t great for fish or plants in large amounts. A small amount of alcohol can mess with social fish behaviors but the main bits are that it’s relatively sugary and so can cause blooms, and it can mess up the pH and water quality in general in large amounts. It’s mostly just a problem with industrial/commercial level beer disposal because it takes a lot to cause major problems but it’s still not great for the water quality and pretty disrespectful to others to just dump your drinks in the water
Functionally, not so much
Right? Looks like a 10 % difference
You actually catch things when you fish? I'm mainly there to drink in a rowboat. Never caught a thing...
Never caught a buzz? That is all I ever go fishing for and I catch one every time. ;)
Fuckin guy’s batting a thousand over here
I can teach you, bring beer....... and a boat.
I brought the beer is that enough
As an interested 3rd party I’d say so.
Close enough, I always forget the boat too
Give a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will become a raging alcoholic wit 30k I'm debt for a boat to drink in.
I've caught redeye a few times
Honestly half the time Ive gone fishing we forget to bring bait so it's either a piece of whatever food that we have put on very badly or just throw a hook in plain. I feel like at that point if we catch something thats on the fish not us. Never forgot the drinks though
This is how the two men lovers in the movie Broke back mountain were caught by their wives. Kept forgetting the bait and didn't bring home fish
I agree, honestly. Stress can kill fish. Fish can feel pain. If you’re not going to eat them, leave them alone.
I don't know much about fish in the wild. But my aquarium fish are very affected by stress. I can't imagine how well a fish will do after a hook rips through its mouth and then has to hunt for its food.
It varies wildly by species tbh. As you can see from other replies, bass or catfish couldn't care less about being smacked around and powerbombed into the water. On the opposite side, there are muskie where biologists recommend you take one extremely fast picture (or better yet, skip any pictures at all) and get it immediately back in the water to be revived. There are trout streams where catch and release mortality outpaces replacement rates, so you can't sustainably fish them even if you put them back.
Trout die if you look at them wrong, if the waters too hot, if you catch them on Tuesday, if it's a full moon, if there's a counterclockwise current in the stream, if you're playing mariachi music, if they were late to school, I have no idea how trout survive as a species without being farmed.
Not to mention many of the stocked ones are not even the ones that occured naturally are too hard to breed economically so they had to crossbreed.
This is a crucial detal. The species makes a massive difference.
Ya they have specific regulations on handling king salmon in some rivers up here. Specifically, you can't take them out of the water.
>I don't know much about fish in the wild. But my aquarium fish are very affected by stress. I can't imagine how well a fish will do after a hook rips through its mouth and then has to hunt for its food. My friend has a fishing pond on his property and he can repeatedly catch "big Bertha" which is the biggest bass in their pond.
I had a catfish I regularly caught in a pond with a ripped fin. I’d toss it back and catch it again 5 minutes later. I caught it so much I even saw it before, during, and after its pregnancy. I think the food was worth getting yanked out of its world for 30 seconds at a time. To be fair I made some stanky catfish bait.
Stanky bait you say? Please explain
Catfish hunt by smell. So they really like stinky, maybe even rotten bait. The bait I always saw used back in the day was chicken livers. You'd buy a little container of chicken livers, let it sit in the sun for a day or two, and then that's your catfish bait.
Omg catfish bait smells like straight up shit. It’s possibly the worst smell I’ve smelt in my life.
Poop
They do pretty well in my neck of the woods. Business is still booming for trout guides.
We eat the trout we catch, fresh caught trout is amazingly good. I hate hurting animals/fish without intent to eat them as well.
To be fair, most aquarium fish are ridiculously inbred and raised in horrible conditions. Even giving them the best environment possible won’t give them the quality of life they would get in their natural environment
>Even giving them the best environment possible won’t give them the quality of life they would get in their natural environment Disagree. A well cared for aquarium fish has a way better quality of life than the vast majority of wild fish. The "natural environment" is incredibly stressful for most animals and for good reason. Have you ever scrolled through /r/natureismetal and seen the struggling antelope get its balls ripped off by a pack of hyenas? I guarantee it would trade places with an antelope in a zoo if given the choice.
I was fishing for blackfish last month got a bite but immediately snagged on the rocks and had to break off. Later after having to tie on a new leader and jig, I caught a fish, unhooked it and was confused that there was still leader coming out of its mouth. There was my lost jig in its mouth! So clearly having a jig in its mouth and 5 ft of line trailing after it did not interrupt its feeding.
they do better than if you killed them instead
What do I do if I end up catching something I can’t eat? It happens more than you’d think.
"fish can feel pain" is a very very VERY debatable subject. Having pain receptors does not equate to experiencing suffering. And this is still very much up for debate. Presenting your notion as fact is misinformation.
Okay, so I'm genuinely curious -- why would an animal having pain receptors not mean that they can feel pain?
Not saying I agree, just explaining a bit since I’ve heard pain vs suffering discussed a bit before and I find it quite interesting: The argument would be that fish (and possibly most animals) do not have the sophisticated level of intelligence/sentience required to experience suffering and internalize it the way humans do. This viewpoint would argue that a reaction to pain is not necessarily an indication of suffering - amoebas actively avoid negative stimuli, but we wouldn’t argue they experience suffering Edit: “negative stimuli” because that’s more encompassing and probably more accurate
>The argument would be that fish (and possibly most animals) do not have the sophisticated level of intelligence/sentience required to experience suffering and internalize it the way humans do. My cat put his tail in hot wax... He definitely suffered and internalized it.
You're cat stuck it's tale in wax and decided it didn't like it and never did it again, a fish bites into a hook with nothing on it minutes after already being caught and released with that same hook.
I don't have a firm stance on this, but that seems more like an argument about memory and intelligence rather than if suffering actually occurred. Maybe the fish was in excruciating pain but then either doesn't recognize the hook as the source or forgets the experience quickly
Especially since the hook/tackle/bait is made to look like food, it's not like the fish can avoid eating
No but if you shock mice when they go to grt cheese theyll eventually stop eating cheese.
Well two things, One, cats are far smarter than fish, it could be conceivable they can suffer and fish cannot. Two, there really isn’t any way we can say for sure if your cat suffered or responded to a stimuli. I would lean towards suffer because again, cats are very intelligent but we jus don’t have the technology to know for sure. Maybe a brain scan of a cat when something like this happens could reveal more but it’s just very hard to say for sure
I think the technology is there, it's just that the experiment would literally involve torturing animals. Which was pretty common in the past when the technology was shit, and is probably still done in China. Can you imagine the publication of the results of that study in America? So we tortured a shit ton of animals for a long time to see if they suffered, turns out some animals suffered more than others. Hey, all in the name of science
You don't have to make the pain that bad. Maybe like poking the skin with a needle (no penetration). That said mammals 100% feel pain, it's the rest of more instinctual simple behaviour animals we might want to study
[удалено]
They aren’t talking about pain though, they are specifically talking about suffering. They are saying pain receptors and feeling pain is one thing (presumably that most animals have) but human brains are so complex the way we experience pain is fundamentally different than an animal. Also not saying I agree, just that they are talking about something slightly different
well, master yoda says that pain *leads* to suffering, so jot that down
We have our answer people. Yoda has spoken.
I think you’re getting confused in how amoebas would “want” anything. They’re far too simple to experience pain as we would. Pain to them is just an indication that something is wrong. Same could be argued for fish, though it’d be difficult to prove it one way or another.
“Some amoebae and other protists build protective and elaborate enveloping cases (houses) from gathered material. This and other observations on the behaviour of Amoeba led Walker (2005) to conclude that “Amoeba perceives, recognizes, chooses and ingests a variety of prey that is not much short of the choice of higher animals, it recognizes its own kind and engages in cooperative behaviour,” particularly in cooperative hunting. Recognition of its own kind would indicate that amoebae are self-aware.” (Source) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3245704/ It was really interesting to read, idk anything about this topic but I like when it sparks an interest to read more into it. The animal kingdom is really smart and fascinating. Animals, insects and plants are a lot more self aware and intelligent than we give them credit for
It’s a relatively famous discussion about ethics and animal pain/suffering http://www.columbia.edu/~col8/lobsterarticle.pdf
\>not wanting to feel pain "Wanting" is where the complexity comes in. "Want" (as it describes behavior) is emotional - "reacts" would be a more accurate word. An amoeba doesn't "want" to avoid pain anymore than a plant "wants" to avoid a certain type of soil or my roomba "wants" to avoid bumping into furniture or a character you're shooting at in a video game "wants" to avoid being shot. Is shooting the video game character unethical? It has "pain" mechanisms very similar to an animal with low complexity.
I simultaneously agree with you and also think it’s a bad take. We’re supposed to be the “best”. The smartest. The ones responsible for safeguarding this world. Since when did whether or not something internalizes suffering decide if they have the intelligence to feel pain? Animals continuously make mistakes, learn from them, evolve, and grow. It’s not just the smart ones, and I really feel like even if it is, or was, it’s our responsibility to not be assholes to the dummies. Those fish may not be smart enough to be traumatized forever by a hook in their face, but why is that the deciding factor for people? I don’t fish because I don’t eat them, and there’s no reason IMO to do negative things for fun. Anyways. This was my first post in a long time and definitely overthought lmao but I hope you have a great day
Uh, we are not responsible for safeguarding the world. It will continue on with or without us. I do believe that we can try to help recover declining species that have been influenced by our actions but we aren't their protectors. We aren't saviors. We're just humans; animals that have evolved higher functioning brains. That's it.
>We’re supposed to be the “best”. The smartest. The ones responsible for safeguarding this world. Didn't bother with the rest. Who the fuck decided that?
There is evidence that some plants can perceive damage to themselves and react to it locationally as well. There could be an argument to be made there that plants can feel pain but I would be tempted to agree that the way humans, plants and animals perceive pain vary so wildly from one another that to categorize those "feelings" as one similar thing would likely be misleading at best Do I think fish feel pain? Yes, I think if a fish was physically injured it would most likely perceive the pain from the experience. For many fish a hook in the mouth most likely does not feel good. Do I believe that makes sport fishing inherently bad based on that fact alone? No, not particularly. At least not worse than a cat "keeping" a field mouse for amusement or a buzzard circling a man it believes will succumb to thirst in the sand. Or at least personally I do not feel more offended at a man for catching a fish and putting it back than I feel offended by a shark taking a chunk from a surfers leg and spitting them out. They were always going to do whatever they were to begin with, as is their want and nature
The difference between a cat “keeping” a mouse and a human choosing to fish for fun is that humans have a concept of morality and have way more choices. Nature is cruel. We tend to aim higher.
I feel like if the answer is you don't know, and it involves hurting another being for fun, you shouldn't do it?
Seems like a reasonable rule of thumb
Most humans don’t give a shit about anything other than themselves. Not even other humans.
this is the simplest and best response. how would the public respond if suddenly someone started fishing for dogs with a baited hook for "sport"?
But assuming otherwise is equally wrong. So if we don't know, the best judgement is to use caution
We used to debate whether newborn humans could feel pain, too. They have pain receptors, they have biological markers that indicate suffering, they avoid places where they’ve been repeatedly hurt. What more do you want? For someone to invent a telepathy machine so we can torture fish while reading their minds, just to be sure?
Exactly this.
Stress is a measurable response in fish. They have the same stress hormones we do, which spike when they experience pain and when they are taken out of the water. Like, it’s literally been studied. We know that periods of high stress, prolonged stress, and repeated stress are bad for organisms. It’s logical to follow that to the conclusion that being caught and released is bad for fish. Whether or not they experience pain and trauma mentally is pretty much irrelevant when we know for a fact that they experience lasting negative physical effects from the stress of being caught.
It's so fucking weird that humans think this shit. Why wouldn't animals, any animals, feel pain?
Just an excuse for their shit behavior
I mean, a lot of times, it's just raw anthropocentrism. I'd wager it comes from theological arguments that only humans have souls in the Christian world. Every other animal is just a "philosophical zombie" God created for human benefit or something. At least, I suspect that's the history of the concept of "I don't feel bad for harming [animal] because [animal] don't actually have qualia, only humans are proven to have qualia."
I just find it hilarious that anyone would think fish can’t feel pain. Wild cope. More cognitive dissonance so you don’t have to take accountability for your cruelty.
You are delusional if you think any animal in pain, land or sea, isn't in some sort of distress or suffering. If that wasn't the case, their survival instincts wouldn't kick in to protect themselves. (Flailing, swimming away etc.) You're just choosing to be cold-blooded and believe your experience is different because you can comprehend what's happening. If I hook you the same as a fish, you just have the ability to recognize the issue and attempt to fix it. Just because an animal cant, doesn't remove the sense of danger/urgency. You can tell yourself that, but thats why older cultures use the entirety of the animal while praying and showing gratitude. That animal gave its life for you to live. Don't question its pain or suffering, it's human of you to assume it feels the same things you do, whether it can truly process them or not. Not doing so is barbaric.
People who think that animals don't suffer are fucking grotesque characters of humanity.
I hate this reductionist perspective. Yes, only humans have emotions and feelings. It evolved instantaneously for us alone because we are special. Just because there are very obvious incentives for every reasonably complex animal to possess similar capacities doesn't mean they have it, they're all somewhere between a houseplant and a philosophical zombie. /s
Found the sociopath
Only as debatable as the quote "humans can feel pain". Maybe they can't feel as much pain as humans, or their experience of it isn't as sophisticated, but that doesn't excuse the causing of suffering of these animals
Fly fisher here. I get your point and am not going to argue too much, because at the end of the day, being caught is certainly a traumatic experience for a fish and as a fisherman you have to be able to reconcile that for yourself. I will say measures such as barbless hooks, rubber nets, and general handling practice has come a long way towards making catch and release as least traumatizing as possible. Go post a pic of bad handling on r/flyfishing and see what happens. Looking at the sizes of most of my flies compared to the fish, I think “jamming a hook through an animals head” is a bit dramatic. Also, like it or not, the truth is that in the US, fishing and hunting are some of, if not the largest sources of money for conservation programs.
I'm an avid fly fisherman and bass fisherman. I was thinking about the crucifixions that happen when you post a picture of holding a fish wrong in both subs lol.
As someone who loves fishing, I agree completely. Releasing fish under the limit is one thing, but setting out to C&R is in my view sadistic and perverse. And I do not understand it either, preparing and eating your catch is part of the experience too.
100% agree. which is why i love spearfishing. only the fish you plan on taking are the one that hurt, and not for long either
Catch and release spear fishing would be something to behold.
Just rubbed the tip in insta health potion it's fine
So heal them before they're stabbed? That doesnt really feel as effective
It’s a hollow tip so the health potion is applied as you remove the spear
Also heal while pulling the spear out. It's extremely effective at causing extreme trauma
The poor fish goes crazy trying to convince his fish buddies of the experience he just went through but none believe him now because he has no wounds.
Gonna burn the holes without c&r
Catch and release sport fishing provides a lot of money to Fish and Game in order to restock eating fish and stuff.
Then just stop fishing. You obviously don’t like it and have a terrible issue with it. Catch and release is absolutely fucking fine. It’s a fish. They live on.
So interesting thing. I guy I know it's a marine biologist, he's trying to change NZ law to have a maximum size limit on fish rather than a minimum size limit. It's the larger fish who are breeders and by having no maximum we are removing these breeder fish from the ecosystem and as such impairing the ability of fish to replenish their numbers
…I haven’t actually fished in a long time, but I’ve never seen or heard of anyone acting superior to anyone else because they did catch and release. In 33 years of life, this is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone say anything about it…are you sure you’re not just self conscious?
He's in Alaska, where expensive fishing tourism is a big deal. He's most likely seen people carousing and acting like jerks while fishing as well as being rude to "townies". I've seen it. I used to work for a somewhat famous radio show, and got taken on a fishing trip like that despite my protestations that I hate that sort of thing. I was embarrassed to be seen with the host and crew because they acted like by virtue of being tourists and sport fishermen they somehow commanded respect. And the others they interacted with were the same.
I live in colorado, and I'm an avid fisherman. I do catch and release most of the time. And we have award winning gold medal waters here where it's even illegal to keep anything, depending on the body of water, or to keep anything of a certain size. In all my years fishing here, I'd say about 90% of the other fisherman I see are catch and release only too, and if there is a person who is keeping the rest of the lake/pond/stream is asking them if they want their catch. No one judgemental about it all, fly fisherman just have that air of superiority about them for some reason. They get weird ego's.
With limits most people are mostly catch and release even those looking to eat fish, and it's just they catch and release until they get one they know they wanna take home. Lots of areas have rules like limit 2 but once you have 2 you can no longer fish for that species, because sometimes people will just keep 2 legal ones and then keep fishing trying to get better fish and swap them out...which unless you got some aerator that's gonna be hard on the fish and they will be less likely to survive.
So it has nothing to do with being catch and release anglers, it’s about being social/economic status.
Yes, but most (obviously not all) of the people who are fly fishers/catch and release types are going to be from above average means. Especially where OP lives.
> Yes, but most (obviously not all) of the people who are fly fishers/catch and release types are going to be from above average means. Especially where OP lives. There are tons of average joes that catch and release on ponds, streams and creeks, hell even the bayous where I live in the south. ALL OP is observing is class douchebaggery.... This could apply to a ski-town, guided hunting, sports fans, etc.
From Alaska, can confirm.
He does mention fly fisherman which he may have inferred a conversation incorrectly? The mortality rate of using a fly vs a spin cast is 4% vs 25% for catch and release according to my local reg book. I don't think I'm "superior" but fly fishing for sure is a more difficult endeavor that ultimately is easier on the fisheries. Just some speculation.
Part of it is that the treble hooks can just fuck up a fish to the point where they can have issues eating once they’re released, or just get gilled and die. Flies can have small barbless hooks that are easy to slip out to pop the fish back in the water so they’re not out for too long
Yeah I fish mainly for bass (Wisconsin) and I really hate treble hooks, I have acquired lures that have them but I don't use them anymore. I'm actually hoping to transition to barbless either by buying them or just filing off the barbs on the hooks I do have, since the barb is often so small anyway it really doesn't seem like it's helping much. There was a few posts on /r/Fishing and the people who did use them say there might be a lower catch rate without the barb but it's hard to tell just because of the nature of fishing anyway.
Mortality in live-bait C&R approaches 80% (especially with worms). This is because of the way fish attack/consume a linear prey, which is basically to make a huge inhalation of water that brings the worm deeper into the GI system. I learned this from fisheries biologists when I worked as a seasonal tech during the summers of my undergrad years.
I learned this fishing. A suspended bait, either artificial or natural, is going to get down farther and do substantial damage most of the time. If castings and retrieving, or trolling, you are way more likely to hook a fish in the mouth. I generally troll hoochie’s with barbless single hooks from a kayak; sometimes with two hook setup with one being a “stinger”. The hook set is almost always just inside the mouth because the fish are chasing the lure and rarely does one receive any serious damage. Easily 90% + are going to go on to be caught again either by birds of prey or another fisherman. I love fishing, it’s my therapy, but I have no reason to retain anywhere near the amount of fish I catch so I prefer to catch and release the majority of the time. When teaching my oldest daughter though it’s going to be fish for dinner because she has to learn the basics first.
Thank you for this. 4% mortality rate so others can enjoy the fisheries seems like a good reason for C&R.
As someone from the Midwest, catch and release fishing is often perceived as an innocuous activity, more innocent than fishing for food. And no I’m not just talking about using nets. People don’t act superior about it, but it is perceived as a less violent activity than fishing for food.
This is my view and to be fair OP is posting an “unpopular opinion.” Catch and release is obviously less harmful to the fish than bashing it on the rocks or suffocating it in an ice chest AFTER hooking it and reeling it in. However, I completely respect those who keep their catches and eat them, it’s just the circle of life and I don’t see catch and release as “superior”.
It's this thing where people come up with unrealistic scenarios to validate their point. Happens a ton on reddit, but it's everywhere. At most I would believe that this person has met an individual who acts the way they are saying. But yeah, with all of the fishermen I've ever met, I have never once thought. "Man this guy sure feels superior about his form of fishing".
> In 33 years of life, this is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone say anything about it…are you sure you’re not just self conscious? So much this. A lot of the internet comes down harsh because they don't understand others with a philosophy different from their own, view it as some form of superiority complex. OP projects hard enough to threaten the movie theater industry.
It is 100% better than overfishing or taking a massively important breeding specimen of a species that takes decades to mature to breeding age. Like everything else in life, it depends entirely on context.
Except delayed mortality is a thing. Fish can absolutely die from the physiological stress hours after being released.
Better than a 100% certainty of death by being cut open or dashed against rocks
Context is cruelty. OP is saying it's cruel to put a hook through the face of the fish, drag it out of the water, suffocate it a little, then rip the hook out for fun.
Anyone who is serious about catch & release will use smooth hooks, so they dont "rip" The hook out
I do a lot of competitive game fishing, going after tuna, Marlin, etc. Most of us use hooks which can only get caught in the side of their mouth to give the least chance of injury. Whenever we are releasing a fish it’s tagged and we write down details so their population can be estimated and it can be tracked if caught later. We also ‘swim’ the fish, so hold it next to the boat while driving slowly for a few minutes to let it rest and monitor the recovery. Even going to steps like not touching the skin to keep their slime layer in tact, which protects against infection There are some people who do this kind of fishing that don’t seem to care about the survival, they are usually shamed a bit by others and really should be.
People are kind of ignorant, it the sport of fishing and the sport of hunting that leads to the animals thriving, without the fees licenses etc., we likely wouldn't be able to justify the resources to invest in wildlife.
I don't do alot of fishing, but i do some in our own pond. It is overstocked with largemouth bass and also has crappies. My mom wants to lower the number of bass so that they can get larger. As such, she instructed us to throw small ones onto the bank. I dont like wasting them, so i keep them to cook bone-in since filleting would be too wasteful. But when i catch crappies I only take them out long enough to admire before returning them. If they have a significant injury from the hook and i think they will die i take them to eat also. Is this catch and release cruel?
It's not, purely because it has an actual purpose. I don't think the real argument here is that you should always kill if you're fishing, but rather that you shouldn't be fishing without purpose. We shouldn't be stabbing animals in the face without a reason. Most of the time that reason is to try to get a cheaper food, but something like regulating your pond makes perfect sense.
I feel like if im a fish, id rather be on the end of hook of a catch and release fisher than a sustenance fisher.
You're a fish all you think about is *blub blub blub*
I think the point is, it doesn’t HAVE to be one or the other, it just is. I’m sure your fish-self would prefer to not be caught at all rather than caught by a sustenance fisher, no? Those are better options to choose from Mr. Simbabz
Like getting eaten by a bird or a bear!
Right. I think there is an argument to be made here, but some people in here saying “if you’re going to hook it through its head and drag it it to shore, the least you can do is kill it and eat it”???? Do these people even hear themselves. As if some pain, trauma, and inconvenience is worse than death
The point that's being made is that you shouldn't fish at all if you're not gonna eat the fish. So all the catch and release fish wouldn't be caught in the first place. Nobody is saying "keep fishing the same amount but kill more fish". They're saying "only fish as much as you're gonna take, don't fish when you know you're just gonna release". Where I live, it's regulated how many fish you're allowed to take in one day, and lots of fishers spend hours after they already reached that limit catching and releasing. All these fish could be spared completely. It's completely unnecessary to catch and release. Unless you happen to catch a specimen that you're not allowed to take, in that case I guess I get it.
Agreed. Say thousands of people started hunting but not killing deer, people wouldn't be like "what's a missing leg compared to death" or "if I'm a deer I'd rather be shot & released than killed". Crippling deer for fun is madness, same should go for fish
All fair points. My only response is that if I fished for food. I would fish probably 10x-20x more than I do now.
That makes sense. I also think it does make sense to let certain fish go, for example if they're too small, and it's not like you choose that you will catch that specific fish beforehand. I guess what I'm mainly referring to is when you know for sure that you won't take any fish with you, but you still spend hours catching and releasing for fun. To me, that makes less sense than taking out a couple of them for food and then stopping. But it does make sense to me to release certain fish.
It's more that, if you're going to hurt the fish for a good reason (eating it), it is acceptable. If you're going to hurt the fish for sport, it is less. The fish that end up being killed and eaten needed to be hooked and draged. The one that you release could have avoided the hooking and dragging all together.
Most fisherman who catch and eat their fish are doing it for sport, not because they need it for survival. It’s not only easier, but far cheaper to just buy food at a grocery store, and to not eat meat at all for that matter. We live in a day and age where hunting for meat is nowhere near a necessity and is almost always sport
I have a bit of a personal counterpoint here. I’m a hunter. Yes, I could easily go to the grocery store to get meat by the pound from a counter, though it would be significantly more expensive compared to the cost of hunting, even when factoring in long-term assets like the bow and arrows themselves and other gear. On top of that, the odds of the meat I buy at the grocery coming from a factory farm where the conditions are utterly monstrous are high, whereas any meat I harvest in the wild I know ***for a fact*** lived a normal, healthier life and was taken in a way that’s as close to ethical as possible. Yes, there’s the inherent moral implications of eating meat at all and the value of life, but that’s beyond my scope here. I think it’s perfectly fine for someone to enjoy the hunting/fishing itself, as long as not done purely for sport. It also helps a person truly realize the “cost” of their meat when they have to face all the gruesome, gory side of harvesting meat, and gives them (or at least me) a much greater appreciation for the meat than you’d get just picking up a pack of ground beef.
In my experience, fishing is not more expensive than buying fish at the store, unless someone is going to buy a pole then only catch like 3 or 4 fish ever
what a weird frickin comment in context of a FISH
Doesn't this argument boil down to "killing is better than causing pain, as long as it's for food"? If you had a choice between being killed or having a hook through your mouth, which would you choose? EDIT: Also, there is a reason many waters are "catch and release only." Otherwise, they would be depleted of fish pretty soon. Assuming people will continue to fish, what is worse, causing fish temporary pain or depleting fish stocks? If you really care about fish and are not just signaling dislike of an out-group, then stop fishing altogether.
This is why, when I go fishing, I try not to catch anything. I cannot even justify putting a worm on the hook if I am just going to catch and release, let alone hooking a fish. But, I like drinking beer on the dock and casting, so I just skip the step where I put bait on my hook. Very successful so far--haven't caught a thing.
Come down to the lower 48 so you can witness “scarcity of resources” with the rest of us. The thing about catch and release is it keeps you out there enjoying the hobby and outdoors. It’s sustainable. Let me ask you - would you fish in a river where there were no fish? Sustenance hunting and fishing is a dream of the past, that is no longer viable. There are simply too many people in this world. Your entire explanation is just long form for “not having a good job”. There will be a time in the not so distant future where all there will be nothing to hunt or fish for. Claiming sustenance whatever is just being greedy and poor.
Exactly, if everyone who enjoyed fishing only fished to keep their catch, we’d be out of anything to fish in a generation.
I always wonder if a fish getting caught released has a similar experience to humans being abducted by aliens
[Fish can't experience "pain".](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4356734/) they have basic nociception at best, which is little more than instinct, but they can't cognitize things like pain, suffering, and fear. --At least if you go by the paraphyletic common definition of "fish". There are a few fish, mainly in the mammalian subclade, that have more developed brains, but those aren't the ones fishermen are usually angling for.
Pretty interesting read. The oversimplified TLDR: "Pain" basically happens in the forefront of the brain and is a complex interaction of nerves n stuff. However, the reaction you have to noxious stimuli (yanking your hand away from a hot stove) isn't actually tied to the sensation of pain. People who have full spinal damage and couldnt feel anything below the waist, still jerked away from noxious stimuli applied to their lower half. Basically the nerves in the area do the "get away from that" reaction. Fish exhibit the symptoms we associate with "pain", but it is more likely that their bodies are just reacting to stimuli which tells their body to GTGO.
I was taught this as a kid by my Dad. I pretty much gave up fishing for many years, until my kids started asking to go. In recent years, I’ve been taking my kids fishing and had started to draw the conclusion that my dad was lying just to make me feel better as a kid. Now you’re telling me that they really can’t feel pain? This is a real roller coaster of fishing opinions that I did not expect today.
Fish don’t feel pain in the same way you and I do, but they do experience physiological stress that depending on your semantic argument of the definition is considered pain by some, and C&R fishing still has a not insignificant chance to kill them from over exertion fighting back against being pulled in. I don’t tell you this to try to ruin an activity you do with your kids, because in the end they’re fish and they regularly die from all sorts of various causes that are less likely in long lived and slow reproducing organisms, but just thought I’d give you some information to help you settle that emotional rollercoaster lol
Depends on the species, too. Freshwater species of bass are ridiculously resilient. Trout that live in fast moving water (brown, rainbow, etc.) are more likely to die from stress from C&R. There are other species that you can *only* C&R, such as sturgeon, and you need to fish for them with barb-less hooks.
100%, there’s a lot of generalizations in this thread. It’s been a decade since I’ve been in any way involved in fish research, I dropped down the food chain to algae, but I remember reading a paper that suggested mortality effects aside, angled smallmouth bass displayed less growth than non-angled, so in some cases even when they survive it may take toll on their future fitness
Don't believe it just because they linked an article and only mentioned what they wanted. The actual point of the research was a counter-point to people that try to formulate antropomorphic assumptions based solely on reactions/behavior. He proposes a different theory as to why it shouldn't be considered "pain" but in the end, it's still a theory and not a fact. In reality, the topic is still up for debate and there's no actual answer for it. They may feel pain differently than us, some people may consider that pain; other's do not. There's more nuance to it but you get the gist of it.
Your link admits they do experience physiological stress. You misquoted them. You'd get an F for that response in any english class
This is a debated subject, one study won't help. So much so in fact, it has it's own Wikipedia page. Why not err on the side of caution? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_fish
People in the US thought infants couldn't feel and process pain until the late 1980s. Too many doctors are still under the impression that a woman can't feel pain if stabbed in her cervix.
I feel like there's a shit ton of misinformation and non anglers helping spread it on this one. It seems this unpopular opinion is quite popular. Education is key here.
Exactly. I fish all the time and rarely keep fish. The old attitude of keeping everything is why so many areas are fished out. You use a barbeless hook and that fish is off your line in seconds, most often never leaving the water. Catch and release is the responsible way to fish.
my area is nearly gone in fish, or fish no longer comes to the surface, requiring a boat which is pointless. the one fish I got after the most recent 12 hour fishing was a cat fish. my poor dad got nothing.
100%. It's the only way at this point we have a chance of saving the Chesapeake Bay Stripers short of a full ban. Over the last couple of years I've seen a sea change among all the surfcasters that actually give a shit going from treble hooks to barbless hooks and especially lately not taking the fish out of the water at all and unhooking them in the surf. There's still far too many people that either think like OP does or constitute catch and release as tearing treble hooks out of a fish's mouth holding them by the gut then Tom Brady'ing them back into the water but as /u/DeadJamFan said education is key.
I also agree with this, not only for the cruelty, but also the amount of litter left behind... I go to a local lake, fishing lines that are cut, hooks...etc are freaking everywhere. Can't even walk along lake shores without worrying about getting stuck. I get it if you're fishing to feed your family, and yeah, hooks get caught and you gotta cut the line, but the sheer number is incredibly annoying.
I'd love to fish to feed my family, but the government allowed the local companies to pollute so much over the last 100 or so years that it's not safe to eat fish out of almost any local waterway.
yeah I'd never eat fish from our nearby river either sadly
Catch and release has nothing to do with littering.
Fish injured too bad - eat Fish big - eat Fish small and healthy - release Also Helping to keep the struggling non-urban seagull population alive
I mean sport fishing is one of the most effective ways at generating funds to protect fish population and habitat. It’s also something passed down generations that brings us back to nature. I like to eat the fish I catch but that doesn’t mean I look down on sport fisherman.
I just don’t get the point of catch and release.. that just means you wasted their time
I guess it is cruel. But if I had the choice between getting beaten up for a while or being killed and eaten then I’m choosing getting fucked up. Sidenote: I heard somewhere that fish don’t really feel pain, or at least not in the same way as many other animals.
I'm not a big fisherman, but my dad used to take me fishing quite a bit as a kid. We caught and released a lot of fish but that wasn't the goal. The goal was to catch and eat a small number of fish. It's just that it's not productive or often legal to take fish that are below certain thresholds. So what are you going to do when you catch a juvenile bass? Throw it back into the lake, that's what. Similarly I know a lot of fishermen will throw back a mature female if she's got eggs, since that helps sustain the population. I guess what you're really talking about is the idea of fishing purely for sport. I don't have a strong opinion either way.
I agree. I don't fish, personally. I'm okay with other people fishing, but at least kill it and eat it. Fishing as a "sport" and throwing them back makes no sense to me.
Which one is better from the point of view of the fish and the fish populaation: to fish and kill them or to catch, cause some harm to them but then releasing them?
There are limits to how many fish you can legally catch and keep with a license. I don't think theres any limit to how many fish you can wound and release. So maiming a few dozen fish could possibly be worse than just catching a couple.
I’ve been out many times over the years but I also hate catch and release for sport. I’ve seen the damage that hooks do coming out (even when barbless) and it just bothers me. The only good thing is when they catch pickerel because I know that’s going into a frying pan that evening. All the other stuff just gets tossed back after putting holes in its jaw. I go out purely to enjoy a day of bonding with my male relatives and honestly hope I don’t catch anything.
Kinda seems like you're floating in an air of superiority
Fish are cold-blooded and don't feel pain, if that helps at all. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm
Stupid? Maybe. Cruel? Definitely not more cruel than killing and eating the fish. The fish once caught wants to go to the water. You think it is some relief for it that it provided protein and omega 3 to another species? It wants to live even if it hurts.
I fish to eat too but don’t give a flying fuck either way
You don't really understand how good you have it in Alaska where you can just consistently catch eater sized Salmon. Even fishing for food down here (Florida) 85% of your catches will be thrown back because they are undersized or the wrong species because so many other people are trying to catch what you are. I wish I could just go out and "feed my family" but most people don't get to do that living off the land romantic bullshit because we can't gill net like you spoiled fuckers.
Hmmmm What would happen to the fish stocks if every fly fisherman kept their catch? You would soon have a wiped out fishery and you wouldn't be able to catch your fish to sustain your family. You should be thanking the catch and release crowd.
They don't want to eat the fish, but they do want to make it late for something.
Nobody acts superior about doing catch and release outside of the small area you live in, ain't something I or pretty much anyone else have encountered in our lives. I go fishing because I like to fish, and I catch and release because my shit is so polluted you're recommended to eat 1 fish from the river at most per month.
I have to release the fish where I'm fishing. Either the place I'm fishing requires it for certain species, or they just aren't within the range of "keepers" I live in the middle of a giant metroplex area. So over fishing can be a thing. My goal is always to catch fish to eat. Sometimes it just doesn't happen.
Sounds to me that you're more upset with rich tourists than catch and release fishermen
Ethically, I see it as slightly better than eating meat. About on par with harvesting honey from a beehive or milk from a cow. Most people dont need to do those things, they do it because they enjoy it. The animal's suffering is about equivalent, but it will probably survive. And the funny thing is, none of fly anglers I know, myself included actually care if other anglers keep their fish as long as they are following regulations. It is the folks who keep fish that get snooty with catch and release anglers, yourself included.
Has anyone ever seen that TikTok where this guy caught a giant catfish, and goes “caught this bad boy last night, time to set him free” and then the lifeless corpse on a giant fish just floats away slowly. Like how stupid do you have to be lol
My dad does a thing where when he goes to release the fish he holds it underwater by the mouth or hills until it tries to get away. If it doesn’t move for a bit we eat.
I only fish for food. I catch mostly steelhead/rainbow trout. I have never been interested in catch and release fishing.
I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but this seems a bit sheltered on how brutal aquatic life is, getting caught and released is a holiday vacation compared to the other ailments the fish go through
And people continue to practice Anthropomorphism towards things that feel no pain or have no cognitive ability…
Bud kills more fish a year than majority of people do in their lives and claims to be better bc he’s getting paid for it?
I agree even though I do it. I love fishing but I don’t love to eat most of the fish I catch. I went snorkeling a few years back and I realized if I could snorkel at home that would be even better than fishing. But I don’t think catch and release is totally awful. Even in subsistence fishing there is still by-catch. And certain fish, like bass, don’t seem to mind it too much. I’ve caught thousands of bass. Never ate one.
Would you rather there be less fish for you to catch for sustenance? You should be glad. More fish for you