Home | Features | Reviews | Books & DVDs | Book Review: Do Fish Feel Pain – Victoria Braithwaite

Book Review: Do Fish Feel Pain – Victoria Braithwaite

By
Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font
Book Review: Do Fish Feel Pain – Victoria Braithwaite

Reviewed by Paul Goulbourn

I must admit, it was with some degree of trepidation that I first opened this book, believing that its content may have a significant impact on my hobby of angling, or my culinary love of fish and seafood.

Bearing in mind the book is written by “a dispassionate marine biologist”, I immediately found it disappointing that the publishers should choose to have the cover showing a number of lures with large hooks, as this gives a wrong first impression about the content. Whilst it is obvious to anyone picking up the book that recreational angling will get more than a few mentions; bearing in mind the effects of commercial fishing having a significantly greater effect on world fish stocks, I would have considered something on that aspect to be more aligned to the content.

At just under two hundred pages, split over seven chapters, the book is at times very dry reading, however, it is a review of scientific research, therefore the reader shouldn’t really be expecting anything else! The first chapter is simply a synopsis of the rest of the book, explaining to the reader the path of the author from a clarification of what is meant by “pain”, through review of the research, to animal welfare, and finally exploring some of the avenues regarding the decision-making in the future, of mankind interaction with the other inhabitants of planet Earth. Subsequent chapters take the reader deeper into the scientific world of animal research, raising some very valid discussion points, one of the most significant to me, covered in the fifth chapter, as to where we should be drawing the line in respect of animal welfare. Recent research appears to indicate that perhaps humans should be giving the same level of respect/care as is proposed to fish, to also such as prawns, squid, octopus etc.

The book is on the whole, clear and concise, giving some very interesting insights into the world of animal experimentation, but that in itself does lead to a question of my own…what right do we have to conduct such investigation into the other inhabitants of the environment in which we live, just to pursue our own agenda? The chapter documenting the interaction between grouper and eel was very interesting reading and I look forwards to a video documentary from David Attenbrough!

Throughout the book the author does very well to try and remain purely subjective around the topic, as in the first chapter “My goal is to provide you with sufficient information that will allow you to make up your own mind”. However, being that the whole topic is about whether or not fish feel pain, a word that describes an emotion, not simply a reaction to an event, there are times when I wondered on which side of the fence the author was sitting.

Whilst commercial fishing has a far larger impact on world fish stocks, the book in its latter stages does tend to focus more on recreational angling, perhaps explaining the cover picture, leading to the thought in my mind that maybe the author is not as dispassionate as she would like to be seen.

The book is very much written on Western World thought processes, and as such it would be very interesting to read a review from the likes of a fisherman from a village in the Far East, or a butcher from a town in the Indian sub-continent.

The final chapter, Looking to the Future, is worth reading even if you don’t read anything else in the book. Asking the question, “What would be the consequences of banning angling?”, the author concludes “It may not improve fish welfare.” The answer being clarified by detailing many of the positive effects of anglers, of which there were a good number! This chapter also looks at an area I had not considered in the past as being influential in fish behaviour, the keeping of fish in tanks, discussing fish movements and territorial behaviour.

The changes around commercial fishing are only briefly covered throughout the book and I will certainly be looking at some of the references around this area to gain a better understanding of the relevant research.

One point, noteworthy in its absence, was around the fact that fish knowingly eat food with sharp spines or hard shells. I regularly fish the river Kennet, and am convinced that overall fish sizes are increasing due to a number of factors, the most significant being the amount of Red Signal crayfish available as a food source. Anyone who has encountered one of these will agree that they are very aggressive in defence, and are equipped with a very hard shell, along with a pair of extremely powerful pincers…not the easiest course on the menu! With this major behaviour not covered in the book, I feel the author, and her associates, have missed one of the key aspects in the entire project scope.

Now that I have finished the book – will I be giving up angling or ceasing to eat seafood? Simple answer, no. Just as I continue to eat meat and eggs, drink milk, and wear leather shoes, I will still enjoy a fillet of sea bass or a smoked salmon sandwich. However, I feel that I have a much better appreciation of the impact of human race on the other living creatures in this world, be they fish, animal, insect or crustacean. The book shows clearly the advances in recent years with respect to scientific research capability, but, as early as on page 8…. “Can we ever really know what another animal actually experiences?”

Paul Goulbourn

Special Offer for all Fly Forums readers.
The Oxford University Press have generously offered a 25% discount for any of our members wishing to purchase this book. Simply go to www.oup.co.uk and use the promotion code WEBFM10 in the shopping basket at check-out.
This offer is valid until 30 June 2010.







Articles by the same author





Comments (41 posted):

Editor on 03/06/2010 10:57:50
avatar
This was a review carried out for our Fishing Magic website but I thought the subject matter would also be of interest to some members on the Fly Forums also. A discussion has started on the FM site if you are interested.
carluk on 05/06/2010 20:13:01
avatar
this will be a debate that will never be scientifically proven
Mrtrout on 05/06/2010 20:44:34
avatar
Put a ring in a bulls nose, and fasten a piece of rope to it, and it will follow you everywhere, hook a fish and it pulls like hell against you. Sort of answers it for me, as said we'll probably never know. S.
steve collyer on 06/06/2010 06:02:12
avatar
Put a ring in a bulls nose, and fasten a piece of rope to it, and it will follow you everywhere, hook a fish and it pulls like hell against you. Sort of answers it for me, as said we'll probably never know. S. I've deliberately tried to "lose" fish which I've just hooked during the very early stages of the fight in crystal clear water fisheries. If you lower the rod tip & allow the fish slack line, you really wouldn't know the fish was hooked. They tend to swim around normally until you re-apply pressure. My own opinion is that fish do feel discomfort, but not at a more refined level. I'm sure many of us have caught fish (especially on the larger waters) on imitative patterns which have fought like demons & found to be badly wounded by a pike or perhaps a cormorant. These fish may have part of their guts hanging out - the wounds may look quite fresh - yet they still feed & behave in much the same way as undamaged fish. As to paranoia about these discussions giving power to the anti-fishing brigade, well unlike the ludicrous toff "sport" of fox hunting, fishing has huge cross-class support in the UK. Some people think that extra restrictions on other field sports are a slippery slope to eradicating angling. Unlike hunting, you're highly unlikely to lose your mind & then go on the rampage with your G-Tec so there is another aspect which in a way protects our sport. I think far more of a threat to fishing comes from the economic pressures of opening or simply maintaining a fishery, especially under such harsh economic conditions as we've seen in the last couple of years.
Ron Clay on 06/06/2010 06:13:37
avatar
the ludicrous toff "sport" of fox hunting, fishing has huge cross-class support in the UK. I have met a few people in my life, quite ordinary working people who are invoved in fox hunting and would disagree with your statement Steve.
steve collyer on 06/06/2010 06:40:11
avatar
I have met a few people in my life, quite ordinary working people who are invoved in fox hunting and would disagree with your statement Steve. That me well be so, and some of these workers may well have to change or diversify, but there are now far more effective ways to control fox numbers on private land than using a 16th-Century means of pest control. A controlled drag hunt would seem to cater for those whose idea of fun & social interaction is to clatter through our lovely countryside on horseback after a bunch of hounds.
carluk on 11/06/2010 06:16:56
avatar
steve, i realy think you need to re-read what your saying. because you realy dont make sence.. how is fox hunting a toff sport? is it because they have horses and dogs? thats not the only way they keep fox numbers down....... and its these "toffs" that have fisheries on there land for people like "you" to enjoy your fishing.
steve collyer on 11/06/2010 06:48:35
avatar
steve, i realy think you need to re-read what your saying. because you realy dont make sence.. how is fox hunting a toff sport? is it because they have horses and dogs? thats not the only way they keep fox numbers down....... and its these "toffs" that have fisheries on there land for people like "you" to enjoy your fishing. Really? I wasn't aware that Chalk Springs, Avington, Bewl Water, Hazel Copse, Blackwool Farm or Frensham allowed fox hunting on their land or even nearby. I've certainly never heard evidence that they do. Clearly you must know something I don't... Also, there is this total myth that fox hunting always had some kind of massive base of support in rural villages & so on. I lived in a very countryfied area for 15 years & I can tell you that the local hunt was rather strongly disliked by the vast majority of villagers. Wait until you get these ****s battering their way through your front garden on a Sunday morning before you pass judgement on this issue. Most of 'em are from the City on a jolly anyway. Utterly clueless & irrelevant is how I'd some most of these people up.
danielp on 11/06/2010 07:40:50
avatar
unlike the ludicrous toff "sport" of fox hunting I take great offence to this Steve. I do not know what life is the like in the villages you live in but in the agricultural community i grew up in (Kent/Sussex border) fox hunting has huge cross class support. I would certainly not count myself as being an upper class "toff" but support the hunt as do many of my friends and family. You only need to go to a point-to-point event to see just how much support the hunt has in the local area. It is not just the eradication of foxes that the hunt provides, they trim hedges and protect the environment in the same way that pheasant shoots and some fisheries do. They also (used to atleast) provide a much cheaper way for local farmers to destroy sick or injured livestock. A farmer friend was complaining in the pub yesterday that now the local hunt has gone he has to pay a ludicrous sum for a vet to come and destroy and remove sick cows. I really think you say these things purely to provoke a response. Fight The Ban!!
steve collyer on 11/06/2010 07:52:18
avatar
Ok, point taken. Tally-ho old bean! :p
yorkio on 11/06/2010 08:10:49
avatar
They also (used to atleast) provide a much cheaper way for local farmers to destroy sick or injured livestock. By scaring them half to death and then setting a pack of hounds on them?
shpeil on 11/06/2010 08:23:46
avatar
There was a very amusing editorial on this book on the last page of one of last month's mags. Might have been FF&FT, or maybe TF. Anyway, well worth a read. It had me guffawing. (Particularly the comment about courgettes...)
christy27 on 11/06/2010 08:58:36
avatar
steve, i realy think you need to re-read what your saying. because you realy dont make sence.. how is fox hunting a toff sport? is it because they have horses and dogs? thats not the only way they keep fox numbers down....... and its these "toffs" that have fisheries on there land for people like "you" to enjoy your fishing. Not wishing to enter the hunting debate, however...the local hunt et-al pass through our village regularly during the 'season'. I can assure you they are most definately Toffs. Perhaps it's an area thing. :wine:
steve collyer on 11/06/2010 10:10:01
avatar
By scaring them half to death and then setting a pack of hounds on them? ... and we haven't even mentioned the laughably "sporting" aspect of digging-out yet :rolleyes: Anyway, sorry for hijacking the thread & I have no more to say on the subject.
BrownieBasher on 11/06/2010 11:41:33
avatar
well unlike the ludicrous toff "sport" of fox hunting, fishing has huge cross-class support in the UK. . What a ridiculous comment, and one i hoped i wouldnt see on this forum. who's to say that fox hunting is only for 'toffs' and what's a 'toff' anyway.? I know a lot of what you'd call working class people who are heavily involved with the hunt, and with the local shoot. Class envy has no place here.
MichaelL on 11/06/2010 11:42:01
avatar
This is a thread for discussing article: Book Review: Do Fish Feel Pain - Victoria Braithwaite I have to say, I don't care if fish feel pain or not. I'm not putting, as some do, animals at the same 'level' as humans. I fish for pleasure, painful though that is to the fish (or not as the case may be), I simply don't care. It is a lesser animal.
TonyR on 11/06/2010 12:27:36
avatar
I have to say, I don't care if fish feel pain or not. I'm not putting, as some do, animals at the same 'level' as humans. I fish for pleasure, painful though that is to the fish (or not as the case may be), I simply don't care. It is a lesser animal. What an extraordinary sentiment. Presumably by your definition, dogs are "lesser animals" than humans so should we be allowed to inflict unecessary suffering on them? The "do fish feel pain" debate is fairly sterile for most anglers. That they might do is sufficient cause for us to treat them in a manner that is least likely to jeopardise their wellbeing but insufficent to prevent us from pursuing our pastime.
Former member 2 on 11/06/2010 12:31:50
avatar
What a ridiculous comment, and one i hoped i wouldnt see on this forum. who's to say that fox hunting is only for 'toffs' and what's a 'toff' anyway.? I know a lot of what you'd call working class people who are heavily involved with the hunt, and with the local shoot. Class envy has no place here. Quite right it doesnt matter what class of people support it. Its still,bloody, barbarbic and outdated, lets bring back bear bating too, and cock fighting, legalise the dog pits and badger baiting, lets align ourselves with the outdated blood sports lobbies and take on the enviromentalist. That will be the best PR for our sport. (oh by the way I live in the country too,and i know loads of people who are very anti fox hunting they must be closet 'townies'and working class socialist). I thought this thread was about a book on Fish and Pain. Ron Clay your becoming an A1 grade industrial stirer on this forum!
BrownieBasher on 11/06/2010 13:59:30
avatar
Quite right it doesnt matter what class of people support it. Its still,bloody, barbarbic and outdated, lets bring back bear bating too, and cock fighting, legalise the dog pits and badger baiting, lets align ourselves with the outdated blood sports lobbies and take on the enviromentalist. That will be the best PR for our sport. (oh by the way I live in the country too,and i know loads of people who are very anti fox hunting they must be closet 'townies'and working class socialist). I thought this thread was about a book on Fish and Pain. Ron Clay your becoming an A1 grade industrial stirer on this forum! Not Ron this time WP!! I tend to be in the 'live and let live' camp - which i know is ironic, but the hunt to me has a certain quaint traditionalism to it which i think is a shame to lose. Anyway, back to pain. Having caught fish with exposed intestines, and eyes/cheeks lost recently to cormorants, i can't believe that they feel pain as we do. stress possibly, and distress possibly, but not pain. I do caveat this with a foul hooked fish in the lateral line, which i do believe causes a stimulus akin to 'pain' in the fish. Cheers Alex
Former member 2 on 11/06/2010 14:20:28
avatar
I have to say, I don't care if fish feel pain or not. I'm not putting, as some do, animals at the same 'level' as humans. I fish for pleasure, painful though that is to the fish (or not as the case may be), I simply don't care. It is a lesser animal. Your answer, excuse me if I am being presumptuous, seems to be based on a belief in one the abrahamic-faiths. Surely there’s some thing about being kind to all God’s Creatures. Or Something in Genesis and John about us being the stewards/ caretakers of god’s creatures. Do you treat people with lesser intelligence or smaller build, lower bank accounts etc with the same disdain? When I am challenged about fishing being cruel my usual come back is ask the questioner ‘Do you eat fish’? If they do I remind them that the deep trawled fish not only indiscriminately sweep up everything in their way. But the fish that aren’t crushed to death at the front or suffocated behind, are left flapping about in the hold to be slowly frozen to death or too flap about till they slowly suffocate. Long lining is even worse with the fish being dragged for miles before being ripped off the barbed hooks and left flopping in the hold, And without going into the environmental disaster that is fish farming, point out that what we fly fishermen do is the most humane method of catching, and that rather than being at odds with the environment, most of us are actively improving it. This book should really be called Do fish Suffer, it is not exclusively about do they feel hooks and is angling cruel, and it has two interesting implications for us ... if her research is right. 1 They suffer more than presumed especially on commercial fishing boats, which is a useful lesson to learn in terms of justifying what we do. If anywhere in this book is where the criticism of fishing is aimed. (If thepress releases on her book are right) .....it is at Commercial fishing. 2 fish are smarter than we assumed and therefore, catching them with a fly is even more skilful than we thought.
MichaelL on 11/06/2010 14:49:35
avatar
Your answer, excuse me if I am being presumptuous, seems to be based on a belief in one the abrahamic-faiths. Surely there’s some thing about being kind to all God’s Creatures. Or Something in Genesis and John about us being the stewards/ caretakers of god’s creatures. Do you treat people with lesser intelligence or smaller build, lower bank accounts etc with the same disdain? . You were right the first time, you are being presumptuous. I tend to treat people as I find them, and try not to be judgemental against anyone, be that intelligence or (to use your bizzare category) of a smaller build ;) I think all human life has value. I also think that whilst we have stewardship and should respect animals (I grew up on a farm), they nonetheless should not be afforded human rights. They are animals and lesser beings. I've no guilt in carrying on fishing, knowing that the fish feels pain. I've no guilt fishing C&R (as I choose to do), the fish will get over it ;)
carluk on 11/06/2010 16:47:40
avatar
you sir, are an idiot
wingman on 11/06/2010 16:56:53
avatar
Just where do you draw the line here, it has been scientifically proven that plants feel pain or at least are aware of pain coming from other animals as in an experiment where a plant was wired up to a machine similar to a lie detector and live shrimps were poured into boiling water and just at the moment the shrimps were immersed the plant reacted to it and it was picked up by the machine. So dont pick your lettuce and chop it up or slice your carrots or squash your peas because its cruelty to vegetables.;)
g bigtrout on 11/06/2010 17:25:17
avatar
Do wasps feel pain??.....they certainly are armed and dangerous and know how to dish it out:eek: Well until i squish them that is.:whistle::D:D:D Oh by the way.... all in self defence ofcourse.:p As for the fish they are all my mates and we have some lovely chats about fishing when im out.:):p
ohanzee on 11/06/2010 18:09:03
avatar
i think its pretty safe to say that foxes feel the same pain as your average pet dog and fish we dont yet know, they are certainly stressed by fear, i dont have a problem assuming they feel something pretty unpleasant and responsibly treating them with care, for what its worth fox hunting was never really an effective method of keeping foxes down round my way cos being an urban rascal they all live in towns:D
Former member 2 on 11/06/2010 22:22:06
avatar
i think its pretty safe to say that foxes feel the same pain as your average pet dog and fish we dont yet know, they are certainly stressed by fear, i dont have a problem assuming they feel something pretty unpleasant and responsibly treating them with care, for what its worth fox hunting was never really an effective method of keeping foxes down round my way cos being an urban rascal they all live in towns:D For what its worth its never been an afective method here too. If someones chickens get taken or the game keepers pheasants raided the guys are called with the lamps, and you hear a shot in the night. Bye bye Mr or Mrs Fox. the hounds have always been for show.
MichaelL on 11/06/2010 23:01:56
avatar
you sir, are an idiot Direct at myself, why? The fish feel pain? So what - it is a lesser being and I don't feel any guilt for the pain I inflict on it, whilst fishing. I think the 'pain' is likely minimal, nevertheless, I feel it is morally wrong to anthropomorphize and treat fish as if they deserve the respect of human life. Human life, in our society, may not get the respect it deserves, but I'm pretty sure we shouldn't treat fish as humans. The animal kingdom is frankly a resource, a resource we should respect, but not something we should navel gaze about. n.b. I'd point out that its been about 5 years since I've taken a fish for the table. I certainly believe in countries like New Zealand, it is fine to take the odd fish, so too, I think its fine to fish C&R, pain or not.
carluk on 12/06/2010 05:59:05
avatar
no matter what you hunt that animal deserves respect weather its for the table or not.. by the sound of your posts, your the type of person who gives the sport a bad name
kype on 12/06/2010 14:45:27
avatar
What are we to do if it is proven that fish feel pain? How can we justify C&R if fly fishing causes pain with no apparent end in sight other than the gratification we get from catching the fish? Can we justify high C&R counts when we know there is mortality associated with it that can, according to studies can be up to 10% or should there be a C%R limit? Should trout even be hatchery reared for sport in the first place when they are damaging to wild trout fisheries? Bobby
MichaelL on 12/06/2010 15:01:40
avatar
no matter what you hunt that animal deserves respect weather its for the table or not.. by the sound of your posts, your the type of person who gives the sport a bad name You don't seem able to read properly, nothing I've written has suggested that I don't respect the animal. I simply don't treat fish as I would a human. I would also continue to fish, even if it were proved that the fish feels pain. It is simply impossible to say that it feels pain as we do.
g bigtrout on 12/06/2010 15:06:17
avatar
You don't seem able to read properly, nothing I've written has suggested that I don't respect the animal. I simply don't treat fish as I would a human. I would also continue to fish, even if it were proved that the fish feels pain. It is simply impossible to say that it feels pain as we do. Ill put fish in same distinction as animals shall i:whistle:...hairy little buggers.:eek::whistle:
Mike N on 13/06/2010 09:30:21
avatar
What are we to do if it is proven that fish feel pain? How can we justify C&R if fly fishing causes pain with no apparent end in sight other than the gratification we get from catching the fish? Can we justify high C&R counts when we know there is mortality associated with it that can, according to studies can be up to 10% or should there be a C%R limit? Should trout even be hatchery reared for sport in the first place when they are damaging to wild trout fisheries? Bobby Hi Bobby, I agree these are the key questions, and I like that you brought in the high C&R counts issue. Applause also for sticking to topic. :rolleyes: I don't have many (any?) answers unfortunately, but I can add some further questions to yours. These are primarily aimed at the implications for recreational river trout fishing: Quantity should be part of this equation and the hatchery problem is certainly part of it. For instance, on a recent trip to a US national fish hatchery in Jones Hole Utah, I watched countless millions of small rainbows in relatively small concrete tanks trying to 'migrate' up the aeration waterfall and bashing themselves against the metal grate behind it. Setting aside what this says about the 'intelligence' of the trout, surely if fish can be traumatized, then these sorts of facilities would need to go? That wouldn't bother me too much, but the fish farming and tourism industries won't be pleased. What happens to heavily stocked US tailwater fisheries that see 10's of thousands of anglers per year pumping money into the local and state economies? The ethical dilemma around your first question is what has prompted some countries to ban catch and release. Essentially, the question boils down to whether or not being caught with rod and line 'traumatizes' a fish. As recognised by Braithwaite, pain itself is a poor justification for a ban on catch and release if, for instance, the fish forgets about it 5 seconds after the hook is removed. If fish can indeed be traumatized, then the ethical solution is to either limit their trauma (i.e. barbless fine hooks, heavier rods and line to bring them in quickly, minimal handling etc) or make the tougher decision about how much trauma we are willing to accept in exchange for either our satisfaction (C&R) or our sustenance (harvest). Assuming we went down the harvest route, then there's the two-pronged issue of water quality (food safety) and habit quality (to allow self sustaining populations of wild fish). Both of these would need to be carefully monitored and regulated (read millions more £/$). I can't imagine eating a trout from some of the rivers near me - not while there is raw effluent flowing into them whenever it rains, or dangerous levels of metals. Could this issue be a way to dramatically improve the quality of our rivers? Sadly I suspect not. A ban on C&R would effectively make many rivers in the UK (and probably the US as well) 'off limits' to fishing due to the water quality/food safety issue. Those rivers that are 'safe' would see increased angling pressure and the quality of the fishing would probably decline dramatically as fish are harvested, spawning beds are waded through etc etc. And then we are left with the problem of coarse angling...do we take a cue from the East and start eating carp or grayling? No easy answers, and I'm sure there are even more difficult questions lurking behind some of these issues. I think one of the key things we, as anglers, can do is to make sure the debate sits and stays where it should. Not on the sensationalist red-herring issue of whether or not fish can feel any pain, but whether or not that pain causes lasting discomfort or trauma to the fish. The animal rights whackos have pounced on the pain issue as a means to stirring up public support for their agenda. It is a good strategy - legislators and governments don't always make rational, scientifically-balanced decisions. We need to keep an eye on this debate, but in my opinion there's no need to panic as such. Angling is one of the most popular recreational activities in the UK, and the numbers of anglers are growing. It is also worth remembering that Braithwhite's research findings have been published in scientific journals since 2003 - so this is not a new issue. The book could possibly generate a surge of populist support for an angling ban, but I think that's unlikely. Braithwhite is no Dan Brown! Mike
kype on 13/06/2010 14:19:01
avatar
Mike Thank you for an excellent response. We are on a similar wave length. You bring up fishing waters that are polluted in which harvest would not be allowed. Excellent point, may add that here in Vermont sewage treatment has in my opinion caused deterioration in the fishery! I suspect, but do not know for sure, that the sewage treatment plants perhaps are sterilizing the water and may even discharge chlorine at a level which eliminates harmful bacteria but damages juvenile fish as well. To the best of my understanding the Bow River in BC had a creamery on it and in an effort to clean the river the fertility has been reduced with a subsequent decline in the fishery. My own river had a creamery on it years back and there was a discharge which was visible in the water downstream from the plant. The river had heavy hatches below that plant and the brown trout grew in both size and number there. The river has been cleaned up and it is very hard to find a brown trout in the river today. I recall an abundance of crayfish which brown trout would stack one on top the other down their gut are now far fewer. I am not advocating on behalf of pollution but just pointing out that when those rivers you mention are slated for cleanup be aware that the fishing may deteriorate except in streams where the pollution is industrial chemical. You mention heavy rods. I will make this comment and please tell me if you are seeing the same thing. Many fish I see here are badly hook damaged now. I didn't see these years ago. Perhaps they were harvested and now C&R dominates but see them I do and I suspect the new stiff rods we see marketed are part of the problem. I see a number of fish with maxillary bones torn off their face. I am not advocating prolonged playing of fish. What I am saying is we can do less damage with a mid flex medium or even slow action rod when playing fish and still play them out in short order. That is my opinion anyway and it is a big reason why I use rods built with a mid flex med or med fast action. I see Vision has the Cult and Cult Fiber rods designed in this fashion as does Great Bay Rod Co. NH, USA in the EMG series. I picked up a 9ft. #5 4 Piece Great Bay EMG and had it tricked out with over size striping guides, and light weight titanium snake guides an oversize tip top. For a rod with a mid flex action it throws more line than any other comparable rod I have ever owned. I made a compromise which gives me distance as well as plays fish without being so stiff that it rips the fish. I often read reports of high C&R counts and it makes me cringe to read 25+ trout caught and released reports. I enjoy fishing as much as any of us but we all know today that there is a C&R mortality % of up to 10% reported in some study I read a few years ago out of Alaska. Reasonable anglers may ask themselves when is enough, enough? Certainly we should not kill more in a C&R outing than would be killed with a bag limit. Apparently some of the fish we release swim off in good shape and die within 12 hrs following release. We don't often see these fish as river creatures clean them up quickly. While fishing the Salmon River in NY for steelhead I saw many steelhead dead and injured drifting down the river; the result of hook injury. Only in a place like the Salmon River with great numbers of fish and anglers are we likely to see this. I have been advocating for the last year or so that we voluntarily limit our C&R so as to achieve the goal of C&R which is to maintain a quality fishery for all to share. My personal limit is 10 fish per outing. If 10% mortality applies then I will assume I may have killed one fish which is better than my taking a bag limit of 5 fish. I would never seek to impose a C&R limit but I do believe anglers concerned with our sport may choose to set their own limit. Boasting C&R 25+ fish days now threatens our sport in more than one way. Remember anti's read what we write and in our excitement to share our good fortune on the stream we may be feeding the anti's ammunition. This is simply my opinion here. Thank you again for your excellent post. Bobby
g bigtrout on 13/06/2010 14:47:32
avatar
Mike Thank you for an excellent response. We are on a similar wave length. You bring up fishing waters that are polluted in which harvest would not be allowed. Excellent point, may add that here in Vermont sewage treatment has in my opinion caused deterioration in the fishery! I suspect, but do not know for sure, that the sewage treatment plants perhaps are sterilizing the water and may even discharge chlorine at a level which eliminates harmful bacteria but damages juvenile fish as well. To the best of my understanding the Bow River in BC had a creamery on it and in an effort to clean the river the fertility has been reduced with a subsequent decline in the fishery. My own river had a creamery on it years back and there was a discharge which was visible in the water downstream from the plant. The river had heavy hatches below that plant and the brown trout grew in both size and number there. The river has been cleaned up and it is very hard to find a brown trout in the river today. I recall an abundance of crayfish which brown trout would stack one on top the other down their gut are now far fewer. I am not advocating on behalf of pollution but just pointing out that when those rivers you mention are slated for cleanup be aware that the fishing may deteriorate except in streams where the pollution is industrial chemical. You mention heavy rods. I will make this comment and please tell me if you are seeing the same thing. Many fish I see here are badly hook damaged now. I didn't see these years ago. Perhaps they were harvested and now C&R dominates but see them I do and I suspect the new stiff rods we see marketed are part of the problem. I see a number of fish with maxillary bones torn off their face. I am not advocating prolonged playing of fish. What I am saying is we can do less damage with a mid flex medium or even slow action rod when playing fish and still play them out in short order. That is my opinion anyway and it is a big reason why I use rods built with a mid flex med or med fast action. I see Vision has the Cult and Cult Fiber rods designed in this fashion as does Great Bay Rod Co. NH, USA in the EMG series. I picked up a 9ft. #5 4 Piece Great Bay EMG and had it tricked out with over size striping guides, and light weight titanium snake guides an oversize tip top. For a rod with a mid flex action it throws more line than any other comparable rod I have ever owned. I made a compromise which gives me distance as well as plays fish without being so stiff that it rips the fish. I often read reports of high C&R counts and it makes me cringe to read 25+ trout caught and released reports. I enjoy fishing as much as any of us but we all know today that there is a C&R mortality % of up to 10% reported in some study I read a few years ago out of Alaska. Reasonable anglers may ask themselves when is enough, enough? Certainly we should not kill more in a C&R outing than would be killed with a bag limit. Apparently some of the fish we release swim off in good shape and die within 12 hrs following release. We don't often see these fish as river creatures clean them up quickly. While fishing the Salmon River in NY for steelhead I saw many steelhead dead and injured drifting down the river; the result of hook injury. Only in a place like the Salmon River with great numbers of fish and anglers are we likely to see this. I have been advocating for the last year or so that we voluntarily limit our C&R so as to achieve the goal of C&R which is to maintain a quality fishery for all to share. My personal limit is 10 fish per outing. If 10% mortality applies then I will assume I may have killed one fish which is better than my taking a bag limit of 5 fish. I would never seek to impose a C&R limit but I do believe anglers concerned with our sport may choose to set their own limit. Boasting C&R 25+ fish days now threatens our sport in more than one way. Remember anti's read what we write and in our excitement to share our good fortune on the stream we may be feeding the anti's ammunition. This is simply my opinion here. Thank you again for your excellent post. Bobby Only problem i see is numbers to be honest,....people fished bait when numbers were high,...now people think catch&release is best when numbers fall:rolleyes:....too many fish in the sea seamed to be the word and now:eek:....well you guess as the numbers game is all thats left of the fishes.;)...used to be when your girl dumped you:eek:.... your best mate would say dont worry there is plenty more fish in the sea:whistle::D:D:D:D....anyhow its a numbers game now days no matter how you look at it.;)
Steve Walker on 13/06/2010 15:13:46
avatar
I strongly dislike fox hunting, and therefore would refuse to take part in it. I would not presume to impose my moral viewpoint on it on others. I hope those who dislike angling for similar reasons will extend me the same courtesy. Still, at least if they ban my "toff" game angling I can fall back on my "working class" coarse fishing. On topic, my PhD supervisor's particular area of expertise was fish endocrinology and in particular the adrenocortical axis and stress response in fish. His opinion was that the question "do fish feel pain" was an unanswerable matter of semantics. I don't believe that I do anything unacceptable by fishing, and until (as happened to the fox hunters) that part of society with power and influence decides otherwise I intend to keep doing it.
kype on 13/06/2010 15:41:05
avatar
g bigtrout The numbers game! Oh yes! I totally forgot that fly fishing competition is a big thing over there kind of like the Bass Pro guys here! I can't watch it. It turns my stomach to see those guys revving up their huge engines on their bass boats, flying off to fish and then hoisting bass in the air for the photos. There are moments I wonder if the devil was right there is no hope for our species and God made a blunder creating us in his image and likeness and granting us free will! God: "Come, take a look at this! I made me a man!" Devil: "You have to be kidding me! This thing is a piece of ****! What are you thinking! This "Man" is out of control. He is going to wreck havoc of all Creation! This is a blunder! Get rid of it?" God: "To hell with you!" Devil: "Just you wait and see!" That apparently was the bone of contention between God and the devil and the battle rages on in us and around us each day over the entire planet! No sooner do we take action that appears to be positive than the negative appears. C&R was to improve the game, respect the fish and now there are concerns of inflecting pain, incidental mortality and accusations of abusive behavior by those of us that practice C&R. At some point I suppose I will simply apply my free will and as they say here; "I'm from Vermont, I do what I want." And I will keep on fishing, shooting deer with arrows and ignore the antis, the laws and live by my own conscious. There was a guy in Connecticut that fished a reservoir in which fishing was not permitted. It held whopper brown trout 8 lb - 12 lb.+. The man was arrested numbers of times. He paid his fine in a pleasant manner and simply fished again. He was brought before the judge for his crime and was asked; "Why do you continue to appear in my court for the same crime over and over again!" The fellow answered, knowing the judge golfed: "Judge, if you knew, if you golfed on a course you were not a member and uninvited but you would get a hole in one each time you trespassed and golfed on that course, would you not go?" The judge said he understood but he still fined the guy and the guy simply went back to poaching! Perhaps it is my Polish blood but I will never stop fishing or hunting for anyone, that is free will I suppose. Way to go God! Bobby
Former member 2 on 13/06/2010 15:55:39
avatar
Interesting issues regarding pain debates, catch and release, and the stiffer heavier rods issue all making an appearance. along with stocking levels, and introductions into the native gene pool. All issues that require fishermen to look at their own methods and ask to maybe change a few parameters for the good of the sport, and as new knowledge is uncovered for the good of the fish stocks, and enviroment in general. The thing is that reading earlier responces to this, it is blatantly obvious that people are reacting to the headline without reading the report/book or precise of it. (And offering the frankly unhelpful to our sport, attitudes of I dont give a damn about lesser creatures etc etc). And here lies the crux. The info is out there on catch and release methods; the oxygen levels, water temps handling etc. The info is there for us to change this appalling figure dramatically by our own behaviour. As is the scientific reports on the affects of stocking on native populations and its effect on the 'robustness' on the native socks and the serious threat to trout numbers on stocking waters even at a very local as well as a national level . We have had discussions on here with people using light weight gear offering good evidence that it is actually more effective at bringing fish in. And people who have never used the equipment telling them they are wrong and damaging fish. Time and time again, You see people who just dont care what scientist, researchers or more experienced people are saying. They have no interest except their own opinion based veiwpoints regardless of any experience and pushing them forward on the rest. Its not about Educating people because on most of these issues the info is so readily available, its down to the individual fishermen to take the responsibilty to learn these things. It's obvious from the the responces on this forum, a lot of people are just too 'Expert' to learn and seem to have a desperate need to impart their own wisdom on the rest of us , but be too lazy to read the details. On this thread it apears people have been too lazy to even read the precise of a book, but feel qualified to proclaim on its content ( so what chance with subjects such as , dissolved oxygen, gentic diversity and stockinglevels which affect our pastime!). WE have the responsibility to educate ourselves. Unfortunately its fishermen themselves who are our own worst enemies.
kype on 13/06/2010 16:26:35
avatar
Pom Just the other day I read that over 10,000 triploid rainbow trout were stocked into my local river. To my knowledge very little is being done in the water shed to improve the habitat for our wild fish. We have streams with culverts poorly designed preventing wild fish from accessing the spawning habitat. The management plan appears to be; feed the rods and that is their mission. We have so much going on be it antis, callous fish hogs and management that follow the popular opinion that stocked fish are good fish and the more stocked the better! At times I don't know which way to turn! Who is winning the big battle do you suppose? Bobby
ohanzee on 13/06/2010 18:01:13
avatar
i dont think they feel pain from the hook, stress from being yanked in and handled perhaps, this guy slipped back into the water and was gone, i treat each one this way and i dont think morals have anything to do with fish, its the best we can do.
Former member 2 on 13/06/2010 18:15:03
avatar
Pom Just the other day I read that over 10,000 triploid rainbow trout were stocked into my local river. To my knowledge very little is being done in the water shed to improve the habitat for our wild fish. We have streams with culverts poorly designed preventing wild fish from accessing the spawning habitat. The management plan appears to be; feed the rods and that is their mission. We have so much going on be it antis, callous fish hogs and management that follow the popular opinion that stocked fish are good fish and the more stocked the better! At times I don't know which way to turn! Who is winning the big battle do you suppose? Bobby sounds like the trout, the fishermen, the authorites and the enviroment are ALL losing, and the guy rearing the the triploids is winning. And so is ignorance and missinformation. As I said earlier this book is not a critique of fly fishing and soley about whether fish feel hooks or not. If she has criticism for any thing its the trawlers and line fishermen. Its an even handed report on her research and about the brain function and the memory of fish as much as anything. Well thought out research like this needn't be a threat to us or our passtime. As fishermen we see the title and imeadiately jump to the conclusion... 'Oh shes talking about hooks in mouths and her view is therefore a threat to what i do'. Its not it's a piece of research which should help us understand and treat our quarry better, and further our knowledgebase to argue against the people who would stop us based on their 'commonsense' outlook of what is cruel .
kype on 13/06/2010 18:30:06
avatar
"sounds like the trout, the fishermen, the authorites and the enviroment are ALL losing, and the guy rearing the the triploids is winning. And so is ignorance and missinformation." Pom, the guy raisng the triploids IS the state of Vermont! Several Millions of $ goes into the building of the hatchery and then each hatchery has up to a Million $ opperational budget each year and the money for habitat????????? wild fish????????? Heck if I know? Bobby
Add/View Comments
  • Email to a friend Email to a friend
  • Print version Print version
  • Plain text Plain text

Tagged as:

No tags for this article

Rate this article

4.00

Follow FlyFishing & FlyForums!