Introduction
Is fishing simply a form of recreation, or is it a cruel act?
Few subjects in fishing cause more debate than catch and release.
“Catching a fish that you do not intend to eat is cruel.”
“But if you release the fish alive instead of killing it, are you not preserving its life?”
Both reactions are understandable.
Before considering this question, however, we should first establish one point.
Fishing is not an activity that humans suddenly introduced from outside nature.
Humans are also animals living within nature, and we have caught fish since prehistoric times. Fishing is one of the events that has repeatedly occurred between humans and fish throughout their long shared history.
Of course, the fact that humans are part of nature does not automatically make fishing right. Nor does it erase the harm caused to fish.
But it is also misleading to place humans outside nature and treat fishing as something foreign that was later imposed on an otherwise “natural” world.
This article considers catch and release from that starting point.
As always, this is my personal view, based on the limits of my knowledge and experience.
Fishing is an enormous field, and many people think seriously about how it should be practiced. I hope this article can contribute another perspective to that discussion.
Catch and Release Is Not Harmless to Fish
Catch-and-release fishing has always attracted both support and criticism.
The argument that “causing pain or distress to a fish that you do not even intend to eat is cruel” is understandable.
There is also a certain logic to the belief that if a life is taken, eating the fish is the most respectful way to make use of it.
In reality, fish experience stress during capture. They may be injured by the hook and exhausted by the fight. Releasing a fish does not erase the fact that it was caught.
Catch and release is not harmless to fish.
Even so, release has a meaning of its own.
It means returning a captured fish to its environment without killing it, while leaving it with a chance to survive.
What is new is not the encounter called fishing.
What is new is that the ancient relationship between humans and fish has gained an ending that was not part of its traditional form:
catching a fish without killing it.
In Natural Predation, Being Captured Usually Leads to Death
Predation in nature does not always succeed.
A fish may escape from a predator. The predator may miss its target or stop the chase.
We should therefore distinguish between being pursued by a predator and actually being captured.
If the prey escapes, it survives.
But once it has been caught and subdued to the point that it can be eaten, death usually follows.
In natural predation, capture and death are normally part of one continuous sequence.
Catch and release does not change the basic relationship in which one animal pursues and captures another.
What it changes is what happens afterward.
It allows a human to interrupt the sequence that would normally lead from capture to death.
Fishing Is an Ancient Encounter Between Humans and Fish
Humans have caught and eaten fish since ancient times. They have sometimes traveled far from the shore to pursue migratory species.
Archaeological sites around the world have produced ancient fishhooks and fishing equipment made from stone, bone, shell, and other materials.
In Okinawa, shell fishhooks dating back approximately 23,000 years have been discovered. They are considered among the oldest known fishhooks in the world.
Fishhooks and other fishing tools have also been used since ancient times in Polynesia, around the Mediterranean, and in many other regions.
The relationship between humans and fish is that old.
Fishing is not a new human intervention that suddenly appeared in modern times.
Humans are animals living within nature, and the relationship in which humans catch fish has been repeated for a very long time.
In terms of the risks fish have faced, capture by humans has also existed since prehistoric times.
Fishing is therefore not something foreign that entered nature from the outside.
It is an event that has long taken place between humans and fish within a natural world that includes humans.
What Is New Is Not Fishing, but Its Ending
What, then, is new about catch and release?
The answer is not the encounter itself, but its ending.
A fish identifies an artificial lure as possible prey and attacks it. The hook catches, the fish fights, and the angler eventually brings it under control.
By that stage, the fish has been captured.
In the traditional relationship between humans and fish, what followed was usually death.
The fish was caught, taken home, and eaten.
Catch and release changes that sequence.
The fish is caught, but not killed.
It is returned alive to the water after capture.
Of course, the fish itself does not interpret this as “being given another chance.”
But the possibility that it may continue living is not merely a story invented by humans. It is a real difference in the outcome.
Catch and release has added a new ending to a relationship that traditionally continued from capture to death:
the possibility of survival after capture.
A Fish’s Feeding Decision Is Part of How Fishing Begins
Fishing, particularly lure fishing, has another interesting characteristic.
The human creates the situation. The angler chooses the lure, attaches the hook, and places it in the water.
But whether the fish follows, attacks, or ignores the lure depends on the fish’s behavior.
Every lure angler has probably watched a fish follow a lure and then turn away at the last moment.
Some fish follow but do not bite.
Some approach and then reject the lure.
Others ignore it completely.
In reality, far more fish reject or ignore a lure than become hooked.
Of course, the fish does not understand that it is entering a contest with a human. It does not know why the angler has presented the lure.
This does not mean that the fish has consented to being caught, or that being hooked is somehow the fish’s own fault. The human created the fishing situation and remains responsible for it.
Even so, the fish responds to the sensory information available to it. It treats the object as possible prey, rejects it, or ignores it.
Fishing begins when the angler’s presentation connects with the fish’s feeding response.
In other words, fishing does not begin with a human physically restraining a fish without any prior interaction.
It begins when human design and the fish’s feeding behavior meet.
Human Contradictions and the Desire to Fish
Human beings are contradictory creatures.
We catch animals and fish, kill them, and eat them.
At the same time, we keep dogs and cats simply because we love them, and we value and protect their lives.
The taking of life and the cherishing of life coexist within the same human beings.
We may accept lifelong responsibility for a pet while also choosing to sterilize or castrate it according to human judgment.
Humans care for other living creatures while also intervening in their lives according to human values and reasoning.
The belief that “a fish should be eaten so that its death has meaning” is also a human interpretation.
From the fish’s perspective, being eaten after death probably does not have any special meaning. Whether the fish is eaten or not, its life has ended.
That does not mean the idea of honoring a fish by eating it is wrong.
Humans have always created relationships with other living creatures by giving those relationships meaning. I believe that such contradictions and interpretations are part of what it means to be human.
The desire to catch fish is also something humans have carried throughout their long history.
We want to find the fish we are seeking.
We want to improve our tackle and techniques.
We want to understand the fish’s behavior.
We want to bring a hooked fish under control.
Fishing contains a kind of enjoyment that cannot be explained only by the need to obtain food.
If every fish caught had to be eaten, anglers could catch only as many fish as they could reasonably consume.
That is one possible ethical rule.
But it also conflicts with the human desire to enjoy the act of fishing itself.
Catch and Release as a Development in Fishing Culture
Catch and release does not eliminate this contradiction.
Humans still place a burden on fish in order to satisfy the desire to catch them.
But catch and release makes it possible for capture and death to be separated.
A person may want to fish without needing to kill every fish that is caught.
The act of capture remains, but the death that traditionally followed it can sometimes be avoided by returning the fish alive to the water.
This is not an attempt to place humans outside nature.
It is a choice made possible because humans, while remaining part of nature, can reflect on their own behavior and change the outcome of their actions.
Of course, releasing a fish does not guarantee that it will survive.
The fish may suffer hook injuries, exhaustion from the fight, stress from air exposure, and other forms of harm.
Therefore, catch and release does not mean that anglers may handle fish carelessly simply because they intend to let them go.
On the contrary, choosing to release a fish creates a responsibility to reduce harm as much as possible.
Do not prolong the fight unnecessarily.
Keep air exposure as short as possible.
Handle the fish gently.
Remove the hook in the water whenever practical.
Adjust the release method to the species, water temperature, and fishing depth.
The accumulation and sharing of this knowledge are also part of the development of fishing culture.
Catch and release is not a perfect solution that removes all harm.
But it can be understood as a developed response within fishing culture: one that preserves the human desire to fish while reducing deaths after capture and leaving fish with a chance to survive.
Conclusion
Catch and release is not harmless to fish.
A fish may experience stress, injury, and exhaustion, and some released fish may later die.
It is therefore understandable that some people consider it cruel to catch a fish that will not be eaten.
But I also believe the issue should be considered from another perspective.
Fishing is not a strange activity that humans suddenly introduced from outside nature.
It is one of the events that has occurred between humans and fish since prehistoric times.
Predation in nature does not always succeed. Prey often escape.
But once prey has actually been captured, death usually follows.
For most of the long relationship between humans and fish, catching a fish also led to killing and eating it.
Catch and release changed that part of the relationship.
What is new is not fishing. What is new is that the ancient relationship between humans and fish has gained another ending: catching a fish without killing it and returning it alive to the water.
There is some logic to the belief that every fish caught should be eaten.
At the same time, the option of release allows people to satisfy the desire to fish while leaving the fish with a possibility of continued survival.
For that reason, I do not think catch and release should be judged only as either “cruel” or “not cruel.”
Release is not an excuse that makes the harm disappear.
It is a choice made while recognizing that harm exists, yet still attempting to create an ending other than death after capture.
Seen in this way, catch and release may be understood as a new and more developed ending that humans have added to their ancient relationship with fish—an ending that leaves open the possibility of survival.
Want to know more about the author and the thinking behind this site?
→ About Rikutsu-Kone-Taro
