Animal welfare perspectives on recreational angling

Abstract

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

Do fishing education programs effectively transfer ‘catch-and-release’ best practices to youth anglers yielding measurable improvements in fish condition and survival?

“…Although there are some aspects of the C&R experience that are not under the angler's control (e.g., environmental conditions and biotic aspects of the catch), the reality is that angler behaviour (including gear choice and adoption of best handling practices) plays a dominant and important role in the outcome of an angling event for a fish (Cooke and Sneddon, 2007). To that end, there has been much effort in developing and validating best handling practices (reviewed in Arlinghaus et al, 2007), however, equally important is the transfer of knowledge of such practices to the angling community such that best practices are adopted and result in changes in angler behaviour.…”

“…Release rates vary widely as do the reasons why anglers release fish, ranging from conservation ethic (i.e., voluntary) to compliance with regulations (i.e., mandated; Arlinghaus et al, 2007). Given that fish are primarily released for conservation and management purposes, the premise of catch-and-release is that post-release survival is high and sublethal effects as well as welfare impairments are minor (Wydoski, 1977;Cooke and Sneddon, 2007). In practice, not all fish survive.…”

“…Moreover, sublethal consequences including physiological alterations, injury, and behavioural impairments are possible, which may affect fitness (Cooke et al, 2002). Given that around the globe there are literally millions if not billions of fish released annually (Cooke and Cowx, 2004), it is prudent from both a conservation and animal welfare perspective to ensure that all efforts are made to maximize survival, minimize sublethal consequences, and maintain the welfare status of released fish (Cooke and Sneddon, 2007).…”

Intermittent sustained swimming in 'matrinxã' Brycon amazonicus (Bryconidae: Bryconinae): hematological and metabolic responses

“…Initial interest for such subject was in attempting to clear some effects observed in the wild when fish are presumably exposed to fatigue. In fact, some situations such as catch and release sport fishing (Cooke & Sneddon, 2007), commercial fishing 'throwback' (Neilsen et al, 1989), netting and electro-fishing for biological surveys (Bracewell et al, 2004), and transportation, confinement and handling in aquaculture and fish-stocking practices (Schwalme & Mackay, 1985;Fraser & Beamish, 1969;Barton et al, 1986;Woodward & Strange, 1987) can lead fish to fatigue. The resultant stress from fatigue can be injurious and several times lethal (Black, 1958;Wood et al, 1983).…”

Physiological response of one of South Africa’s premier freshwater sport angling species, the Orange-Vaal smallmouth yellowfishLabeobarbus aeneus, to catch-and-release angling

“…One sub-lethal stressor imposed on the fish is the practice of catch and release fishing by sport anglers (Cooke and Suski 2007;Cooke and Sneddon 2007).…”