Fishing For Trout And Smallmouths

[HopeDMorin 0]

How do you feel about fishing for trout and smallmouths when they are on their spawning beds even though you plan to return them to the stream?

[SilverCreek 0]

Totally unethical.

[redietz 0]

I don't do it.  

[Squeezy 0]

I do not have any experience with trout on beds.  But for large and small mouth, I do not have an issue what time of year or where they are swimming.  Personally, I'm there to catch fish.  I believe nature's course is far more harmful on both bass species than me catching them during spawning time.  That's how I feel.

[Poopdeck 0]

I don’t. Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind. 

[mikechell 0]

It totally depends on the water I'm fishing.  If it's heavily pressured water, with lots of anglers spooking fish on bed, then I'm against it.  You've got to blame the smaller numbers and sizes on something, and over fishing is a good possibility.

If I'm on water that rarely sees dedicated anglers (and there's a surprising number of places like that here in Florida), then I'm not going to stop fishing just because the fish happen to be on beds.  I am positive we only see a small percentage of the beds in the water, so I doubt we're putting a serious dent in the populations.

[Sandan 0]

Don't fish for bass much, but I wouldn't fish for 'em on their beds.  Spawning trout? You fish the redds  around here and you're risking life and/or limb.  Totally unethical to fish spawning beds when the fish are actively spawning. That's my opinion and this time it just so happens to be true.

@SilverCreek, was succinct.

[SilverCreek 0]

Every river and stream has holding capacity for the amount of fish it can support per mile. If the river is under that holding capacity, disturbing the fish during the spawn decreases natural production and limits the ability of the fish to reach that capacity.

For me personally, I don't fish for spawners on the beds regardless.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/fishing/fishing-redds-catching-spawning-trout/

https://www.sweetwaterflyshop.com/fishing-during-spawning-season/

 

 

 

 

[Bryon Anderson 0]

I believe it is unethical. It can have a negative effect on fish reproduction (depending on various factors such as fish population, growth rates, fishing pressure, etc.). It's also not very sporting, in my opinion. I do not intentionally target spawners. 

[mikechell 0]

Females remain on or near the nest for much shorter times than males, typically less than 2 hours. It takes 10 to 11 days for eggs to hatch and grow into fry and subsequently disperse from the nest (Carr 1942).

If you're catching BIG females off the bed, they probably haven't laid yet.  If they are treated well, they will return to the nest and lay after they've been released. 

I'm truly not trying to disparage anyone's opinion, but all this talk of "unethical" behavior ... well, it's laughable.  There wouldn't be any catch and release angling if ethics was foremost in anyone's mind.  Hooking a fish in the mouth (sometimes gills etc.) playing it until it's exhausted, hoisting it out of the water ... is any of this "ethical" behavior?  Ask PETA people and you'll get a resounding NO.

I fish for fun, mostly.  I fish for what ever will hit my fly.  I'm sure fish have died after I've released them.  I don't particularly care.  I try to release them as "unharmed" as possible, but I'm not fooling myself by believing that anything I do is the "ethical" thing to do.  Fishing is unethical.  So taking the occasional fish off a bed is only more of the same.

[SilverCreek 0]

Ethics in fishing are "rules of conduct" that the great majority of fisher persons agree on.

I believe that the great majority of fisher persons would agree that taking fish off of spawning beds is wrong. This is different than illegal for there are no fishing regulations in my state that prevent fishing the beds. But I would wager that few fishers think it is "ethical."

Apply the article below to fishing and you will get an idea of what ethics is in fishing.

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/

 

[mikechell 0]

Your opinion, my opinion, their opinions.   We all have them, and everyone thinks the only one that is right is their own.  Just because many people have similar opinions doesn't make THAT the ethical behavior.   That way of thinking has led to almost every war in history.

Bed fishing isn't listed on this site.

http://www.ethicalangler.com/the-code-of-ethical-angling.html

My point is that catch-n-release fishing COULD be considered torture to the fish you catch.  In fact, it IS considered torture to a large portion of the populace who follow PETA, Greenpeace or "BlackFish".  To say that it's ethical but catching fish off the bed isn't is a rationalization to suit ones own feelings of right and wrong.

Again, let me iterate, all the above comments are MY own opinion, not a denigration of anyone else's opinions.

 

[SilverCreek 0]

39 minutes ago, mikechell said:

Your opinion, my opinion, their opinions.   We all have them, and everyone thinks the only one that is right is their own.  Just because many people have similar opinions doesn't make THAT the ethical behavior.   That way of thinking has led to almost every war in history.

Bed fishing isn't listed on this site.

http://www.ethicalangler.com/the-code-of-ethical-angling.html

My point is that catch-n-release fishing COULD be considered torture to the fish you catch.  In fact, it IS considered torture to a large portion of the populace who follow PETA, Greenpeace or "BlackFish".  To say that it's ethical but catching fish off the bed isn't is a rationalization to suit ones own feelings of right and wrong.

Again, let me iterate, all the above comments are MY own opinion, not a denigration of anyone else's opinions.

 

Torture is a human experience which is rooted in the experience of pain.

So if fish cannot experience what we humans experience as pain, then fish cannot be tortured..

Pain is an interpretation by the brain of a sensation that is transmitted by the sensory nervous system.

In common language, pain is NOT a what is felt but the brain's interpretation of what is felt. It then follows that if the organism does not have the anatomy in it's brain where pain exists, it cannot experience what we humans call pain.

Here is the original article that demonstrates that fish do not feel pain:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20026491051668

The human conception of pain and it's application to fish is anthropomorphism, the application of human emotion to a fish, which is a cold blooded animal. 

Pain is NOT a sensation. It is an interpretation of a sensation.

Certainly the fish "feels" something but it is not pain; because pain is not felt in the mouth with a hook, but in the brain, specifically the neocortex. Fish do not have a neocortex and therefore cannot "feel" pain as humans feel pain. 

We could ask ourselves how we would act if we had a hook implanted in our jaw. Would we pull against it, jumping and jerking increasing the "pain", or would we swim toward the rod to release the pull of the hook?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://idw-online.de/de/news%3Fprint%3D1%26id%3D548594&prev=/search%3Fq%3DRose,%2BJ.D.,%2BArlinghaus,%2BR.,%2BCooke,%2BS.J.,%2BDiggles,%2BB.K.,%2BSawynok,%2BW.,%2BStevens,%2BE.D.%2B%26%2BWynne,%2BC.D.L%2B(in%2Bprint)%2BCan%2Bfish%2Breally%2Bfeel%2Bpain%3F%2BFish%2Band%2BFisheries,%2BDOI:%2B10.1111/faf.12010.%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den

Do Fish Feel Pain? Not as Humans Do, Study Suggests

Aug. 8, 2013 — Fish do not feel pain the way humans do. That is the conclusion drawn by an international team of researchers consisting of neurobiologists, behavioural ecologists and fishery scientists. One contributor to the landmark study was Prof. Dr. Robert Arlinghaus of the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries and of the Humboldt University in Berlin.

On July 13^th a revised animal protection act has come into effect in Germany. But anyone who expects it to contain concrete statements regarding the handling of fish will be disappointed. Legislators seemingly had already found their answer to the fish issue. Accordingly, fish are sentient vertebrates who must be protected against cruel acts performed by humans against animals. Anyone in Germany who, without due cause, kills vertebrates or inflicts severe pain or suffering on them has to face penal consequences as well as severe fines or even prison sentences. Now, the question of whether or not fish are really able to feel pain or suffer in human terms is once again on the agenda.

A final decision would have far-reaching consequences for millions of anglers, fishers, aquarists, fish farmers and fish scientists. To this end, a research team consisting of seven people has examined all significant studies on the subject of fish pain. During their research the scientists from Europe, Canada, Australia and the USA have discovered many deficiencies. These are the authors’ main points of criticism: Fish do not have the neuro-physiological capacity for a conscious awareness of pain. In addition, behavioural reactions by fish to seemingly painful impulses were evaluated according to human criteria and were thus misinterpreted. There is still no final proof that fish can feel pain.

This is how it works for humans

To be able to understand the researchers’ criticism you first have to comprehend how pain perception works for humans. Injuries stimulate what is known as nociceptors. These receptors send electrical signals through nerve-lines and the spinal cord to the cerebral cortex (neocortex). With full awareness, this is where they are processed into a sensation of pain. However, even severe injuries do not necessarily have to result in an experience of pain. As an emotional state, pain can for example be intensified through engendering fear and it can also be mentally constructed without any tissue damage. Conversely, any stimulation of the nociceptors can be unconsciously processed without the organism having an experience of pain. This principle is used in cases such as anaesthesia. It is for this reason that pain research distinguishes between a conscious awareness of pain and an unconscious processing of impulses through nociception, the latter of which can also lead to complex hormonal reactions, behavioural responses as well as to learning avoidance reactions. Therefore, nociceptive reactions can never be equated with pain, and are thus, strictly speaking, no prerequisite for pain.

Fish are not comparable to humans in terms of anatomy and physiology

Unlike humans fish do not possess a neocortex, which is the first indicator of doubt regarding the pain awareness of fish. Furthermore, certain nerve fibres in mammals (known as c-nociceptors) have been shown to be involved in the sensation of intense experiences of pain. All primitive cartilaginous fish subject to the study, such as sharks and rays, show a complete lack of these fibres and all bony fish – which includes all common types of fish such as carp and trout – very rarely have them. In this respect, the physiological prerequisites for a conscious experience of pain are hardly developed in fish. However, bony fish certainly possess simple nociceptors and they do of course show reactions to injuries and other interventions. But it is not known whether this is perceived as pain.

There is often a lack of distinction between conscious pain and unconscious nociception

The current overview-study raises the complaint that a great majority of all published studies evaluate a fish’s reaction to a seemingly painful impulse - such as rubbing the injured body part against an object or the discontinuation of the feed intake - as an indication of pain. However, this methodology does not prove verifiably whether the reaction was due to a conscious sensation of pain or an unconscious impulse perception by means of nociception, or a combination of the two. Basically, it is very difficult to deduct underlying emotional states based on behavioural responses. Moreover, fish often show only minor or no reactions at all to interventions which would be extremely painful to us and to other mammals. Painkillers such as morphine that are effective for humans were either ineffective in fish or were only effective in astronomically high doses that, for small mammals, would have meant immediate death from shock. These findings suggest that fish either have absolutely no awareness of pain in human terms or they react completely different to pain. By and large, it is absolutely not advisable to interpret the behaviour of fish from a human perspective.

What does all this mean for those who use fish?

In legal terms it is forbidden to inflict pain, suffering or harm on animals without due cause according to §1 of the German Animal Protection Act. However, the criteria for when such acts are punishable are exclusively tied to the animal’s ability to feel pain and suffering in accordance with § 17 of the very same Act. The new study severely doubts that fish are aware of pain as defined by human terms. Therefore, it should actually no longer constitute a criminal offence if, for example, an angler releases a harvestable fish at his own discretion instead of eating it. However, at a legal and moral level, the recently published doubts regarding the awareness of pain in fish do not release anybody from their responsibility of having to justify all uses of fishes in a socially acceptable way and to minimise any form of stress and damage to the fish when interacting with it.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/octopus-chronicles/2013/08/30/do-octopuses-feel-pain/

 

 

[mikechell 0]

No need to convince me ... I drive that barbed hook home with pleasure every chance I get.   And I'll set the hook on a bedding fish just as readily as any other fish that hits my lure/fly.  I just don't fool myself that either act is ethical nor non-ethical.  Ethics are also a human condition.

[The Mad Duck 0]

1 hour ago, mikechell said:

No need to convince me ... I drive that barbed hook home with pleasure every chance I get.   And I'll set the hook on a bedding fish just as readily as any other fish that hits my lure/fly.  I just don't fool myself that either act is ethical nor non-ethical.  Ethics are also a human condition.

THIS!!!!!!!!