In my opinion, it's not really fair to call it an "ethical" question, as I believe that's reserved for how people treat one another. Just my opinion.
I've been C&R fly fishing pretty seriously for most of the last 35 years, and we can't love trout, love the outdoors and love fly fishing without the question crossing your mind-can't be fun for the fish?
For me, the drive to fish (and hunt) are primal and for allot of us, that call just has to be answered. However, if we consider the advantages a modern angler has and how proficient at the sport some of us are, fish don't really stand a chance do they? Before C&R, fishing=harvest, but there were fewer anglers are arguably more water/opportunities in allot of places. Now=lots of anglers, lots of anglers who can use the internet to help them find spots and pinpoint the best techniques/timing etc. Too capable/too fast and too many of us.
Unleash a bunch of capable anglers onto a trout stream with no regulations over a period of time and we know what the outcome is likely to be.
Ban fishing altogether and then see whether or not these rivers get all the attention and protection they're getting now? I'm a firm believer that rivers need the attention of anglers for their own survival, and the better we get at fooling these fish=the more protection against harvest they need.
I think the best way to describe my take on it might be this-I raised my kids to be very curious about nature, and that adventure is where you make it. A rock in a river IS worth flipping over just to see what's under it. A fish IS worth holding and possibly even killing inadvertently if there is even a 1/10 chance it will foster a life-long love of fish and fishing. The fish, in that instance, died for the future of the river and the generations of fish that follow.
And if all of that^ didn't move you, science has proven that fish don't have pain receptors in their mouths like people do. lol
|