Home / I. Other uses: testing, clothing, entertainment / Part IND
"In sport fishing the fish is released."
releasing the fish doesn't undo what happened before. The hook wounds the mouth or throat, the fight causes exhaustion, the time out of water causes suffocation. A review of 274 estimates found an average mortality of 18% after release, with some cases as high as 95%. And even when the fish survives, the pain and stress were caused for fun.
Short answer
Releasing the fish doesn't undo the hook in its mouth, the fight to exhaustion and the time without breathing out of water. A review of 274 estimates found an average mortality of 18% after release, with some cases as high as 95%, depending on where the hook wounds and how the fish is handled. And even when it survives, the fish felt pain and stress for someone's fun.
For children
Imagine a hook stuck in your mouth, pulling you to a place where you can't breathe. Even if they let you go afterwards, you'd be hurt and very scared. It's similar for fish: they feel pain, and some die after being released.
"If the fish feels pain, does releasing it afterwards undo what it felt?"
Como pode aparecer
"I catch and release."
"It's just a little hook."
"Fishing is my therapy."
"Sport fishing is the most sustainable kind."
"Catch and release reduces fish mortality."
"Fish and invertebrates don't feel pain." (which is A6)
The strongest version
"I catch and release. It's just a little hook. Fishing is my therapy."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1In sport fishing, the fish is returned to the water.
- P2Most released fish survive.
- P3If the fish survives, there's no significant harm.
- CSo sport fishing is harmless.
P1 is true. So is P2, on average. The problem lies in P3: surviving isn't the same as not having been hurt, and a significant share die afterwards.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument assesses only the end of the story:
Stage What happens to the fish Hooking The hook pierces the mouth, throat or other tissue The fight Exhaustion and lactic acid build-up Out of water Suffocation, damage to the gills and the mucus layer Release Some die afterwards; survivors are injured and stressed - b
Where the argument breaks
1. There's mortality after release.
Bartholomew and Bohnsack reviewed 274 estimates and found a median mortality of 11% and a mean of 18%, ranging from 0% to 95%.
2. Where the hook lands matters a lot.
Fish hooked in the throat or gills die far more often. Natural bait, deep hooking and prolonged handling increase mortality.
3. Fish feel pain.
The New York Declaration recognizes a realistic possibility of consciousness in all vertebrates, including fish (A6).
4. The harm is caused for fun.
There's no necessity: sport fishing is recreation.
5. "Therapy" can be found in other ways.
Being in nature, by the water, doesn't require hurting an animal.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Bartholomew and Bohnsack, 2005, *Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries* Post-release mortality with a median of 11% and a mean of 18%, ranging from 0% to 95%, across 274 estimates A review of 53 studies The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness (2024) A realistic possibility of consciousness in all vertebrates, including fish Signed by hundreds of researchers - d
The strongest counter-reply: good practice reduces mortality
The most serious version points out that circle hooks, barbless hooks, artificial lures and quick handling greatly reduce mortality.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Reducing mortality doesn't eliminate pain.
The fish is still hooked and pulled from the water.
Not everyone follows good practice.
The average reflects real practice.
The question remains.
Why hurt an animal for fun, even carefully?
- f
Back to the moral question
Sport fishing is perhaps the clearest case of harm caused without necessity: it isn't for food, it's for fun. The moral question becomes sharp: is it fair to cause an animal pain and fear for recreation?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Omission
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Not knowing the mortality
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Fun as justification
Biases
Motivated reasoning
The pleasure of fishing makes the harm invisible
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if the animal survives, the harm doesn't matter".
If it applied to…Animal fights without deathsTap to see
They'd be acceptable
They're crimes
If it applied to…Cruelty to dogs who recoverTap to see
It would be acceptable
It's a crime
If it applied to…Sport fishingTap to see
It would be harmless
The fish suffered and sometimes dies
Contradictions
Hooking and releasing a dog would be considered cruelty.
Which suggests pain and fear.
And causes distress to another being.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's true that releasing a fish is better than killing it, and that good practice greatly reduces mortality. Fishing also has real value for those who do it: contact with nature, calm and companionship.
But
But those values don't depend on hurting an animal. And the harm caused before the release is still caused for fun.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after