Recently I was involved in a discussion between “environmentally aware” adults and pre-teen age boys. The topic had turned to the great outdoor sport of catch-and-release fishing as a fun sport. One of the young men mentioned that he had a strong love of animals, even fish that were returned to the water safely after being caught for sport. “Sounds like fun” was the consensus response from the other kids and the adults. It was expressed as the same kind of fun as playing “fetch” with a pet dog. My first reaction was, “I wonder how much the fish enjoys this fun sport?” Not much is my guess.

Back in the “bad old days” when I was a young man the survival rate for fish released because they were not wanted, were illegal to keep because of size, or just “got loose” was pretty low (reports by the fish and game organizations reported numbers of about 40% mortality rate). A quick browser search found a wide range of estimates, from 0% to as high as 25% mortality – indicating that there is a shortage of actual data. I assume that it all depends upon the fish, the tackle, the environment, the fisherman and more. I read a lot of suggestions of what sounds like “old wives tales” concerning ways to decrease mortality, but I didn’t read anything about impacts other than death. If the fish doesn’t actually die from the encounter it is considered “safe and fun.” Injuries such as loss of vision or burst swim bladders don’t seem to count.

I wonder about the appropriateness of teaching young people that using, abusing and killing wild animals is “fun” in any sense of the word. Perhaps killing them for food could be a necessity. I can almost go along with catching and eating fish, that seems to be in general alignment with the way nature works. But purposefully hurting or killing animals for “fun” is rather odd – I wonder how deeply this impacts a person’s ability to honor and appreciate nature and other people. To me, it has a strong flavor of claiming our “right” to do whatever we want to whoever or whatever we want.

I totally agree with the benefits of spending time in nature, walking along streams, hanging out in lakes, etc. However, I don’t agree that it is necessary to be a hunter or a “bully” of wildlife to do so. There are many things to do in nature that create the experience without the damage. Nature photography springs to mind, as well as many “science based” things such as learning the geology, biology, etc. of an area. It can just be the fun of experiencing the environment – I spent many hours enjoying exploring, hiking, walking in and along creeks, camping, etc. without ever finding a need to injure or kill anything to enjoy the experience. I didn’t take photographs, didn’t learn much about any science, or do much of anything that could be considered difficult or beneficial. I just enjoyed the experience of being there.

As far as I know from my experiences, there is absolutely no reason that killing and hurting are somehow necessary to achieve the goals of enjoying nature. In fact, I find it vastly more enjoyable to just observe, doing everything that I can to “leave no trace” of my ever having been there. I enjoy the challenge of being as “invisible” to nature as possible, honoring the spirit of the place by my not having any impact, including “playing” with the fish.