|
If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||||||||||||||
  Fish and FisheriesVolume 8 Issue 1, Pages 57 - 71 Published Online: 15 Feb 2007 © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 506K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking  Ghoti
Ghoti papers
Ghoti aims to serve as a forum for stimulating and pertinent ideas. Ghoti publishes succinct commentary and opinion that addresses important areas in fish and fisheries science. Ghoti contributions will be innovative and have a perspective that may lead to fresh and productive insight of concepts, issues and research agendas. All Ghoti contributions will be selected by the editors and peer reviewed.
Etymology of Ghoti
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), polymath, playwright, Nobel prize winner, and the most prolific letter writer in history, was an advocate of English spelling reform. He was reportedly fond of pointing out its absurdities by proving that 'fish' could be spelt 'ghoti'. That is: 'gh' as in 'rough', 'o' as in 'women' and 'ti' as in palatial. Fish welfare: a challenge to the feelings-based approach, with implications for recreational fishing Copyright 2007 The Authors Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd KEYWORDS angling • animal welfare • catch-and-release • environmental ethics • recreational fisheries Abstract
Fish welfare issues are increasingly appearing on social and political agendas and have recently gained prominence in fisheries literature. By focusing on examples from recreational fishing, this paper challenges some of the previous accounts of fish welfare. Issues of concern encompass: (1) the feelings-based approach to fish welfare; (2) the artificial divide between human beings and nature; and (3) ways in which stakeholders can address fish welfare issues. The different approaches to characterizing the interaction of humans with animals are animal welfare, animal liberation and animal rights. We show that the suffering-centred approaches to fish welfare and the extension of the moral domain to fish – characteristic of the concepts of animal liberation and animal rights – are not the cornerstone of animal welfare. This, however, does not question the need of fisheries stakeholders to consider the well-being of fish when interacting with them. There are many ways in which recreational fishing stakeholders can modify standard practices to improve the welfare of fish, without questioning fishing as an activity per se. Examples are choice of gear and handling techniques. Previous accounts have failed to include discussions of the many efforts – voluntary or mandated – pursued by fisheries stakeholders to reduce fish stress, injury and mortality. Progress towards addressing fish welfare issues will be enhanced by avoiding the viewing of humans as 'non-natural' disturbance to fishes and keeping three types of crucial question in separate compartments. The three questions cover the symptoms of good and poor welfare, the conscious experience of suffering, and the ethical attitudes towards animals. Fish biologists should focus on the first question – objective measurement of biochemical, physiological and behavioural indicators – to evaluate whether human interactions with fish impair the latters' health or prevent them from receiving what they need, if held in captivity. Received 21 Jul 2006 Accepted 13 Dec 2006 | 
|
