Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T18:53:49.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Attitudes towards catch-and-release recreational angling, angling practices and perceptions of pain and welfare in fish in New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

R Muir
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare and Biodiversity Research Group, Department of Natural Sciences, Unitec Institute of Technology, Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand
AJ Keown
Affiliation:
Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
NJ Adams
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare and Biodiversity Research Group, Department of Natural Sciences, Unitec Institute of Technology, Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand
MJ Farnworth*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare and Biodiversity Research Group, Department of Natural Sciences, Unitec Institute of Technology, Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: mfarnworth@unitec.ac.nz
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Although there is still some debate regarding whether fish have the capacity to feel pain, recent scientific research seems to support the notion that fish can indeed suffer. However, the continued scientific discourse has led to questions regarding how members of the public perceive issues of pain and welfare in fish. A questionnaire was developed and randomly distributed to 700 members of the general public in New Zealand. Questionnaires gathered basic demographic information, information regarding respondents’ participation in and opinions on angling practice, and opinions about fish welfare and pain. The response rate was 62.4% (437/700). The primary aim of the study was to assess public concerns for the impact of catch-and-release angling (CRA) on the welfare of fish. Most respondents indicated a belief that fish are capable of feeling some pain although older respondents scored the capacity of fish to feel pain lower than younger respondents. Likewise, most respondents believed that CRA causes pain and compromises survival in fish. Principle Component Analysis identified two major components within responses. These were: i) importance placed on good fishing techniques; and ii) concern for pain and survival of fish. Female respondents showed more concern about angling practices and their impact on pain and survival of fish than male respondents. Respondents who participate in CRA and considered it acceptable showed less concern for pain and survival in fish than both respondents who do not participate and those who considered CRA unacceptable. The majority of respondents considered angling an acceptable pastime (65%; 284/435) but also indicated support for the introduction of guidelines and regulations to improve fish welfare in the future (76.4%; 334/434). Those respondents that did not believe regulations were necessary provided statistically lower importance scores for both pain and survival in fish and good angling practices than respondents that did. Education about good angling practices may provide the best route by which fish welfare can be improved.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Aas, O, Thailing, CE and Ditton, RB 2002 The discourse about catch-and-release fishing in Europe: implications for North America. American Fisheries Society Symposium 30: 201204Google Scholar
Arlinghaus, R, Cooke, SJ, Lyman, J, Policansky, D, Schwab, A, Suski, C, Sutton, SG and Thorstad, EB 2007 Understanding the complexity of catch-and-release in recreational fishing: an integrative synthesis of global knowledge from historical, ethical, social, and biological perspectives. Reviews in Fisheries Science 15: 75167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641260601149432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arlinghaus, R, Klefoth, T, Cooke, SJ, Gingerich, A and Suski, C 2009a Physiological and behavioural consequences of catch- and-release angling on northern pike (Esox lucius L). Fisheries Research 97: 223233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fish res. 2009.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arlinghaus, R, Schwab, A, Cooke, SJ and Cowx, IG 2009b Contrasting pragmatic and suffering-centres approaches to fish welfare in recreational angling. Journal of Fish Biology 75(10): 2448–2463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02466.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arlinghaus, R, Schwab, A, Riepe, C and Teel, T 2012 A primer on anti-angling philosophy and its relevance for recreational fisheries in urbanized societies. Fisheries 37(4): 153164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2012.666472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, A and Bohnsack, JA 2005 A review of catch- and-release angling mortality with implications for no-take reserves. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 129154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11160-005-2175-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, VA 2010 Do Fish Feel Pain? Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, VA and Boulcott, P 2007 Pain perception, aversion and fear in fish. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 75: 131138. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/dao075131CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandroo, KP, Duncan, IJH and Moccia, RD 2004 Can fish suffer? Perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86: 225250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, SJ and Cowx, IG 2004 The role of recreational fishing in global fish crises. Bioscience 54(9): 857859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0857:TRORFI]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, SJ, Donaldson, MR, O’Connor, CM, Raby, GD, Arlinghaus, R, Danylchuk, AJ, Hanson, KC, Hinch, SC, Clark, TD, Patterson, DA and Suski, CD 2013 The physiological consequences of catch-and-release angling: perspectives on experimental design, interpretation, extrapolation and relevance to stakeholders. Fisheries Management and Ecology 20: 268287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, SJ and Sneddon, LU 2007 Animal welfare perspectives on recreational angling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104: 176198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, SJ and Suski, CD 2005 Do we need species-specific guidelines for catch-and-release recreational angling to effectively conserve diverse fishery resources? Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 11952005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-7845-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davie, PS and Kopf, RK 2006 Physiology, behaviour and welfare of fish during recreational fishing and after release. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 54(4): 161172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2006.36690CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorow, M and Arlinghaus, R 2012 The relationship between personal commitment to angling and the opinions of German anglers towards the conservation and management of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla). North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32(3): 466479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02755947.2012.680006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlop, R, Millsopp, S and Laming, P 2006 Avoidance learning in goldfish (Carassius auratus) and trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and implications for pain perception. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 97: 255271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.06.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsen, K, Zanella, AJ, Bjerkas, E and Indrebo, A 2010 The relationship between empathy, perception of pain and attitudes toward pets among Norwegian dog owners. Anthrozoös 23: 231243. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303710X12750451258931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Environment Agency 2010 Public attitudes to angling 2010. Environment Agency: Rio House, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Fillingim, RB, King, CD, Ribeiro-Dasilva, MC, Rahim-Williams, B and Riley, JL 2009 Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings. The Journal of Pain 10: 447485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2008.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2012 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department: Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
Han, S, Fan, Y and Mao, L 2008 Gender difference in empathy for pain: an electrophysiological investigation. Brain Research 1196: 8593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.12.062CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasler, CT, Colotelo, AH, Rapp, T, Jamieson, E, Bellehumeur, K, Arlinghaus, R and Cooke, SJ 2011 Opinions of fisheries researchers, managers, and anglers towards recreational fishing issues: an exploratory analysis for North America. American Fisheries Symposium 75: 5174Google Scholar
Herzog, HA 2007 Gender differences in human-animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoös 20: 721. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntingford, FA, Adams, C, Braithwaite, VA, Kadri, S, Pottinger, TG, Sandøe, P and Turnbull, JF 2006 Current issues in fish welfare. Journal of Fish Biology 68(2): 332372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1112.2006.001046.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellert, SR 1996 The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Island Press: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Kendall, HA, Lobao, LM and Sharp, JS 2006 Public concern with animal well-being: place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology 71: 399428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1526/003601106778070617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, D and Barnett, L 2006 Justifying attitudes toward animal use: a qualitative study of people's views and beliefs. Anthrozoös 21: 3142. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279308X274047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, S, Vrij, A, Cherryman, J and Nunkoosing, K 2004 Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoös 17: 4362. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279304786991945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meka, JM and McCormick, SD 2005 Physiological response of wild rainbow trout to angling: impact of angling duration, fish size, body condition, and temperature. Fisheries Research 72: 311322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2004.10.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Fisheries 2007 November 16 Guidelines for Releasing Undersized Fish. http://www.fish.govt.nzGoogle Scholar
Minstry of Fisheries 2011 Annual Report 2010/2011. http://www.fish.govt.nzGoogle Scholar
Nibert, DA 1994 Animal rights and human social issues. Society and Animals 2: 115124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853094X00135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, JD 2002 The neurobehavioral nature of fishes and the question of awareness and pain. Reviews in Fisheries Science 10: 138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20026491051668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, JD 2007 Anthropomorphism and ‘mental welfare’ of fishes. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 75: 139154. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/dao075139CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rueckert, L and Naybar, N 2008 Gender differences in empathy: the role of the right hemisphere. Brain and Cognition 67: 162167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.01.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sneddon, LU 2003 The evidence for pain in fish: the use of morphine as an analgesic. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83: 153162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00113-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, LU, Braithwaite, VA and Gentle, MJ 2003 Do fishes have nociceptors? Evidence for the evolution of vertebrate sensory system. Proceedings of the Royal Society 270: 11151121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2349CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistics New Zealand 2006 2006 Census. http://www.stats.govt.nzGoogle Scholar
Taylor, N and Signal, TD 2006 Community demographics and the propensity to report animal cruelty. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 9: 201210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s 15327604jaws0903_2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsuboi, J, Morita, K and Ikeda, H 2006 Fate of deep-hooked white-spotted charr after cutting the line in a catch-and-release fishery. Fisheries Research 79: 226230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2006.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallmo, K and Gentner, B 2011 Catch-and-release fishing: a comparison of intended and actual behaviour of marine anglers. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28(5): 14591471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/M07-062.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar