Tribune. Paris, Bordeaux, Montpellier, Grenoble-Alpes Métropole… Several French local authorities are finally opening the debate on the ban on live fishing. This technique involves impaling a small live fish on a hook in order to attract a predator. The animal, pierced alive, panics with no possible outcome and struggles for tens of minutes, before succumbing to its wound or being eaten alive.
The ability of fish to subjectively perceive the world around them, and more particularly to experience emotions, stress and suffering, has been better and better documented in recent years.
Lynne Sneddon, world leader in fish pain research, thus concludes in a summary book published in 2020: “Studies show that fish have a nociceptive system similar to that of mammals, that their behavior is negatively affected. [par la douleur], and that this is avoided by inoculating painkillers. This shows that fish react differently to pain and harmless stimuli. In addition, fish try to avoid areas where they have felt pain and are so gripped by pain that they no longer display their fear or normal reactions to predators. Taken together, these results make a compelling case for pain sensitivity in fish. “
Minimize the pain
This sensitivity to pain is even today recognized by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Other institutions, such as the World Organization for Animal Health (GOOSE) and the Association of British Veterinarians (BVA) have established recommendations for minimizing the pain of fish used in human activities.
The use of a fully conscious fish as bait is starting to stir up public opinion. If lure fishing is a well established alternative, live fishing remains anchored among the oldest or among specialists in catfish fishing. This leisure practice is already prohibited in several countries such as Luxembourg, Switzerland, Ireland, Scotland, certain autonomous communities of Spain, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands and in certain American states in Canada. .
These foreign bans are based not only on the cruelty of this practice, but also on the unnecessary threats it poses to aquatic biodiversity.
You have 72.27% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.