Why is fishing allowed?

Fish don't react in a way that's as visually relatable to us like other mammals do. So most of us don't have any kind of natural empathetic response to seeing them hooked through the face and suffocated.

I doubt fish even really have any kind of fear or suffering emotion do they?

As for why it's allowed, why wouldn't it be? Unless you banned any kind of animal farming it would be a bit hypocritical to ban fishing.

I don't fish, but I've seen it done and fished as a kid so can state that 'letting it suffocate slowly on said boat' isn't a thing in sport/line fishing. I've only ever seen fish whacked over the head to put them out the moment they're lifted on board.

Tbh this seems a deliberately inflammatory post though, so you probably know that already...

The tartar sauce lobby.

I blame Big Chips

I'd guess it all boils down to the amount of money the fishing industry generates, it claims to be the largest participation sport in the world

The tartar sauce lobby

”Big Ketchup.”

I don’t fish, but I’ve seen it done and fished as a kid so can state that ‘letting it suffocate slowly on said boat’ isn’t a thing in sport/line fishing. I’ve only ever seen fish whacked over the head to put them out the moment they’re lifted on board.

OK, ignore that part then, focus on the dragging an animal round with a hook through its face part. Or possibly the using a live animal as bait part. Assuming that we see whacking an animal with a blunt object a fair way of dispatching it.

Tbh this seems a deliberately inflammatory post though, so you probably know that already…

Not at all, though the thread title is. Just seems interesting to be the different standards by which we treat fish compared to land animals.

no interest in why or why not fishing is allowed.

but what a boring soul destroying pastime fishing is.

and every single fisherman i pass on the canal/riverside looks like they had had every ounce of joy and fun drained out of their bodies.

i would rather dine on a plate of horse pooh than become a fisherman.

It's a traditional way of catching food. It requires skill, so now it's also a sport. Good luck getting people to give up traditional activities. My guess is that most commercial fishing is done using nets, not hooks.

I passed a couple of fisherman on the Union canal yesterday, despite my scepticism they had actually caught something and were clearly having a great time. But that might have been as much down to the doobies and Stella. Might just be my age but I quite fancy taking up fishing and just relaxing in the great outdoors and fresh trout is delicious.

Despite shooting, fishing and eating meat myself I do ponder this stuff.

And I have to say, the Chinese etc at least have a consistent moral outlook on this issue when they’re hanging a dog up and skinning it alive for its fur like it’s a fish.

Nature is inherently full of suffering and animals have developed strategies (adrenaline) to cope with being eaten alive for a short period of time.
I think it’s part of our disconnect with nature that we consider ourselves supra-natural when it comes to our interactions with other creatures.

Even living in your house that used to be wildwood or marshland or whatever climax community it once once is inflicting suffering on the animals that can no longer exist there. So it’s a bit like climate change- commuting suicide is ultimately the only way to get the moral high ground.

If it wasn't for that large amount of participants try to imagine what sort of a state our waterways would be in. For many years anglers have been just about the only people holding anyone to account. And as for sea fishing, rod and line has to be the ultimate means of sustainability.

I haven't really fished in years but I've never known anyone to treat fish with other than the utmost respect.

Its a food/hunter thing. Which might be quite useful in a generation or so when we've ****ed over the planet some more.

And I have to say, the Chinese etc at least have a consistent moral outlook on this issue when they’re hanging a dog up and skinning it alive for its fur like it’s a fish.

”Big Ketchup.”

Sauce for that?

As for fishing,

It's an odd one to pick on if you still eat meat. Fishing is barbaric, now if you'll excuse me I'm just off to the New Bombay for a lamb bhuna.

I could take the moral high ground here. I don't eat meat because, well, as you said it's gross and barbaric. And today, unnecessary. But I understand that other people do and I have far more respect for folk who do their own hunting and prepping than for those who are squeamish about the wetwork but eat it anyway.

Hunting purely for sport I find a bit weird. Look at you, big man, killed a trout / pheasant / white rhino / chihuahua with nothing but your bare hands holding a bloody great gun. We're very selective about this sort of stuff, if you shot Lassie in the head it'd be front page news.

The fishing argument as I understand it goes that fish don't feel pain; how true that is I have no idea. Seems to me mostly to be an excuse for blokes to get away from their wives and sit somewhere quiet drinking Stella.

There are people who go fishing, and there are fishermen. If you need to ask the difference,  you won't understand the answer.

Is that a bit like people who ride bikes versus cyclists?

I do a bit of flyfishing, its more of an 'active' means of fishing than floats, finding a rising trout, figuring what its feeding on, presenting the fly to it. So its kind of a meditative puzzle to solve, that and its quiet and i get to be in some lovely places by tarns and rivers. You've got to tune in on whats happening in that environment. I eat the odd one but let most go. But yeah re the suffering thing it is a bit conflicting and possibly hypocritical but....thai fish cakes....

Live bait is horrible though, agree with that

I used to fish, was a great excuse to sit by a lake or river all day doing sod all. Just watching nature. After a while of catching very little I started not bothering with the hook.

My dad used to go sea fishing with his dad in rural Ireland but that was simply for food and to vary the diet. There are a lot of reminders of how dangerous fishing the Atlantic is with memorials all along coast.

Because otherwise we wouldn't have Mortimer and Whitehouse Go Fishing, and then what purpose does life have?

Rod licenses raised nearly £22 million which then goes back into the upkeep/enhancement of waterways, fish breeding/re-stocking, incidents on watercourses such as low oxygen levels/fish kills, enforcement, and such.

Because if you just give people fish they only eat for a day.

Didn't the RSPCA come out against angling and get a big hit on their membership income?

I sea fish and use a priest to quickly chib the life out of anything I choose to keep for eating. I stop fishing when I have enough for the table. I don't understand coarse or sport fishing, there doesn't seem to be any point in outwitting a fish to massage an ego.

Bashing a cod over the head is undoubtedly cruel but so is suffocating thousands of them at a time in a huge trawl net. One is more sustainable and considerably less environmentally damaging than the other. As with most people, I also eat cow, chicken, cute little lambs, pig and duck, knowing full well that sentient animals are taken into abattoirs then stunned, gutted and skinned for human consumption. If people are uncomfortable with the harsh realities of turning animals into food, perhaps they should go vegan and espouse every other environmental impact humans have on animals. Given the massive habitat changes mankind has imposed on the planet, catching fish on rod and line is pretty far down the 'bad things people do to animals' list.

It depends who is doing the fishing.

Fishermen*: people who do a cold wet dangerous job so that those of us who want to eat fish can do so

Anglers: people who enjoy catching fish, whether they eat them or not

[*including fisherwomen and fisherpeople]

Totally agree with you Lunge, plus can’t abide the damage fisherists do by leaving their fishing and non-fishing rubbish around and in the water. ****s

HounsFull Member
Totally agree with you Lunge, plus can’t abide the damage fisherists do by leaving their fishing and non-fishing rubbish around and in the water. ****s

We get more rubbish and vandalism around our locks and our structures from people swimming in the river than fishermen/women ever leave behind, especially this time of year with school holidays.

Because if you just give people fish they only eat for a day.

That's the old proverb, isn't it. Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat drinking beer.

Given the massive habitat changes mankind has imposed on the planet, catching fish on rod and line is pretty far down the ‘bad things people do to animals’ list.

Whilst I agree with most everything else you just wrote, "bad things are OK because worse things exist" is a tenuous justification. I stabbed someone yesterday but it's pretty far down the 'taking an AK47 to a shopping mall' list.

You go fishing because you eat fish. 🤷‍♂️ Film at 11, seems completely reasonable to me. Someone going fishing because they get off on it, that's weird.

and use a priest to quickly chib the life out of anything I choose to keep for eating.

A priest? Do they spend the rest of the time praying for forgiveness?

and every single fisherman i pass on the canal/riverside looks like they had had every ounce of joy and fun drained out of their bodies.

I think for some the actual fishing is just an excuse to be left alone. Travelling through a landscape is a good way to get some peace / peace of mind but it's an oddly difficult thing to just stay put somewhere and be left in peace. If you sat down in a lovely spot with an easel and a paint brush for instance pretty much everyone passing by would stop and talk to you. My girlfriend is a film maker and if she sets up a camera pretty much anywhere every third car will honk its horn. Staying in place anywhere just seems to be an invite for constant interruption.  But if someones holding a fishing rod theres an unwritten rule that you pass by them quietly, not for their benefit but so you don't disturb the fish.

I used to work in a prison and a surprising proportion of the people in there were into angling (in between custodial sentences) for exactly that reason-  if they just sat still anywhere else trouble would come and find them but sitting on a riverbank with a stick in their hand was a chance to just be left alone for a few hours.

if you shot Lassie in the head it’d be front page news.

MAN INVENTS TIME MACHINE

Nature is inherently full of suffering and animals have developed strategies (adrenaline) to cope with being eaten alive for a short period of time.

What do you mean by "eaten alive for a short period of time"? Do you mean eaten and end up dead quickish? How would organisms evolve strategies to make being eaten less unpleasant?

and every single fisherman i pass on the canal/riverside looks like they had had every ounce of joy and fun drained out of their bodies.

Plenty of folk say this about cyclists.

How would organisms evolve strategies to make being eaten less unpleasant?

Evolution, d'uh. Those with the strategy last longer and breed more, I thought you were some sort of scientist.........

😉

"enticing an animal to bite on a hook, then dragging said animal around for a period of time until it is completely exhausted and has lost the strength and will to fight, then pulling it on to a boat..."

Hmmm. But Orca chase seals around until they're too tired to get away from the gnashing teeth, and then, mmm, delicious seal meal. You do realise that is how food works on this planet?

I occasionally fish. Either off a kayak for bass on the sea or fly fish in fast flowing rivers for trout, grayling etc Neither of these activities are remotely similar to sitting on a canal side watching a float just like Downhill mtb is different to bikepacking is different to cycling along a cycle path  with your kids. To look down on any of them is just borne of ignorance.

I would never livebait but agree even using artificial lures/flys can be seen as barbaric. However in our defence, most anglers go to great lengths to cause minimal harm to fish they are not taking for the table (barbless hooks, quick return etc) and also try to look after and manage the fishing environment. Certainly there is far less rubbish left by anglers than most other beach and river users.

Just like cycling though, there are good and bad examples.

How would organisms evolve strategies to make being eaten less unpleasant?

But Orca chase seals around until they’re too tired to get away from the gnashing teeth, and then, mmm, delicious seal meal. You do realise that is how food works on this planet?

Humans (mostly) aren't orca. Animals do some wacky shit. If you jump on YouTube you can likely find footage of chimpanzees masturbating using a frog.

Lions and tigers, given half a chance, would eat people. Should we? You do realise, etc etc...

Tried the sport as a kid, but with not liking the taste of fish, I saw little point.

If you jump on YouTube you can likely find footage of chimpanzees masturbating using a frog.

I believe that's covered by Rule 34.

There's a chap near us who walks down the canal towpath seemingly asking anglers if they've seen Courtney Biggins.

I have done love bait once when I caught a small fish and hoped for something bigger. I do agree it's not kind and have not done it since.

But let's be honest, no diets even vegan are kind because they all involve a a level of animal slaughter.

Mmm, “love bait”, that’s a whole new sport!

To elaborate- It seems logical doesn’t it: throw a bullet, arrow or hook into a living being or if you’re a lion, throw a handful or claws and some teeth into it and it will be ‘suffering’.
But in reality, anyone that’s had a horrific injury knows- you don’t actually feel it immediately.

I have previously observed myself trapped in a car with a broken pelvis, hip, ruptured bladder, punctured lung and a few other injuries and not only was I not aware of ‘pain’ but I was able to muster super human strength to attempt to free myself.
I also had the pleasure of watching a tractor loader crush my legs, breaking my fibula’s, in 2020. Again- I literally didn’t feel a thing.

But it’s a short lived effect. A gazelle that’s escaped a predator with open wounds is going to “suffer” more than the one eaten alive. Same applies to the fish caught but returned (not instantly dispatched) or the pheasant shot at but only wounded.

That’s my own personal moral boundary with shooting- follow up any wounded game as near instantly as possible to ensure an animal hasn’t passed through that ‘adrenaline’ window.

Fishing is a bit different as you don’t know what’s going to take your lure or bait.
So I could be fishing for trout but catch a perch and have to legally return it. Or fishing for a bass for the table but have to return one that’s undersized.

Even the shooting one is complicated. Anyone who has done their deer stalking certification will know- you are supposed to wait 15 mins before following up on a suspected bad shot. The logic being that the adrenaline will have subsided and the animal will be stiffening up, thus less likely to have the impetus to bolt on your approach and therefore allowing a more certain follow up shot.

I don’t personally follow that rule as our gamedealer only accepts head-shot deer so there’s no ‘wounded’ about it, but I have seen ‘dead’ deer run 150y into thick cover purely on adrenaline on heart and lung shots in the past.

I passed a couple of fisherman on the Union canal yesterday, despite my scepticism they had actually caught something and were clearly having a great time. But that might have been as much down to the doobies and Stella

They used to do a lot of night fishing where I used to live. This seemed to involve a camouflage tent, big comfy chair, a couple of fishing rods, a big bag of skunk and a case of Kronenburg

I suppose it’s like out Monday Night Pub Rides really. Technically we’re going out riding, but it’s only ever really a convoluted route to the pub

Middle-aged blokes doing middle-aged bloke stuff, innit? 😃

Yeah- mate & his chums used to go to one of those big fishing sites in France every year. They all fished regularly pre marriages & kids, but reduced once family life took over, so the wives were ok letting them have a trip once a year.

In reality it was a weekend of drinking but they knew that if they had said “We’re going out on the piss for a weekend in Fance” it would be a big no!

the wives were ok letting them have a trip once a year.

In reality it was a weekend of drinking but they knew that if they had said “We’re going out on the piss for a weekend in Fance” it would be a big no!

That's magnanimous of them.

I understand courtesy in a relationship and also sometimes saying you need to get a "pass out" is little more than a gag, I've made the same joke myself, but I've always found it odd that some grown adults feel the need to either lie to their partners or seek permission to spend time with friends. What you've got there is domestic abuse, reverse the sexes and see how it scans. "Yeah, I want to go away with the girls for the weekend but I'll have to check with my husband first to see whether I'm allowed."

The notion that the wives wouldn't be OK with their partners spending a couple of days with friends is outrageous behaviour.

The notion that the wives wouldn’t be OK with their partners spending a couple of days with friends is outrageous behaviour.

I sort of agree. But sometimes it's more than just time away that's a factor. Frivolous expenditure of potentially limited family income. Time away from other responsibilities whilst a partner holds the fort.  Another weekend away with the lads when the other half hasn't had a break for yonks etc.

People dress it up as asking for permission, when sometimes they're taking the piss with their shared responsibilities. I don't get all the weekends away I'd like, but that's because Mrs Bloke needs some herself. #modernblokeuptheroad

I have done love bait once

Is that when you reuse the condom you caught from the canal?

I don’t personally follow that rule as our gamedealer only accepts head-shot deer so there’s no ‘wounded’ about it, but I have seen ‘dead’ deer run 150y into thick cover purely on adrenaline on heart and lung shots in the past.

The reason he only accepts that is in your post - Adrenaline. The body will be flooded by it and it seriously taints the meat to the point you can smell it on slaughtered animals.

Theres another reason known as 'blood splash'(Also known as frightened beef). Where the capillaries in the muscle burst causing  little flecks of blood throughout, which as it cannot be drained out naturally causes premature spoiling of the meat.

It's one of the reasons cattle are stunned in the manner they are, stunning pen, all view etc is screened out.

Plenty of folk say this about cyclists.

Usually about the ones who wear skintight lycra shorts.

To answer the thread title, I think that some people enjoy the feeling. I get that some might find it a bit extreme, but with the right conditions I'm sure it can be fine.

The key is to start slowly, perhaps two, then three fingers before going the whole way.

How would organisms evolve strategies to make being eaten less unpleasant?

They wouldn’t. Primarily because it’s a bit tricky to pass on you genes once you’re in the process of being eaten. Also because any individuals that were less worried about being eaten would be less inclined to avoid being eaten.

Nah- it’s cost of processing. They don’t want to have to throw out a shoulder.
Adrenaline depends more on whether they saw you prior to the shot being taken.

OK, ignore that part then, focus on the dragging an animal round with a hook through its face part. Or possibly the using a live animal as bait part.

Apart from maggots and worms, I’m trying to think what live bait your average fisherman uses. Fishermen/women now use barbless hooks, and no longer use lead weights. I very seldom ever see rubbish left behind by those fishing, they’re pretty good at policing themselves - they’re certainly a lot more thoughtful than the majority of dog walkers, fishers don’t leave baggies full of dogshit on cyclepaths, footpaths and hung as little decorations of trees and bushes.
Having said that, those who fish canals can be full of themselves and really take the piss when they’re using those twelve foot poles, that they pull back right across the path, with no regard for other users; I had one do that right in front of me once and I rode straight over the pole, he’d left me so little time to react. I did express my regret for any damage I might have caused… /s

I do wonder if anyone has watched wildlife programmes, and seen a heron, an otter or an Osprey catching fish - there’s no subtlety, they eat them alive, still wriggling. I’ve seen an Osprey with a bream nearly as long as the bird, it flew close enough to me I could see the colour of the fish, and I watched it perch on top of a utility pole and start tearing chunks out of the fish while it was still flapping around. Having a hook through its lip is a slight discomfort by comparison!

They wouldn’t. Primarily because it’s a bit tricky to pass on you genes once you’re in the process of being eaten. Also because any individuals that were less worried about being eaten would be less inclined to avoid being eaten.

That was my point, but actually crosshair seems to be talking about only being a bit eaten and surviving, which is a fair point. I don't really think the fact that wild animals and us can get a shot of adrenaline is a good reason to be pro hunting though.

Putting the moral argument with regard to the cruelty aside, we often walk a 6 mile stretch of beach and the amount of fishing waste (line, weights, hooks and rags) that we pick up is extraordinary.

Adrenaline depends more on whether they saw you prior to the shot being taken.

I suppose in my experience of it it is similar due to animal hormone levels ,the study being between animals kept in the lairage and stunned individually, as opposed to killed in a group or in emergency situations from injury etc.

It was covered briefly in a 2 year course i did with the Glasgow veterinary department at Glasgow abattoir, whilst training in meat inspection.

But as to the question, is fishing cruel to the fish. Damn straight it is.

@A_A Well obviously a clean kill is the intent. But I’ve personally thought long and hard about the consequences of that not happening and am happy what I do is within the ‘rules’ Mother Nature has set out with her adrenaline insurance policy provided I never shoot shotguns without a dog etc etc.

Our entire food chain is assured against rodent ‘pollution’ from field to fork in a restaurant or sale in supermarket. Which in practice, means animals have been poisoned to death, choking on their own uncoagulated blood to provide us with clean food. Not to mention the unavoidable secondary poisoning of our raptors.

Therefore, unless folk are truly growing their own (turnips in winter anyone?)- I feel I’ve given animal welfare more consideration than most.

I see birds, fish and animals all the time with the scars and injuries from near-miss predation attempts- all worse than an anglers hook.
Sport/coarse Fishing is a little different I guess because the imperative isn’t a hungry predator.
But the flip side is money and impetus for conservation.

I was lucky enough to catch, tag and release a sailfish in the Indian Ocean out of Watamu in Kenya and what a truly amazing experience that was. Could I have given my cash to the local economy without the hooking part? Probably but I wouldn’t have felt the close connection with the sea, the area, the local fishing staff and the fish itself as I did that day. And I wouldn’t have been willing to spend as much money 🤣

Managed to snap my mate hooking his up 🎣

But I’ve personally thought long and hard about the consequences of that not happening and am happy what I do is within the ‘rules’ Mother Nature has set out with her adrenaline insurance policy provided I never shoot shotguns without a dog etc etc.

I am not against shooting, just don't do it myself.

For sure! I’m just trying to show that many people have given the welfare considerations more thought than other folk may think 👍🏻

For sure! I’m just trying to show that many people have given the welfare considerations more thought than other folk may think 👍🏻

For someone that hunts, I think that is highly commendable.

Certainly some of the paying customers who go stalking certainly are only there because they are rich barstards and don't think through what it is they are actually doing.

Or those who rip carrots roughly out their natural habitat. Shocking.

Fished a lot as a kid, done a bit of holiday spinning and fly fishing as an adult. It's cruel to hook fish and drag them out of the water whatever justification is used.

Birds are still regularly injured and killed by fishing debris.  A swan that lives on the river by me recently had to be caught to remove fishing line it was entangled in.

Its still a seroius factor in water birds

If you jump on YouTube you can likely find footage of chimpanzees masturbating using a frog.

Yeah, we’ve all done that, accidentally like. This stuff just happens. Honest.

Certainly some of the paying customers who go stalking certainly are only there because they are rich barstards and don’t think through what it is they are actually doing.

I think that’s part of a professional stalker/ghillie/gamekeeper/loaders job though. To instill a sense of respect, ethics and appreciation of what’s actually happening- to interpret the situation if you like.

I’ve stood with hundreds of people as they’ve killed game and deer and I’m generally pretty impressed with how seriously they take it.
And the corporate/late comers are usually really receptive learners- more so than the stereotype often suggests

Fish probably have the worst death of any animals we eat.

I doubt fish even really have any kind of fear or suffering emotion do they?

We don't know that.

They wouldn’t. Primarily because it’s a bit tricky to pass on you genes once you’re in the process of being eaten.

But not after, there's plenty of male insects/arachnids that end up as the menu item after sex, then there's the pretty weird sexual parasitism of the Anglerfish; males are teeny in comparison to females, and essentially bury themselves into the female and act as a living sperm reservoir in exchange for being fed by the female host.

We don’t know that.

Fish will react to stimulus, but pain [in the way that humans experience it] requires a cognitive/consciousness function, and fish don't have that. So you can probably surmise that larger brained animals probably feel pain, it's pretty clear that things like mackerel probably don't.

can’t abide the damage fisherists do by leaving their fishing and non-fishing rubbish around and in the water. ****s

What an idiotic comment vs cyclists who never leave energy bar wrappers, inner tubes etc lobbed into the undergrowth on trails? Like every part of life, you get scummy ****s who have zero respect for the environment and people who revel in being outside and enjoying it. I ride bikes. I also fish (coarse fishing so no live baits, no whacking fish over the swede to eat etc). Whatever I'm doing I'm enjoying the outdoors. Luckily for the fish, I spend more time watching kingfishers swooping up and down the river etc than actually outwitting fish.

To the OP, I don't think using livebait to catch bigger fish and then throwing them onto the deck of a boat with a gaff (the big spike) is representative of "fishing" as a whole in the same way anything on Instagram is representative of anything much at all...

Fish will react to stimulus, but pain [in the way that humans experience it] requires a cognitive/consciousness function, and fish don’t have that.

I find this a curious concept - is it actually pain or the psychology / fear of pain that is the issue? Do fish have the concept or memory of pain which makes fish that have been caught before harder to catch again. IANA Angler but have heard fish learn to be suspicious, and I'm ruling out mummy fishes telling young fishes about baited hooks in the same way as my mum warned me to be careful with sharp things 'or you'll hurt yourself'.

If you have no memory afterwards - either because you have no memory, or bluntly because you're dead - does it matter? Short term it's unpleasant but longer term no harm done? I'm not scared of dying, I know it's going to happen. I don't want a painful death though because I know what pain feels like - it's the anticipation though, not the memory afterwards that scares me.

I was thinking on this recently. I have seen often enough on Emergency 999 and the like but my wife had to have a procedure recently that required her to have a sedative, and afterwards had a total blank of what had been done, but I'm lead to believe it was unpleasant / painful. What makes that acceptable ethically, when the process of killing has to be done to avoid pain and suffering? Both leave no lasting memory?

(not saying that makes painful slaughter OK, just saying i find it philosophically interesting)

Fish will react to stimulus, but pain [in the way that humans experience it] requires a cognitive/consciousness function, and fish don’t have that. So you can probably surmise that larger brained animals probably feel pain, it’s pretty clear that things like mackerel probably don’t.

Fish have sensitive nerves all along the side of their bodies and react to threats, vibrations in the water, temperature etc and they sense food types by feel so I'm so sure mackerel or roach, big carp or whatever, don't feel pain or a sort of fear. If not fear then a stress reaction from the hook and line or net. Some or all of that reaction may be instinct rather than brain process but even if so, we also have instinctive fear and a reaction to it. I can't see how fear/threat reaction and pain wouldn't be a basic brain response in any animal that has developed senses. Even a worm wriggles much more when it's skewered on a hook.

I used to spend loads of time fishing when I was younger, before I got into bikes. There was a time in my early-mid teens when bikes were a better way of getting outdoors and I did wonder if I should be disturbing the fish, I wasn't that comfortable with it anymore. I just stopped going and rode bikes more. Spending time by the water's edge was good, these days I'd rather sit there and read a book. Or get a metal detector : )

Catching to eat is fine I think, no problem with that. I'd rather do that than buy commercially caught fish in the supermarket, that's mostly an environmental disaster industry these days. Support your local fishermen and fish market if you have one.

Do fish have the concept or memory of pain which makes fish that have been caught before harder to catch again.

They do - the more a water is fished the harder it is to catch there. Carp and larger predatory fish in particular get more wary of baits, lures, movement on the bank etc. That would suggest memory and pain or stress perception.

Edit to add, ^ that's a generalisation and thinking about the number of fish in a lake compared to the number of catches made by anglers in total weekly, yearly etc - it must take time for this to happen or a water to become 'harder' for fishing. So it suggests a fish doesn't need to be caught many times for it to become wary, or it's down to instinct rather than a learning. Those 'monster carp' guys on TV seem to take a lot of care over careful hook and bait arrangement to avoid spooking the fish - partly they're gear heads as we all are in things like this, partly that carp have very sensitive moths and feelers there (pain point) and partly that some of those lakes are fished regularly for a fairly limited number of big carp, so prominent fish are known to have been caught a number of times. I don't know if you can apply carp logic to roach or mackerel and I doubt a mackerel ever gets caught twice, but if carp can feel pain or stress then learn and be wary, other fish are likely to have the ability to some extent.

Hmmm. But Orca chase seals around until they’re too tired to get away from the gnashing teeth, and then, mmm, delicious seal meal. You do realise that is how food works on this planet?

Orcas, and Dolphins are grade-A c***s. They're among the select few animals on the planet that will hunt for sport, including each other. Dolphins will guide infant orca away from the pod and then pin them down under water. Same with the whole wierd pregnant women and dolphins thing. They're not being nice, they're trying to push you into deep water to drown you and your unborn child.

Fish will react to stimulus, but pain [in the way that humans experience it] requires a cognitive/consciousness function, and fish don’t have that. So you can probably surmise that larger brained animals probably feel pain, it’s pretty clear that things like mackerel probably don’t.

Source? I've always assumed people believe this as fish don't have facial expressions. I can't believe that an animal could evolve to not be able to perceive pain or suffering. Otherwise they'd be killing themselves.

 I can’t see how fear/threat reaction and pain wouldn’t be a basic brain response in any animal that has developed senses.

Those are different things. Will fish react to stimulus? Yes. But it doesn't know why it does that or what will happen to it if it doesn't. But fish don't have the higher functioning parts of a brain that can asses negative association with that stimulus or an emotional response to it, or translate sensations from stimulated nerves into 'a thing'