A Question About Fish Handling on iNaturalist

Nature Talk
1

As naturalists, most of us use iNaturalist because we love observing wild animals and appreciate and document them with respect. Yet one thing has long troubled me is the widespread posting of photographs of dying or dead fish being held out of the water.

If we saw page after page of photographs of squirrels being harmed while photographed, or birds photographed while being suffocated, many people would feel uncomfortable. Yet with fish, such images pass without comment.

It is now decades since science established the remarkable intelligence of fish, and their undeniable consciousness and capacity for pain, stress, and suffering. We also know that removing fish from the water causes suffocation stress, even when done briefly while handling can damage the protective coating that helps protect them from infection and disease.

I realise that many people posting such photographs mean no harm and may simply be following long-standing habits from fishing culture and tradition. But perhaps it is time for our practices to evolve along with our understanding.

As observers and lovers of nature, I think we should consider whether it is really necessary to hold fish out of the water for photographs at all. Beautiful observations can be made of fish in their natural realms, without harming them just for a photograph.

As our awareness grows regarding the true nature of fishes as opposed to fishing cultural beliefs, perhaps our standards of care and respect toward them should grow as well. I feel that this is especially true of iNaturalist where surely most of us respect nature.

2

I agree. Thanks for raising this issue. We do see piles of dead birds that have been hunted. I donā€™t ID them and will eventually block the users (most Iā€™ve run across post primarily kills). I think all we can do is act according to our conscience.

3

I can understand why seeing those kinds of observations can be distressing. iNat captures all kinds of biodiversity information, including interactions with nature that we might not personally agree with.

It can be frustrating to see, but while we canā€™t manage how other people interact with the natural world, we do have agency over our own actions. @earthknight had a take on this that resonated with the community. I think itā€™s a great perspective to keep in mind:

4

Also agree. These observations bother me a lot.

I mostly do insect IDā€™s and I donā€™t ID anything thatā€™s been killed and pinned.

5

I donā€™t believe all fish that are photoā€™d out of water are dead or dying. Even fish researchers will photo fish theyā€™ve collected by netting or electrofishing and return them to water. It can be done with little or no harm to the fish. If youā€™re talking about fish that have been caught by anglers and are destined to be eaten, I can understand that some will find that disturbing but it is allowable as an iNat record, just as game animals that are taken by hunters can be photo-documented on iNat.

6

Also, not all dead fish photographed have been killed by the observer. I have several observations of fish that I found floating dead during a likely low oxygen event. Iā€™ve seen many observations of fish caught by recreational fisherpeople who were not the observer.

7

You have to love the iNat community. Leave it to a group of iNatters to start unpacking the nuances! When the thread started with a valid concern:

First, James pointed out:

Then, Dan added the perspective of making observations of other peopleā€™s catches:

Dan reminded me of this thread:

While it can be tough to look at, from a data perspective, one problem is not that we have too many observations of dying or dead fish, but rather that we have too few of them to build an accurate picture of aquatic biodiversity!

8

Thank you, especially AdamWargon, for your many points. I started this thread because, as a person who has spent much time observing wildlife above and underwater, I have long been aware of a strong bias against fish, and feel we should be moving away from the simple-minded image of fishes promoted by the fishing industry.

This is reflected in the way fish have been stripped from oceans and freshwater systems, often without recognition of their immense importance within ecosystems. No wonder there are relatively few observations on iNat compared with the diversity that once existed. So many populations have already been drastically reduced. I will try to contribute more observations of fish myself.

Thank you also for pointing out that many of the photographs were taken by people who may not have done the fishing themselves, or who were trying to minimise harm by holding the fish out of water only briefly while taking the picture. I appreciate that consideration. But my larger point is about how normalised such images have become, even within communities devoted to appreciating wildlife.

I especially appreciate your comment, nilshelstrom, that you agree with me.

As for the question of pain, modern neuroscience and behavioural research strongly support the conclusion that fishes possess sophisticated nervous systems and experience pain and distress. Indeed, the evolutionary roots of pain systems are extremely ancient. The common ancestor shared by humans and fish already possessed the biological foundations from which conscious pain perception evolved.

Ethics apply to humans, not to Nature itself.

Despite humanityā€™s long history of causing suffering to other living beings, I hope we are gradually moving toward a more thoughtful and compassionate relationship with the natural world. The findings of modern science suggest that consciousness is not a simple ladder with humans standing alone at the top, but more like a vast branching tree of extraordinary diversity.

iNaturalist is one of the places where that vision becomes visible every day through the remarkable biodiversity people document and share.

9

Most of my fish photos (marine species) were taken while snorkeling with an underwater camera, which is ideal. For freshwater fish, that might be harder. Back when I worked on freshwater fish on a couple of projects I wanted to build a narrow aquarium that could be used for photoā€™ing captured fish (mostly small cyprinids) but never got around to it. Iā€™ve seen such a set-up used and you can get good pics. I certainly agree that a fish looks natural when in its aquatic environment and not so much when laying on the ground or in a tray, hanging off of a hook, or in an anglerā€™s net.

10

Thank you for the information. Great points!

11

Iā€™m 76 years old. Iā€™ve fished all my life. My intent is to put food on the table. Though the majority of the fish I catch are returned to the water. Not a desirable species to eat. Too small or too large to be desirable for food. Or illegal to keep. Some that I return die. Itā€™s obvious that they feel pain at least thatā€™s my opinion. Whether Iā€™m fishing or walking through my garden I observe many animals being consumed by predators. Those animals are frequently consumed alive. Humans evolved as hunter gathers. In our efforts to feed our selves we cause death and pain to what we hunt and gather. If you think buying your food in a store or being a vegan is more moral than being a hunter/gather I beg to differ. Modern industrial agriculture destroys vast areas of natural ecosystems. When I fish these days I take photos of what I catch and post them on iNat. I thought the whole purpose of iNat was to document the distribution of living things on our planet. Those fish either go back in the water or into my cooler to be eaten. I donā€™t torture animals to get photos for iNat but take every opportunity to document the life around me. And let me ask. Do you drive a car. If so do you pay attention to how many creature you kill and cause pain too every time you drive?

12

I much prefer snorkelling to angling and live inland (to the extent that the Great Lakes are inland) where there are only freshwater species. It is frustrating how much less diversity there is in large freshwater species, and I need to travel a ways from home for places with clear water, but itā€™s still a lot more enjoyable than using a fishing rod for me. For most people though getting cold in the water and having to use a diving mask and snorkel doesnā€™t feel worth the effort. For smaller fish like darters and minnows, dipnetting and a small plastic tank for photography (they can be purchased online) are kind of the only option.

13

Every kid that catches one wants to make sure there are more to catch. If you truly want to appreciate the natural world, you must exist within it. Not just look at it. Thatā€™s my take anyway.

14

I agree with this, but have been struck by how, each time more evidence is produced that fish and other non-humans feel pain, the definition of pain is ā€œrefinedā€ to be more restrictive. The preferred definition now focusses on the emotional response to the neurological sensing of damage. And as far as I can tell this definition is preferred specifically because it moves the goal post. It is much harder to define emotions in ways that are quantifiable in animals than to measure neurological or behavioral responses.

15

I think this is an important point. It is worth reflecting on the fact that fishes have been held to a different evidentiary standard than mammals or birds when questions of sentience arise. Historically, behaviours in mammals are readily interpreted as evidence of pain or distress, while similar evidence in fishes has frequently been treated with much greater skepticism.

Part of this may reflect the long cultural and economic history of viewing fish primarily as a resource rather than as individual wild animals with complex lives. As research accumulates, however, that distinction is becoming harder to maintain scientifically.

16

I donā€™t drive a car, and have been a vegan all my lifeā€“I buy locally as much as possible and grow a lot of my own food. I agree with you that industrial agriculture has been terribly destructive to nature. I have been a wildlife artist, observing wildlife and have, to the extent that I could, rescued injured animalsā€“since Iā€™m the same age as you, the numbers have mounted well into the three digits. I agree that animals eat each other, but ethics apply to humans, not Nature. Life consuming life is the way things work on this planet. I have always respected other peopleā€™s choices, and you sound like a good and ethical person. The claim that fish cannot suffer has been used all along to stop the adoption of welfare laws, while birds and mammals have been protected. You havenā€™t noticed a bias against fish compared with animals more like ourselves such as dogs and cats?

Monitored migratory freshwater fish populations have plummeted by an average of 81% globally since 1970. Furthermore, roughly one-third of all freshwater fish species are currently considered threatened with extinction.

17

Iā€™ve done this for fish in my local creeks. It is only modestly effective. Most fish panic and thrash around making getting a good profile photo time-consuming and frustrating. Since identifying many fish to species requires counts of fin rays and scale numbers, it is generally insufficient for accurate identification of difficult species.

18

The word bias is unnecessarily harsh and negative. Fish are treated differently than dogs and cats because fish are different than dogs and cats.

19

The word bias is neither harsh, nor negative.

20

I specified animals ā€œmore like ourselves.ā€ I should have elaborated and mentioned mammals, rather than said, ā€œsuch as dogs and cats.ā€ To put what I am actually writing about more in perspective, please remember that the scale of fishesā€™ suffering is incomparable to anything else that humans inflict on animals. And they are not very different from us.

Although they appear very different externally, due to the different habitats they evolved to inhabit, they share deep evolutionary roots and many of the same fundamental biological systems. Mammals evolved from ancient vertebrate ancestors that were themselves fish-like animals living hundreds of millions of years ago. Because of this shared ancestry, fishes and mammals still possess many homologous structures and functions inherited from common ancestors.

Both groups have complex nervous systems built on the same basic vertebrate plan: a brain, spinal cord, sensory organs, neurotransmitters, pain receptors (nociceptors), stress hormones, and neural pathways involved in learning, memory, fear, and avoidance. The same major brain chemicals associated with emotion and motivation in mammalsā€”including dopamine, serotonin, and opioidsā€”are also present in fishes.

The evolutionary roots of pain and stress responses are extremely ancient because they are essential for survival. An animal that cannot detect injury, learn from harmful experiences, or avoid danger is less likely to survive and reproduce. For this reason, the biological foundations underlying pain perception evolved long before mammals appeared.

Modern research increasingly shows that fishes are capable of sophisticated behaviours once assumed to belong mainly to mammals and birds, including long-term memory, social learning, cooperation, individual recognition, tool use in some species, and flexible problem-solving.

In evolutionary terms, humans are not separate from fishes, but part of the same vast vertebrate lineage. The differences between us are real, but so are the deep continuities inherited from our shared ancestors. Humans share about 70% of genes with fish species overall and some fishes are used in scientific experiments as human models they are so alike.