A primer on anti-angling philosophy and its relevance for recreational fisheries in urbanized societies

In some industrialized countries, recreational fishing has come under moral pressure. To understand potential ramifications, we first describe three dominant philosophies of human–animal interactions (i.e., animal welfare, animal liberation, and animal rights). We contend that, as long as fishing and handling practices are as fish friendly as possible, most animal welfare perspectives can easily accommodate recreational fishing in its present form. In contrast, animal liberation and animal rights philosophies tend to reject recreational fishing. On the hypothesis that economic development is conducive to the emergence of pro-animal values in the wider public, it can be assumed that anti-angling sentiments resonating strongly with animal liberation/rights thinking might increase. Examples from opinion surveys covering a range of countries show that about 25% of people already morally question recreational fishing for sport. Coupled with the supposed shift in pro-animal values, this public sentiment might foster the implementation of regulations similar to those already seen in some European countries, which are imposed to constrain popular recreational angling practices such as the use of live baitfish or the release of legally harvestable fish. Increasing anti-angling sentiments bolstered with arguments from animal liberation and rights canthus have far-reaching consequences for recreational fisheries.