{"id":1548,"date":"2026-06-09T08:21:50","date_gmt":"2026-06-09T12:21:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/ticlj\/?post_type=blog&p=1548"},"modified":"2026-06-09T08:26:30","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T12:26:30","slug":"when-recreation-becomes-cruelty-catch-and-release-in-u-s-and-german-law","status":"publish","type":"blog","link":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/ticlj\/blog\/when-recreation-becomes-cruelty-catch-and-release-in-u-s-and-german-law\/","title":{"rendered":"When Recreation Becomes Cruelty: Catch-and-Release in U.S. and German Law\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Baiyan Liao, Staff Editor Volume 40<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

No Killing Without Proper Reason<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I was browsing Reddit when an interesting post came up on my recommendations from the subreddit r\/todayIlearned (\u201cTIL\u201d). The title goes \u201cTIL that in Germany, it is illegal to kill any animal that is a vertebrate “without proper reason” like the animal being ill or a danger to humans. Because of this, all German animal shelters are no-kill.\u201d<\/a> The German standard, specifically, the Animal Welfare Act<\/a>, prohibits one to cause animal harm and acknowledges the humane right to protect the well-being of animals. Proper reasons are typically for the production of food, to prevent the spread of disease, or the euthanasia of the animal. What particularly piqued my interest was the comments. Reddit user Loki-L argues<\/a> that catch and release fishing is illegal under this law. The assumption here is that the act of fishing, regardless of intent or outcome, inflicts harm on the fish and therefore rises to the level of animal cruelty.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pains of Being Fished <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Studies have been conducted to determine the harm of catch and release fishing, both to the fish population and to the fish when caught. These studies have shown that a huge factor in play is the species of fish. For example, a study done in Montana<\/a> predicted that around 20% of trout released back in the water die from stress or injuries sustained from being caught. Another study<\/a> showed that over 40% of the bass died within 6 days of being caught and then released during a bass fishing tournament in Oklahoma. It\u2019s clear that catch and release fishing is certainly not a zero-harm activity. But it is important to note that there are many other factors involved that potentially influence these results. The duration of how long the fish has been out of the water, choice of gear and water temperature have also shown to have a huge impact.<\/a> Many anglers feel the need to take pictures of their catch, resulting in the fish being out of the water much longer than necessary, thereby reducing their chances of survival.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the German standard does not state that fishing is illegal across the board. Rather, it draws a sharp distinction that fishing undertaken purely for the enjoyment of the activity, only to release the fish back into the water with a substantial risk of death, is deemed to inflict unnecessary suffering and is therefore prohibited. The German standard effectively places a balancing test between the enjoyment of \u201cfighting\u201d the fish and the harm that is caused. When the harm is caused purely for enjoyment and nothing else, the harm is too great. But when the harm is caused for the production of food consumption (and perhaps the enjoyment of fishing to go with it), the production of food outweighs the harm.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two Competing Legal Frameworks<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A comparison between the German standard and that of the United States reveals a fundamental philosophical divide. One country prioritizes the sustainability of the activity and the collective benefits it provides, even when individual fish may be harmed. The other places greater weight on the humane treatment of each individual fish, even at the expense of limiting or prohibiting recreational practice. In the United States, it is difficult to find authority suggesting that concern for the suffering of individual fish outweighs the broader goal of maintaining a healthy fish population. Indeed, several national wildlife refuges mandate catch and release<\/a> policies, reflecting a conservation framework rather than one centered on individual animal welfare.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This contrast reveals a deeper tension between two competing legal and ethical paradigms. The United States\u2019 approach emphasizes sustainable resource management while the German approach prioritizes animal welfare and minimizes suffering to individual animals. Both reflect legitimate objectives, yet they lead to vastly different and sometimes opposing legal outcomes when applied to the same activity across both nations. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"class_list":["post-1548","blog","type-blog","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/ticlj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/blog\/1548","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/ticlj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/blog"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/ticlj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/blog"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.temple.edu\/ticlj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}