Ghoti papers Ghoti aims to serve as a forum for stimulating and pertinent ideas. Ghoti publishes succinct commentary and opinion that addresses important areas in fish and fisheries science. Ghoti contributions will be innovative and have a perspective that may lead to fresh and productive insight of concepts, issues and research agendas. All Ghoti contributions will be selected by the editors and peer reviewed. Etymology of Ghoti George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), polymath, playwright, Nobel prize winner, and the most prolific letter writer in history, was an advocate of English spelling reform. He was reportedly fond of pointing out its absurdities by proving that ‘fish’ could be spelt ‘ghoti’. That is: ‘gh’ as in ‘rough’, ‘o’ as in ‘women’ and ‘ti’ as in palatial.
The implications of a feelings-based approach to fish welfare: a reply to Arlinghaus et al.
Version of Record online: 17 AUG 2007
Fish and Fisheries
Volume 8, Issue 3, pages 277–280, September 2007
How to Cite
Huntingford, F., Adams, C., Braithwaite, V. A., Kadri, S., Pottinger, T. G., Sandoe, P. and Turnbull, J. F. (2007), The implications of a feelings-based approach to fish welfare: a reply to Arlinghaus et al. Fish and Fisheries, 8: 277–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2679.2007.00254.x
- Issue online: 17 AUG 2007
- Version of Record online: 17 AUG 2007
- Received 18 May 2007 Accepted 10 Jul 2007
- animal welfare;
- environmental ethics;
- feelings-based approach;
- recreational fisheries
The welfare of fish is a topic of increasing debate touching on a number of complex scientific and ethical issues and constructive dialogue between groups with differing approaches to the topic requires mutual understanding from both perspectives. In a recent review aimed at stimulating debate on this topic, Arlinghaus et al. (2007) explore the question of fish welfare in the particular context of recreational angling, by means of a critique of a review of fish welfare in general written by ourselves (Huntingford et al. 2006). We entirely agree with the desirability of debate on this topic and recognize a number of valuable qualities in the commentary by Arlinghaus et al. However, we argue that the critique has some serious flaws. In the first place, by rejecting a feelings-based approach to welfare, it fails to address the aspect of welfare that is at the heart of much legitimate public concern. Secondly, while advocating an objective, scientific approach to fish welfare, Arlinghaus et al. fail to present their own agenda (that recreational angling is morally acceptable) in a transparent way. Thirdly, they seriously misrepresent the position taken in Huntingford et al. (2006) on a number of important issues. In this reply, we address these points and then discuss briefly the areas of agreement and constructive disagreement between the two reviews.