“our sophisticated abilities to analyse and to be self aware/ethical mean that our actions are layered with additional understandings ”

Agreed. But our ethics does have limits. Most people do not hold themselves to the ethic of certain Buddhists, for example, who would not use an automobile because it would mean squashing insects on the windshield.

And most people would accept a certain amount of suffering to themselves as the consequence of simply being alive. We eat animals and most consider it ethical, and there is some validity to the notion that sportfishing, even with barbed hooks, is still within the realm of ethical behavior. I am not sure where a bright line can be drawn.

As an aside, “cruelty” is a value-laden judgement. Whilst humans are animals, our sophisticated abilities to analyse and to be self aware/ethical mean that our actions are layered with additional understandings that cannot also be unconditionally ascribed to non-human taxa.

Nature is indeed red in tooth and claw – as a biologist I see it up close…

The comparison skirts close to a tu quoque fallacy though, if not landing deep within that territory. As humans we should act in a way that reflects the best of humanity and of human understanding: respect for the world around us not only says something about us, but shapes us going forward.

There’s also the issue that oa mentioned and that was the subject of my initial link – humans have an extraordinary and overwhelming impact on the biosphere, and if we intend to have a sustainable global ecosystem we need to be ever more vigilant with respect to our behaviours. All of our behaviours, no matter how insignificant they might be. Ecological pressures might be subtle but they can be profound, especially over unperceived time and through unperceived space/connections. Evolution and ecosystem balances respond to the merest wisps of survival-influencing pressure…

” There should also be retention exclusions for fish <iover a certain size "

This is done for sturgeon in Oregon, at least.

“think that it’s OK to leave fish and squid asphyxiating on a jetty/boat bottom until they die – you are beyond contemptible. ”

Indeed, maybe those who do that should read John Wyndham.

Also with overfishing look at the explosion in jellyfish populations, read

e.g. Lisa-ann Gershwin ‘Stung!: On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean’

and

Carl Safina ‘Song for the blue ocean’

Hmm. Fair enough, I guess. OTOH, being beaten up by the process of being caught only to be released and eaten alive, or torn to pieces, or eaten from within seems a little bit like piling on. Not to mention, as has been noted, the question of what pressure this practice adds overall to fish populations and ecosystems.

Nobody here said humans didn’t need to eat, even if it’s just Soylent Green, though Bernard J. has pointed out that the process of handling caught fish is not always gracious either.

It is a little ironic for me, after watching a number of Youtube videos of predation in the natural world. “Red in tooth and claw” doesn’t even come close to describing the cold-blooded cruelty which most wild critters will suffer at their natural demise at the hands, and claws, and teeth, and fangs, and stingers, and jaws, and talons of their predators.

Being caught and released, or even becoming a filet on a dinner plate, is a much more gracious way to go than being eaten alive, ot torn to pieces, or eaten from within.

However… these days I’m pretty much of a mind that people should stop bothering the critters. I know. I’m a wet blanket. I’m just saying that maybe humans could put some of their excess energy into addressing invasive species, for instance, or photography, or citizen science, etc.

Just my 2 cents.