The Founding Fish (37 page)
Authors: John McPhee
In June, 1876, bivouacked on Goose Creek in northern Wyoming, General George Crook caught seventy trout in one afternoon. He and his thousand U.S. soldiers and more than two hundred and fifty native allies had been repulsed by Sioux warriors on Rosebud Creek in Montana and had withdrawn to Goose Creek to think it over. They camped there three weeks, during which the Seventh Cavalry, sixty miles northwest, was destroyed beside the Little Bighorn River and the troops on Goose Creek caught fifteen thousand trout.
“I frankly don't see much difference between the catch-and-release fish counters of today and General Crook's soldiers,” I once remarked to Boyd Kynard. “These bean counters say to me that they're not happy to be standing in the river unless they get a certain level of pleasure out of it, whatever that pleasure is.”
He said, “Entertainment.”
I said, “I'm a different kind of fisherman. I like to eat the fish, and I don't catch nearly as many.”
He said, “Most people don't eat the fish.”
My desire to achieve a fifty-shad day having evaporated long ago, I said, “If I get two, I'm happy. If they get six, they're unhappy.”
Some shad fishermen wear golfers' clickers on their vestsâplastic wheels that count up to a hundred. They call out to each other, in competition for numbers. They won't go to lunch until they've caught a certain quota. Howell Raines' friend Dick Blalock says to him, “I'm very much opposed to any kind of competition in fishing. I think that fishing should not be a competitive sport ⦠I'm not in competition with youâever, ever, ever.” By the third “ever,” you are getting the idea that Blalock is in Counters Anonymous. A guy I know as Harrisburg tells me about shad fishing
beside a guy we know as Scranton. When Harrisburg arrived in mid-afternoon, Scranton had caught forty-one shad. Harrisburg caught thirty-two thereafter. Neither Harrisburg nor Scranton ever keeps a fish. They talk about the number they have caught, and are obsessed with those numbers. Is this the nobility of catch-and-release? Certain catch-and-release types speak of “meat fishermen” in the same tone that fly fishermen generally use for people who fish with worms. I'm a meat fisherman. I think it's immoral not to eat a fish you jerk around the river with a steel barb through its mouth. I see no other justification for doing so. The whole panoply of barbless hooks and prestidigitational underwater releases leaves me ice cold. There's no such thing as humane torture, and striking steel into a fish and pulling it into submission is torture.
beside a guy we know as Scranton. When Harrisburg arrived in mid-afternoon, Scranton had caught forty-one shad. Harrisburg caught thirty-two thereafter. Neither Harrisburg nor Scranton ever keeps a fish. They talk about the number they have caught, and are obsessed with those numbers. Is this the nobility of catch-and-release? Certain catch-and-release types speak of “meat fishermen” in the same tone that fly fishermen generally use for people who fish with worms. I'm a meat fisherman. I think it's immoral not to eat a fish you jerk around the river with a steel barb through its mouth. I see no other justification for doing so. The whole panoply of barbless hooks and prestidigitational underwater releases leaves me ice cold. There's no such thing as humane torture, and striking steel into a fish and pulling it into submission is torture.
Yolanda Whitman appears to agree with me, but then fires a heavy shot across my bow. “Catch-and-release fishing is analogous in a general way to the form of âhumane' bullfighting that omits the kill,” she says, and I nod in eye-to-eye agreement. She continues: “If you keep your fish, it's analogous to traditional bullfighting. The intention is to kill, and to extend the act of killing. Fishing is crueler than hunting, in that your goal is to have the fish fight for its life. That's the âfun.' Hunting, you're trying to kill a creature outright; fishing, you want to âplay' with it.”
“That is not a fair description of your husband.”
“If you could just pull fish out of the waterâboomâyou wouldn't be a fisherman. Don't give me that, John.”
If she thinks I'm so bad, she should read more Washington Irving. From “Tales of the Alhambra” (1832):
I had repeatedly observed a long lean fellow perched on the top of one of the towers, manoeuvring two or three fishing-rods, as though he were angling for the stars. I was for some time perplexed by the evolutions of this aerial
fisherman, and my perplexity increased on observing others employed in like manner on different parts of the battlements and bastions; it was not until I consulted Mateo Ximenes that I solved the mystery. It seems that the pure and airy situation of this fortress has rendered it, like the castle of Macbeth, a prolific breeding-place for swallows and martlets, who sport about its towers in myriads, with the holiday glee of urchins just let loose from school. To entrap these birds in their giddy circlings, with hooks baited with flies, is one of the favourite amusements of the ragged “sons of the Alhambra,” who, with the good-fornothing ingenuity of arrant idlers, have thus invented the art of angling in the sky.
fisherman, and my perplexity increased on observing others employed in like manner on different parts of the battlements and bastions; it was not until I consulted Mateo Ximenes that I solved the mystery. It seems that the pure and airy situation of this fortress has rendered it, like the castle of Macbeth, a prolific breeding-place for swallows and martlets, who sport about its towers in myriads, with the holiday glee of urchins just let loose from school. To entrap these birds in their giddy circlings, with hooks baited with flies, is one of the favourite amusements of the ragged “sons of the Alhambra,” who, with the good-fornothing ingenuity of arrant idlers, have thus invented the art of angling in the sky.
It would be nice to think that those idlers were fond of martlet breasts rubbed with garlic, dusted with flour, and sautéed in virgin olive oil. If you use a fishing rod, you are foraging, and a forager sees to it that what is collected is eaten. For me, nothing else is comfortable. I remember reading long ago that nothing else is comfortable to a German, either. When my friend Marc Fisher, who later wrote “After the Wall,” was working in Germany as the
Washington Post's
chief correspondent there, I wrote to him asking what he knew about German sport-fishing regulations and the attitudes that informed them. Was it true that Germans forbid the practice of catch-and-release? Marc's reply, with his unfailing humor, amounted to a guidebook to German angling (for Germans), here excerpted:
Washington Post's
chief correspondent there, I wrote to him asking what he knew about German sport-fishing regulations and the attitudes that informed them. Was it true that Germans forbid the practice of catch-and-release? Marc's reply, with his unfailing humor, amounted to a guidebook to German angling (for Germans), here excerpted:
Germany's eternal quest to regulate virtually every aspect of life does not leave the weekend fisherman unscathed. You are correct: If you fish in Germany, you keepâand eatâwhat you catch, or you face painful fines. Each of Germany's sixteen states has its own fishing laws, but according
to Uwe Schuller, managing director of the Association of German Sport Fishermen, all state laws have in common the following elements:
to Uwe Schuller, managing director of the Association of German Sport Fishermen, all state laws have in common the following elements:
Before you head out for a morning of sport fishing in Germany, you must have passed a government fishing examination, which includes both written and practical sections. First, you must take a thirty-hour course prepared by the local fishing and water protection associations. The course includes sections on “general fish knowledge” and “specific fish knowledge,” focusing on the individual species you hope to catchâand eat. There is a heavy emphasis in the course on environmental safeguards. After the course, you must pass the exam by answering at least forty-five of sixty questions correctly. Then, you must pass the practical. Your examiner might say to you, “Please build a rod fit for catching eel.” You must then do this. The ordeal ends with the awarding of a fishing license (
Fischereiprüfung
).
Fischereiprüfung
).
Do not go fishing at this point. You still need a fishing permit (
Fischereierlaubnisschein
). This document allows you to fish in a particular body of water for a particular period of time. Permits are granted only if you prove that you have a “sensible reason” to fish. For most types of fish, the only permissible reason is
“menschliche Ernährung”
âhuman nutrition. You fish to eat. If you attempt to fish without a permit, a friendly neighbor will be sure to follow the German tradition of filing a complaint against you, an experience you will not find pleasant.
Fischereierlaubnisschein
). This document allows you to fish in a particular body of water for a particular period of time. Permits are granted only if you prove that you have a “sensible reason” to fish. For most types of fish, the only permissible reason is
“menschliche Ernährung”
âhuman nutrition. You fish to eat. If you attempt to fish without a permit, a friendly neighbor will be sure to follow the German tradition of filing a complaint against you, an experience you will not find pleasant.
With a permit, you may now go fishing. But Herr Schuller wants you to be very careful: “You are never, ever to throw a fish back. We have none of this American style catch-and-release. That is verboten. That is a violation of the animal protection law and can be severely punished.”
The animal protection law considers it an offense to injure fish for no good reason, and sport fishing in itself is no good reason.
The animal protection law considers it an offense to injure fish for no good reason, and sport fishing in itself is no good reason.
Nelson Bryant, in the
New York Times,
has expressed a certain weariness with published pictures of anglers cradling fish to be released after the picture is taken. In Bryant's view, “it would be pleasing to see a photograph of an angler with a nice fish, legal to keep, under which the caption informs the reader that on the same day the angler filleted it, brushed it with a butter-herb sauce and broiled it over a hardwood fire.” I fish for American shad because they are schooling fish that come into the rivers wild. They are not an endangered species. They are not raised in hatcheries and brought as adults to the river in trucks. And above all, as a most savory food, they merit their taxonomic description. I catch to eat, and with that purpose am not troubled by the killing. As Jennifer Price observed in her book “Flight Maps,” “most of us do not personally snap the heads off the poultry we eat.” If you're going to be a fisherman, you have to be prepared to kill fish, because you will kill them if you catch and release them, you will kill them with barbless hooks. You won't kill everything, but you'll kill. They are going to die after you release them, and they are going to die if you keep them to eat. You don't need to develop a protective theology, as Ted Kerasote does: “We're making choicesâmore spiritual than economicâabout grounding our souls in landscape through participation, about becoming participatory citizens of a homeplace through the eating of what the landscape produces.” All you need is a stove. In the words of George Reiger: “The reason our fly-fishing forebears developed this technique was to catch trout so they could eat them. To characterize such sensible behavior as unenlightened is not only snobbish, it provides fuel for those who insist that the only purpose of angling is to torture fish.”
New York Times,
has expressed a certain weariness with published pictures of anglers cradling fish to be released after the picture is taken. In Bryant's view, “it would be pleasing to see a photograph of an angler with a nice fish, legal to keep, under which the caption informs the reader that on the same day the angler filleted it, brushed it with a butter-herb sauce and broiled it over a hardwood fire.” I fish for American shad because they are schooling fish that come into the rivers wild. They are not an endangered species. They are not raised in hatcheries and brought as adults to the river in trucks. And above all, as a most savory food, they merit their taxonomic description. I catch to eat, and with that purpose am not troubled by the killing. As Jennifer Price observed in her book “Flight Maps,” “most of us do not personally snap the heads off the poultry we eat.” If you're going to be a fisherman, you have to be prepared to kill fish, because you will kill them if you catch and release them, you will kill them with barbless hooks. You won't kill everything, but you'll kill. They are going to die after you release them, and they are going to die if you keep them to eat. You don't need to develop a protective theology, as Ted Kerasote does: “We're making choicesâmore spiritual than economicâabout grounding our souls in landscape through participation, about becoming participatory citizens of a homeplace through the eating of what the landscape produces.” All you need is a stove. In the words of George Reiger: “The reason our fly-fishing forebears developed this technique was to catch trout so they could eat them. To characterize such sensible behavior as unenlightened is not only snobbish, it provides fuel for those who insist that the only purpose of angling is to torture fish.”
In this at times acrimonious and always three-pronged debateâcatch-and-release,
catch to eat, don't molest fishâit is not impossible to empathize with the widely varying points of view of a pair of brilliant Australians, each of whom acquired strong early attitudes in large part derived from their fathers. Peter Singer, who has been called “the ideological father of the modern movement for animal rights,” used to take long walks with his seriously asthmatic father along Australian riverbanks past fishermen with newly caught fish beside them, gasping pathetically. “He used to say how cruel that was,” Peter Singer told the writer Sylvia Nasar. “He didn't understand how people could think it was fun.” Robert Hughes, who grew up fishing and hunting in and near Sydney, was instructed by his father: “Never shoot anything alive unless you mean to eat it.”
catch to eat, don't molest fishâit is not impossible to empathize with the widely varying points of view of a pair of brilliant Australians, each of whom acquired strong early attitudes in large part derived from their fathers. Peter Singer, who has been called “the ideological father of the modern movement for animal rights,” used to take long walks with his seriously asthmatic father along Australian riverbanks past fishermen with newly caught fish beside them, gasping pathetically. “He used to say how cruel that was,” Peter Singer told the writer Sylvia Nasar. “He didn't understand how people could think it was fun.” Robert Hughes, who grew up fishing and hunting in and near Sydney, was instructed by his father: “Never shoot anything alive unless you mean to eat it.”
Of course, as is quite well established, there is nothing like a rod, a reel, a stream, and the privacy of nature to make a liar out of anybody. Not to mention hypocrite. I release shad sometimes, I confess. I prefer females to males. But, soon after recording my German attitudes toward catch-and-release, I went to the river and caught and released three roe shad as large as any I had seen all year. It was a test. Could I do it? Would I do it? I'm here to tell you, it was not easy. I returned to the river, in those living fish, about a million eggs. Or did I? That noble move was tempered by the odds-on possibility that the fish would dieâas a result of my interferenceâbefore they had a chance to spawn.
Two of the two things I have in common with Cotton Mather are that he fished in canoes and that he evidently fished to eat. If he was not the first American to tell exaggerative and mendacious fish stories, he missed the honor by a narrow margin. In 1712, Mather wrote “The Fisher-mans Calling. A Brief ESSAY to Serve the Great Interests of RELIGION among our Fisher-men; and set before them the Calls of their SAVIOUR, whereof they should be Sensible, in the Employments of their Fishery.” He told of thirty ocean fishermen who, after being frustrated by foul weather, went
fishing on a day that they had previously reserved for the “Exercises of Religion.” Five other fishermen did not join them but “tarried” to worship Jesus Christ. “The Thirty which went away from the Meeting, with all their Craft could Catch but four Fishes; The Five which tarried, went forth afterwards; and they took five Hundred.” On Wednesday, August 15, 1716, near Cambridge, Massachusetts, Cotton Mather fell out of a canoe while fishing on Spy Pond. After emerging soaked, perplexed, fishless, he said, “My God, help me to understand the meaning of it!” Before long, he was chastising his fellow clerics for wasting God's time in recreational fishing.
fishing on a day that they had previously reserved for the “Exercises of Religion.” Five other fishermen did not join them but “tarried” to worship Jesus Christ. “The Thirty which went away from the Meeting, with all their Craft could Catch but four Fishes; The Five which tarried, went forth afterwards; and they took five Hundred.” On Wednesday, August 15, 1716, near Cambridge, Massachusetts, Cotton Mather fell out of a canoe while fishing on Spy Pond. After emerging soaked, perplexed, fishless, he said, “My God, help me to understand the meaning of it!” Before long, he was chastising his fellow clerics for wasting God's time in recreational fishing.
Not a lot of warmth there. Better to turn to the clergyman Fluviatulis Piscator, known to his family as Joseph Seccombe, who was twenty-one years old when Cotton Mather died. Beside the Merrimack River, in 1739, Piscator delivered a sermon that was later published as “A Discourse utter'd in Part at Ammauskeeg-Falls, in the Fishing-Season.” There are nine copies in existence. One was sold at auction in 1986 for fourteen thousand dollars. The one I saw was at the Library Company of Philadelphia. Inserted in it was a book dealer's description that said, “First American book on angling; first American publication on sports of field and stream. Seccombe's defense of fishing is remarkable for coming so early, in a time when fishing for fun needed defending.” Fishing for fun and food reached a high level at Ammauskeeg Falls, where Manchester, New Hampshire, is now. It was a rite of the spring migration, of the arrival of American shad, with Indians and colonists dancing, writing treaties, feasting, fishing. When Fluviatulis Piscator came into this scene, he was famous for his work as a missionary in Maine, an assignment that could only have advanced his development as a sport fisherman. He reminded the Ammauskeeg festival that the apostles were not only fishers of men but fishers in the first place, and they fished not only on business but also at times for diversion, and that the “Lord not only appoints
the Leisure, but supports them in it, by giving them a lucky Draught of Fishes.” He further said, “Fishing is innocent as Business or Diversion ⦠Diversion is the turning aside from Business, in some proper Period, to refresh ourselves, and fit us for a more chearful and lively Discharge of Duty.” Shifting his address to people concerned for the ethical treatment of animals, he said,
the Leisure, but supports them in it, by giving them a lucky Draught of Fishes.” He further said, “Fishing is innocent as Business or Diversion ⦠Diversion is the turning aside from Business, in some proper Period, to refresh ourselves, and fit us for a more chearful and lively Discharge of Duty.” Shifting his address to people concerned for the ethical treatment of animals, he said,
Some among ourselves fear whether we ought to take away the Lives of Creatures for our own Support; and are positive that we should not for Diversion. Many have a great Aversion to those whose Trade it is to take away the Lives of the lower Species of Creatures. A Butcher is (in their Apprehension) a mere Monster, and a Fisherman, a filthy Wretch ⦠He that takes Pleasure in the Pains and dying Agonies of any lower Species of Creatures, is either a stupid sordid Soul, or a Murderer in Heart. He that delighteth to see a Brute die, would soon take as great Pleasure in the Death of a Man. But here, in Fishing, we are so far from delighting to see our Fellow-Creature die, that we hardly think whether they live. We have no more of a murderous Tho't in taking them, than in cutting up a Mess of Herbage. We are taking something, which God, the Creator and Proprietor of all, has given us to use for Food, as freely as the green Herb. Gen. IX. 2, 3. He allows the eating them, therefore the mere catching them is no Barbarity. Besides God seems to have cary'd out the Globe on purpose for a universal supply ⦠and he has implanted in several sorts of Fish, a strong Instinct [or Inclination] to swim up these Rivers a vast Distance from the sea. And is it not remarkable, that Rivers most incumbred with Falls, are ever more full of Fish than others? Why are they directed here? Why retarded by these difficult Passages? But to supply the â¦
Other books
Unraveling You 02 Raveling You by Jessica Sorensen
Trophy for Eagles by Boyne, Walter J.
A Witness to Life (Ashland, 2) by Terence M. Green
The Whispers of Nemesis by Anne Zouroudi
After the Fire by J. A. Jance
Macaque Attack by Gareth L. Powell
The Groom by Marion, Elise
The Song Bird (Siren Publishing Ménage Amour) by Beth D. Carter
Foreigner by Robert J Sawyer
Heidi (I Dare You Book 1) by Jennifer Labelle
