A lot of fish, shellfish, and crustaceans are extremely valuable commercially. Because of that, thousands of fisheries flock out to the coasts in search of abundant fish species which they can harvest. Of course that leads to overfishing, which in turn leads to the depletion of said fish species. But due to them being non-popular in the public's eye, fish weren't considered 'wildlife' until 1958, two years after the publication of Peter Matthiessen's Wildlife. This was mostly due to physical appeal, as most mammals and birds appear more majestic to us than catfish or salmon.
I can't help but think that fish aren't really wildlife because of the way we treat them. We don't like a lot of fish for their appearance, scientific significance, or intelligence; we really only consider their economic, commercial, and recreational worth.
The dictionary definition of 'wildlife' is: "undomesticated animals living in the wild, including those hunted for food, sport, or profit."
By definition, and from an ethical standpoint, I'd say absolutely no: fish aren't really wildlife at all. Fish farms are popular nowadays, so wouldn't they be considered domesticated animals? However, they are hunted for food, sport, and profit, so it's hard to say.
Are fish considered a part of wildlife? Maybe not.
What do you think?
Check out the article here: Are Fish Wildlife?
No comments:
Post a Comment