Conclusions

I spent some time trying to find a definition of "Ethics." Although there were many sites on the Internet that discussed ethics and the importance of acting ethically, there remained a wide divergence of opinion on what is and what is not ethical. If you are truly interested in ethics, you may want to visit Philosophy Guide Rich Gray's selection of Ethics Links.

Ethics seem to be a very subjective topic. Whether a thing is ethical or not depends entirely upon your own point of view. One of the best descriptions of Ethics I did find was sent to me anonymously and says: "values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of actions AND the goodness and badness of MOTIVES and ENDS."

With this definition in mind, what were Dahlberg's motives? Dahlberg's mission is to provide a TV show. The show features big fish. In that sense, it could be considered educational. Why do people watch his show? I can't say for sure, but I would imagine it's because they want to see big fish being caught. Is there anything in of itself wrong with this? I don't see that there is. Who amongst hasn't stopped to watch an angler priviledged to have just hooked a big fish? We want to see how big it is! We want to know whether the angler had the skill enough to land it. Certainly then, there is nothing 'ethically' wrong with showing big fish being caught on a TV show. If there is, then I suppose we should all look away the next time the big fish is being fought beside us on the river.

I asked Dahlberg himself whether he felt there was anything unethical about what he had done. "I don't think this is an ethical issue at all," Dahlberg replied. "My job is to bring my audience the best possible footage in the best possible way I can. My audience wants to see underwater shots, and as long as they want that, they are going to have to accept that in order to get them, it is necessary to do what we did, as long as the fish is not harmed."

Ok, what about the journalistic aspect? Some are of the opinion that Dahlberg violated journalistic integrity. I asked the TV host if he considered himself a journalist or an entertainer.
"Anyone who has a good television show needs to have elements of both." Dahlberg replied. "What I would find unethical would be if someone were to produce a TV show that purported to be educational, and led the audience to believe that fish were being caught on a fly when in fact live bait had been used. Now we're talking ethics," he said. "Another thing, do you really believe that all those wonderful wild life shows on Discovery Channel are never partly staged? Sometimes in order to get footage, there are some things you need to do. It's just the way things are done. If you don't, what you end up with is something that looks like an amateur home movie."

Because of the variance of opinion, I decided to look further for help in determing what is ethical in relation to journalism. A respected Canadian writer by the name of Paul Marriner, who has written many fly fishing related articles that have appeared in print throughout the world and on Internet sites, mentioned, in a post to the Canadian Flyfishing List, a poll that was being conducted by the Outdoor Writers Association of America. The poll is seeking the opinion of Professional Writers about their moral and ethical views on a variety of hypothetical situations involving wildlife and journalism.

As far as answers to the problem of ethics, it was not much help. What it did do however, is provide insight into the wide divergence of opinion as to what is ethical and what is not. Steve Wagner, OWAA Executive Director reported that the results of this poll may be published at some point in the future but that "So far, results are all over the board -- it appears our members have very diverse opinions on what is professionally ethical and what isn't."

Is there a case to be made for situational ethics? Many of us would like to think that we would act a certain way, regardless of the situation. But face it - how many of you really would tell your son to cut his line or let go of his first steelhead on the fly because taking a photograph would mean keeping the fish on the line a few minutes extra? Of course the situation is different than Dahlberg's. Thats the whole point. But, remember, the exact same elements remain. Would you expect your son/lover/wife/ to forgoe the opportunity to have a photo taken of their first fish on the fly? If so, where would you draw the line? And why would you expect others to accept your opinion? Furthermore, why stop at a fish? What if it was your 3 year old's first little sunfish, caught with a worm? Does the species have anything to do with ethics or right and wrong?

I think Catch & Release practices are partly to blame for this whole situation. Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that we discontinue C & R. The problem though is that it has somehow become the only honourable thing for an angler to do. Any angler who decides to keep a fish to eat on the table is scorned by those who have formed the opinion that C & R is the true sign of a sportsman. I think you would have an awful hard sell, trying to convince hunters of the same concept. Imagine telling a hunter that he could shoot ducks on the condition he did not harm them, and then released them back again into the wild so they could fly another day. I would like to know what the difference is between a fish and a duck.

Put this in perspective. If Dahlberg was hosting a show that featured big ducks, and shot a few of them out of the sky, would anglers be up in arms? I don't think so. Sure, some animal rights nut bars may have their protests. Now, lets say Dahlberg shot a really nice duck. As it was shot, the duck falling to the ground was not caught on camera. So, Dahlberg has his production crew splice in a shot of other ducks falling to the ground. But the duck Dahlberg picks up is a different duck. Its a huge duck. Its the duck everyone wanted to see. Would there be a hue and cry about the footage of the other ducks falling from the sky being unethical for a TV show? I kind of doubt it.

I doubt there ever will be a conclusion to all of this. Those who have formed their opinion probably will not change, regardless of what questions are put to them. Is it ethical to criticize Dahlberg, yet react in a humorous way to your neighbour threatening to go and shoot owls because one owl killed your cat, as one recent poster to the ROFF newsgroup described? Sometimes standards are only standards when they apply to someone else.

Do you disagree? Please, post your thoughts to our Forum. Maybe your insights and opinions can help us all develop our own standards of ethics that we can afford to measure our own behaviour by as well as others.

Related

The Day Gink Caused A Sting
A story about fly fishing ethics
Sport or Molestation?
Is ESPN's Larry Dahlberg guilty of molestation?
Dahlberg Speaks Out
TV Host tells his version of Kitimat incident.

Previous Features

From The Bench: The Muncher is a favorite of Ian James for carp, smallies, more.    Tie This!

The Doc's Rx: Thoughts of a Chicken Rancher. Doc tells it like it is.    The Doc's Rx