Response to Torgersen et al. (2011): Reply to Diggles et al. (2011): Ecology and welfare of aquatic animals in wild capture fisheries

Abstract

We welcome feedback on our paper that examined the ecology and welfare of aquatic animals in wild capture fisheries (Diggles et al. 2011), and agree with Torgersen et al. (2011) that the issue is an important one. However we must question statements such as ‘‘The basis for the interest in animal welfare is man’s capacity for empathy and the assumption or suspicion that animals have an experience of life.’’ We believe that interest in the welfare of animals in their natural environment should be founded on objective data, rather that anthropomorphic ‘‘empathy’’ and the vaguely founded ‘‘assumption or suspicion that animals have an experience of life.’’ This one example demonstrates how different people can interpret concepts of aquatic animal welfare in quite different ways, highlighting how views on these issues vary depending on external influences such as the culture, education, socio-economic status, dietary preferences, gender or even political and religious persuasion of the individuals involved (Furnham et al. 2003). As pointed out recently by Browman and Skiftesvik (2011), welfare issues blur the lines between science and ethics, morals and philosophy. As scientists publishing in a scientific journal, we believe the overriding constant that should be applied in the field to inform decision making is the scientific method, and therefore use of words that cannot be operationally defined, (such as empathy and experience) is incompatible with the scientific process. Instead, we consider the functional definition that an organism ‘‘is in good health with its biological systems (and particularly those involved in coping with challenges to stasis) functioning appropriately and not being forced to respond beyond their capacity’’ to be sufficient basis for interest in maintaining an animals welfare. Torgersen et al. (2011) challenged our statement that an implication of the nature based definition of welfare is that ‘‘[asphyxiation] may be an acceptable method of slaughter for commercial fishing if a nature based definition of welfare is used.’’ This is simply a reality of the nature based definition, and in stating ‘‘in that case the nature-based approach has little to offer’’ Torgersen et al. (2011) are encouraging a double standard by suggesting that some aspects of the nature This is the Rebuttal to the article, Torgersen et al. (doi:10.1007/s11160-011-9221-y).