Chapter 8　Is Catch & Release Righteous? Japan vs Europe Bluefin Tuna Ethical Gap

Chapter 8: Is Catch & Release Righteous? — The Real Gap Between Japan and Europe

In Chapter 7, we confirmed the reality that we now live in an era where fish can be found with certainty. So, after finding, hooking, and bringing the fish alongside, what comes next? Do we take the tuna home, or let it go?

The view that “releasing is the righteous choice” has become dominant, especially on social media and in parts of the media. Europe’s catch-and-release culture is praised, while Japan’s “take-home-first” attitude is often framed as backward. However, when we closely examine the regulations and on-the-ground realities in both regions, a far more complex picture emerges.

The Reality in Japan — “Not Because They Want to, But Because They Have No Choice”

Japan currently operates within one of the world’s most stringent resource management frameworks. Under the Pacific bluefin tuna recreational fishing regulations set by the Fisheries Agency, the capture of small fish under 30 kg is completely prohibited year-round, and strict monthly and regional catch limits (4.2 tons per month) apply to large fish over 30 kg. From April 2026, a prior notification system will also be introduced, with penalties under the revised Fisheries Act for violations. It is truly a world-class management system.

As a result, a massive number of releases occur on the water. However, the overwhelming majority of these releases are motivated by reasons such as “the quota is already filled” or “it was under 30 kg.” In other words, Japan’s release practice is not a voluntary choice by anglers but a “release as a consequence” of legal constraints. This is the decisive structural characteristic of Japan’s situation.

The angler’s blunt assessment — “They only release because they’ll get in trouble otherwise” — may be provocative, but it gets to the core of the issue. Japanese anglers release fish simply because they cannot exercise their right to take them home; they have not internalized release as a “good deed.” This fundamentally differs from the European starting point.

The Reality in Europe — “Not Because It’s What They Want to Do”

In Ireland and the UK, the government-led scientific research programme “Tuna CHART (Catch, Handle, And Release of Tuna)” is in place. In 2026, a maximum of 25 designated charter boats are allowed to participate. All caught tuna must be tagged, and it is forbidden to bring them aboard — all fish must be fully released. On the surface, this seems like a highly progressive initiative.

However, behind it lies a decisive fact. Under ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) agreements, Ireland and the UK essentially have no commercial quota for tuna. Without any legal option to take fish home, they have no choice but to operate on a catch-and-release basis. They do not release because they are “high-minded”; they release because there is no other option. This structure is strikingly similar, at its root, to Japan’s “release because regulations prevent taking them home” dynamic.

The Essence Revealed by Comparison — A Shared Sense of Being Forced

Both are bound by institutional constraints, making it clear that neither culture has been shaped purely by the voluntary will of anglers.

A Deeper Question — Is Catch & Release a Universal Righteousness in the First Place?

Let us step back and raise the perspective one level. In asking “Is catch-and-release righteous?”, we may be implicitly assuming that the European model is the only correct one.

In reality, attitudes toward catch-and-release even within Europe are far from monolithic. In Germany, from the standpoint of animal protection law, recreational catch-and-release is prohibited as “animal cruelty.” German angling culture is rooted in the idea that “if you catch a living creature, you must take responsibility and keep it”; releasing a fish is considered ethically problematic.

The contradiction between the “righteousness of release” celebrated in the UK and the “cruelty of release” banned in Germany vividly demonstrates that the ethics surrounding catch-and-release are not universal but culturally and historically constructed. Glibly summing up the situation as “Europe has higher awareness” is an error that overlooks this complex reality.

The Inconvenient Truth — Post-Release Mortality

So does the simple equation “release equals saving a life” hold up? From a scientific perspective, the answer is no. There exists an inconvenient truth known as post-release mortality.

Data from UK vessels with trained crew report a post-release mortality rate of 3.4%, and the UK government’s 2024 CRRF (Catch and Release Recreational Fishery) found that 98.7% of all catches were released in good or excellent condition, with an at-vessel mortality rate of just 0.21%. However, studies on southern bluefin tuna have shown significant physiological stress after release, and mortality can skyrocket depending on conditions. Even under optimal conditions a few percent mortality is unavoidable; under poor conditions it can reach 10–20%. The idea that “releasing saves a life” is, unfortunately, nothing more than a human illusion.

The Real Nature of the Gap — “Why Do We Fish?”

Yet there remains one decisive difference between Europe and Japan: the starting point of “why we fish.”

Anglers in Europe (at least in the UK and Ireland) fish on the premise of release. The experience itself is the consummation of fishing, self-contained as an act. In contrast, Japanese anglers, at least emotionally, fish on the premise of taking fish home, and release as a consequence. Tuna has long been a quarry directly linked to food culture, and while regulations are changing that form, the shift in values has not yet caught up — a transitional period. This should be understood not as “backwardness” but as a cultural “gap.”

Conclusion — The True Nature of Questioning “Righteousness”

So, is catch-and-release righteous? There is no simple answer.

Europe is not a perfect model of righteousness. The very fact that Germany bans catch-and-release while the UK promotes it shows that “righteousness” varies across cultures. Nor is Japan simply falling behind. Even a regulation-driven release practice, in terms of outcomes, does contribute to resource conservation.

Nevertheless, the Japanese reality that “they only release because they’ll get in trouble” — as the angler points out — highlights a crucial challenge: how to build an intrinsic ethical sense among anglers that goes beyond “the rules say so, so I have no choice.”

The most important thing is not the binary choice between releasing or keeping. It is whether you understand what you are doing. The fact that you inflict damage on the tuna; that even after release some fish die; and that despite this, we still fish. We must not avert our eyes from this reality.

And once we understand that reality, how do we fish? Shorten fight times, unhook in the water, ensure the fish has recovered before release. As seen in UK best practices, education and training can dramatically reduce mortality. Those cumulative efforts transform a mere act of “releasing” into an act of “returning” a life.

Whether catch-and-release is righteous or not depends on the system and culture you are in. However, “taking responsibility for the consequences of your own actions” is a universal ethic that transcends any culture. That is precisely the perspective required for the future of tuna casting.

Sources