death by releasing fish, but in no way can claim to eliminate it completely. So you’re right to consider that you are, ultimately, risking death of these animals for your enjoyment.

If that feels wrong to you, don’t do it. I can totally respect that.

I understand also the idea that the moral hazard to taking the life of a fish is justified by the need to obtain food. I believe they’re we’re out here by God for that purpose among others. But not all share Timmy religious belief. I personally feel like my connection to nature and nature’s God brought by my lifelong pursuit of flyfishing is also a benefit of trout that God approves of. Certainly not all even of my religion necessarily agree with that. But I know President Monson fished some of the same rivers I do and released trout there, so I feel like I’m in better company than myself.

Personally, I don’t use the eating or not eating of any particular fish or animal as moral justification for its capture or death, because I could just as easily (or more easily) not kill any particular animal and otherwise obtain the same protein. So I wouldn’t feel better or worse about catching any particular fish because I killed it and ate it. This would be maybe different if I were a subsistence fisher/hunter, but almost none of us is. I don’t have to kill this fish. I won’t pretend I do. I fish because I enjoy fishing. If I keep and eat a fish it’s because I enjoy that too, not because I need to.

My profession (one of them anyway) is using Recreation as a means of mental health treatment for people who need help (Eg. vets with PTSD) and I feel 100% sure that the fly fishing I do with these people and that which I do for my own benefit is totally in keeping with the idea that God put animals on Earth for the benefit and use of man. I would argue that flyfishing gives more potent and unique benefit to myself and many others than could be obtained by eating the same fish.