In a shocking turn of events that would make even the most seasoned fisherman do a double-take, a new debate has surfaced in the world of aquatic ethics: Is kissing a fish considered assault?

While this might seem like a flippant topic, it raises profound questions about consent, cultural norms, and the moral responsibility of all those who engage in underwater romance.

The act of kissing a fish, once reserved for sailors seeking good luck and overzealous children visiting the local aquarium, has now come under scrutiny by fish rights activists and legal scholars alike. The argument put forth by these activists is that fish, despite their reputation for having short-term memory, deserve agency over their personal space, even if it's underwater.

Dr. Finley McFlapper, a marine psychologist, argues that fish might not display their discomfort as overtly as humans, but signs of distress are there if we only care to observe. "Fish have been subjected to an age-old tradition that is neither respectful nor consensual," says Dr. McFlapper. "Imagine if a giant creature descended from the sky and planted a wet one on your cheek without warning."

But not everyone is on the same page. Some skeptics point out that fish lack the cognitive capacity to understand or care about these matters. "Fish are not exactly known for their romantic inclinations or emotional depth," remarks Dr. Bubbles O'Sharkington, a prominent marine biologist. "I doubt they're losing sleep over whether they've been kissed."

Legal experts are also weighing in on the matter, with varying opinions on whether puckering up to a scaley friend could be classified as assault. Attorney Trouty Nymphsalot warns, "We're entering uncharted waters here, legally speaking. If fish are granted protection from unwanted advances, what's next? Will we be sued for releasing them facing downstream?"

Cultural perspectives are adding an extra layer of complexity to the debate. In some societies, kissing fish is an age-old tradition believed to bring prosperity and good fortune.

Is it fair to criminalize an act that's been woven into the fabric of certain cultures for generations?

Consent, of course, remains the crux of the matter. Activists emphasize that just because a fish doesn't push you away doesn't mean it's granting permission. Others argue that if we're going to consider the rights of fish, we might as well ponder the implications of catching them on hooks, an arguably more invasive and harmful activity.

In this slippery debate, finding a definitive answer seems as difficult as catching a greased eel.

Perhaps the real lesson here is that as our understanding of animal cognition deepens, we must approach interactions with all species, human or aquatic, with sensitivity and respect.

Until then, it might be wise to hold off on any fishy smooches – for the sake of both parties involved.

In all seriousness, let’s briefly chat about keeping a fish wet.

Taking a quick photo or video for a screengrab later is generally enough time for a trout to be out of the water. A photo in the net, a photo of the fish in your hand, and a photo of you kissing it just isn’t necessary, nor cool.

Proper catch-and-release techniques involve the following:

1)      Fish in cool water only. Water under 65 degrees will help the fish remain happy.

2)      Fight the fish quickly. There’s no need to fight a fish for minutes on end. Get the fish to your net in 20 seconds or less.  

3)      Handle the fish gently. Use forceps or hemostats to remove the hook and wet your hands before touching it. Try to only keep the fish out of the water for less than 7 seconds while unhooking the fly. If it takes longer, put it back in the net (acting as a live well) for a break.

4)      Release it promptly. We don’t need a photo of every fish. And we certainly don’t need a photo of us kissing them. If a picture is necessary, consider taking a 3-second video instead, and getting a screenshot of the video afterwards.

Thanks for reading.

Dan