Sport fishing in Colombia went from being a national pride to a practice without legal support, after in April 2022 the Constitutional Court, the highest authority in constitutional jurisdiction, issued ruling C-148/22 declaring the laws that regulate sport fishing unconstitutional.
Despite this ruling, sport fishing, understood as that which is done for recreational and recreational purposes, is not prohibited, since its regulation was declared unconstitutional and the Court established a period of one year for its compliance.
So far there have been no changes in the practice of sport fishing and the permits are still in force and are still being granted, but April 27 marks the year of the issuance of the ruling that will define the future of around 2,510 families that depend on this activity.
“The Court decided that (...) the article on which sport fishing was based was unconstitutional. There is an interpretation game. For some lawyers, sport fishing is not prohibited, what they declared was the unconstitutionality of the law that supports it,” explained Andrés Reyes, president of the Colombian Association of Fish Farming and Fishing (Pisesca), which brings together around 400 members.
Sport fishing as a form of animal abuse
This ruling was the result of a lawsuit of unconstitutionality filed by a citizen who argues that sport fishing affects ecological function when using hydrobiological resources in a recreational activity and that it is an anthropocentric activity since it justifies environmental damage based on the fun of the fisherman.
In addition, certain associated practices, such as the release of bait and maritime traffic, threaten ecosystems causing habitat loss and climate change.
This lawsuit was supported by the Federation of Entities for the Protection of Animals and the Environment of Colombia (Fedamco), which, through its legal representative, maintained that allowing sport or recreational fishing legitimizes the capture and death of animals in a cruel and unjustified way and, therefore, the protection of animals recognized in judgment C-666 of 2010 is violated.
Under these arguments, they argue that sport fishing is a form of animal abuse and requests that articles of the law that regulate sport fishing be declared enforceable, that is, that they be eliminated because they are inconsistent with other laws.
The Court in March concluded that sport fishing was an activity that violates the constitutional prohibition of animal abuse and recognized animals as sentient beings. Consequently, it declared unconstitutional paragraph 4 of article 273 of Decree Law 2811 of 1974 and paragraph c) of paragraph 2 of article 8 of Law 13 of 1990, which regulate sport fishing.
The answers to the ruling
One of the biggest criticisms of the ruling is the conclusion regarding the recognition of fish as sentient beings, which Andrés Reyes points out as a false assumption from which he starts.
“In reality there is no scientific study that proves that fish are sentient beings, so we believe that starting from an assumption that has not been proven to develop this whole topic, because that in our way, is a big mistake,” he said.
Judge Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado herself acknowledged in writing in the clarification of her vote that it is not for the Court to take a position regarding fish as sentient beings, and that in any case the measure is based on a commitment derived from human dignity to avoid the unjustified suffering of animals.
A month before the ruling, in March 2022, resolution 0549 was published, which establishes fisheries management guidelines for sport fishing, as a result of a work process in fishing communities by the National Aquaculture and Fisheries Authority (Aunap) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Colombia.
“It was so paradoxical that the resolution to manage sport fishing came out and at the same time the Court's ruling came out. It is likely that they did not know that a whole lot of work was being carried out to regulate sport fishing and this is a little bit of what has been illustrated to them, that there was already some consensus on how to approach it,” explained Luis Alonso Zapata, coordinator for marine issues at WWF.
This resolution of the regulatory guidelines was rescinded, so WWF is promoting measures to resume all this previous work and to review the ruling and its implications.
Consequences of the entry into force of the ban
Fishermen in Colombia. Source: Fisheries System of the Colombian Fisheries Statistics Service
Sport fishing is carried out under very specific guidelines and in the modality of fishing and returning the fish to its habitat, however, Reyes pointed out that it is incongruous that they seek to prohibit this type of fishing and not industrial fishing, for example, which generates greater environmental damage than sports because of the fishing gear it uses.
If the ban came into effect, it would not be possible to fish and return the specimens to the sea again. However, other types of fishing production are not a crime, and therefore, those who did sport fishing will eventually resort to artisanal fishing, Reyes said, which would increase predation.
In addition, it points out that the economic and social context surrounding communities that subsist on sport fishing tourism was not analyzed, where illegal activities such as felling trees, mining, trafficking in species and drugs, which could become more important, were previously predominant. There, this sporting activity has been an instrument of development that has helped to combat poverty, according to the representative of Pisesca.
In this context, Reyes pointed out that in Colombia sport fishing is seen as an activity that contributes more to caring for the environment than to its depredation and to boosting the economy legally in the most remote areas of the country that are dedicated to sport fishing tourism.
The Future of Sport Fishing in Colombia
Since the issuance of judgment C-148/22, associations, indigenous communities and civil organizations have initiated legal actions aimed at overturning the sentence.
At least a dozen requests for review have also been submitted under the legal figure Amicus Curiae, which seeks to consult and integrate the opinions of jurists and legal institutions into the judgment, but all have been rejected by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that judgments cannot be revoked or amended nor are they susceptible to clarification.
The request for review urges the Court to measure the position of categorically prohibiting sport fishing, and instead to order its regulation within technical, scientific and environmental guidelines.
The aspiration to have it reviewed and adjusted before the deadline is at risk. Luis Zapata from WWF Colombia pointed out that at this point it is not very clear what is going to happen.
Comentarios (0)