Conundrum

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

You just can't put them back in the river. That's not an option, especially to an environmental management student. Aside from the fine etc, it's morally wrong.

Morally wrong? To put fish back in the river? By who's standards? Not the fish's, I'm guessing.

You have a problem here, Ali, certainly. It appears the problem is choosing which unavoidable unacceptable conclusion to aim for. Do the research, get the fish, hold the fish indefinitely. Can't kill them. Can't return them. Which set of rules must be broken? IF. If the student persists in following this line of study. Given the parameters you describe, why is this even a question? It appears that this line of study is unacceptable. I reckon you're (the student, actually) only considering it (this course of study) since there's some remnant of a sensibility that the two plain options (killing them or returning them) used to be acceptable. Now they're not. So no study. Easy.

I'm not being glib. If the one part of the study involved some other more readily identifiably *unacceptable* part, there would be no question--no study. This is not an indictment of the student's judgment. I applaud their desire to learn and their desire to obey the rules. But the rules have changed to preclude this avenue.

It seems the answer is do not do this at all.