PETA makes it point by going too far.

It’s a well-worn strategy. Propose the outrageous, tag opponents as unethical and wait for the public fallout.

Sometimes, the radical animal rights group is able to effect change. Most of the time, the antics just draw attention to their argument.

A Bates alumnus who now works for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has written a letter to the school asking that the fishing club be banned.

J. Coulter Leslie cites research into fish behavior to argue that fish feel pain, are intelligent and capable of learning complex tasks. Fishing, he writes, is cruel and unethical, and shouldn’t be tolerated by Bates.

Another PETA representative compares the treatment of fish to domesticated animals. “If students treated cats or dogs the way they treat fish, they’d be expelled and locked up on cruelty to animals charges.”

What comes too easily to PETA is tossing around absolutes and charges of immorality and unethical behavior. The science on fish feelings is not settled, yet the organization acts as if the argument is over.

Bates has responded in an appropriate way. The letter will be distributed to the student government and the fishing club, and could prompt a serious dialogue on campus about animal treatment.

Fishing is a controlled and limited outdoor activity. The state monitors fish populations and regulates the catch to product native species while protecting the health of fisheries. Much of that work is funded by recreational fishing. It is an important part of the state’s economy and a traditional, healthy outdoors activity.

PETA is entitled to make its case and Bates is correct to allow a forum, but the organization should be more selective in who it lumps among the ethically challenged. Good fishermen don’t qualify.