I agree with ewest's analysis. However I will throw this out there, just because it lingers on my mind.
What if the use of "conditioning" vs. "learning" is to dehumanize the subject? To remove any notion of intelligence? The reluctance to eat a thinking bluegill has already been mentioned above...what would happen were we to discover (admit?) that fish learned and could be taught?
How many have conditioned their dog to shake hands or roll over? Probably not, but we might've taught him or her to do these things. The use of the word taught implies to me, intelligence. Dogs are companions, loved members of our families, and in most cases at least, not on the dinner menu. Fish on the other hand, do not enjoy this luxury.
How would our perceptions, AND those of several infrastructures dedicated to fish and ponds, change? Maybe I'm chasing a sasquatch in the shadows, or maybe there's something to chasing the money...I just don't know.
Is there not a lot of wildlife that could be thrown into that equation as well? Consider the "conditioning" or "learning" that goes on in zoo's.
What if it were to be tried/tested/experimented on:
Deer
Elk
Pheasant
Turkey (or not, they're pretty dang dumb)
Hogs
Cows
Al's chickens
etc.,,,,,
I can already see the forming of special interest groups demanding the end of consuming these "intelligent" animals!
