Don't look a fish in the mouth

      In Elizabeth Bishop's, "the fish", she takes the simple catching of a fish and paints a picture that says more than I caught a fish and let it go. Elizabeth Bishop explores her motivation to do so through graphic description of the fish. She turns what would normally appear disgusting into something beautiful to be appreciated. Dirty weed hanging from the fish becomes "rags of green weed hung down." It's faded, battered and homely brown skin is embellished upon too. Describing the skin she says: 

"was like wallpaper:

shapes like full-blown roses
stained and lost through age.
He was speckled with barnacles,
fine rosettes of lime,"

If one wants to it is possible to see pretty much anything and definitely a fish in this light. You can look at the same thing and based on your perspective see beauty, indifference or disgust. In the "fish" Elizabeth turns this disgust into beauty with her words. She understands this fishes plight; describing the five hooks in it's mouth and it's struggle to breath. It becomes "a faded noble warrior" which she calls venerable for its endurance. The fish is a mighty symbol of natures beauty; a beauty that Elizabeth grasps. She emphasizes the beauty of being benevolent and letting the fish go as opposed to that of following the predator-prey relationship of nature. This is because she at once respects and pities the fish. Elizabeth is happy to let the fish go because she knows it's worth. This creature is humanized in it's struggle and embellished in it's beauty.


Is this a sales pitch about overfishing perhaps? If so I approve this message. 
Is it against fishing?  Than don't look a fish in the mouth.