the debate continues....

[jscoggs27]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030430/80/dywk7.html

[Shane]

Thanks for pointing this out. That paper about how "fish can not feel pain" was silly. Any aquarist or angler knows that fish can feel some form of "pain." Watch two male Ancistrus flare their odontodes (cheek bristles) and wrestle each other around the aquarium. The scratched up loser of the fight will eventually retreat and hide. If they could not feel "pain" you would expect all male fishes to just fight every fight to the death oblivious to the damage they were receiving. Watch a male cichlid attack another fish trying to eat his fry. If the attacker could not feel pain you would expect him to just dine on the fry and ignore the fact that Mister Oscar is tearing his fins off. The reality is that the attacker receives a bite, processes "that hurts," and swims off to find another meal.
-Shane

[S. Allen]

well... sort of. it could just be a simple "I am taking damage!" signal. that's what we have pain for, but for all we know it could tickle to fish, but they've adapted to use that as a signal to stop what they're doing and get the hell away. An animal with no ability to respond to physical stimulus would be at an extreme disadvantage.


That said, I believe that most animals and especially the vertebrates feel pain in a very similar way we do. A distinct, unpleasant feeling that is to be avoided even if no real damage is taking place. ;) anyone who reads popular science might remember a recent article about non-lethal weapons the US army is working on, with the main focus on a test at their "pain ray" which was a very strange thing that vibrates the molecules in the human body, on the effected surface, that it basically feels like burning(I can get the info for you guys if you need, I'm not as nuts as all that). Normal duration before the person collapses or jumps out of the way is about 3 seconds or so, but the second you step away the pains gone with no damage done to your body, although the reporter said there was a slight residual redness. be interesting to use some such thing to prove fish feel pain too... even when no real damage is being done. But looks like the study did the same thing in a low tech way.

the thing I laughed about is that an angler would give up fishing because the fish was hurt.... anyone with common sense has seen that fish hurt, even if they pulled scientific rubbish to prove otherwise... but we KNOW deer, rabbits, elk, moose and other mammals feel pain in a very similar manner... that hasn't stopped us from hunting them with everything from a musket to a bow. It might very slightly deter people from fishing, but I don't think there's really much chance of it making a difference.

[Dinyar]

May 6, 2003

Fish Feel Pain When Hooked, Scientists in Britain Say

By ALAN COWELL

TEFFONT EVIAS, England, May 4 ? On the front line of a watery war, Christian Jervis-Reid braced for the fray, his only weapon a willowy wand of crafted bamboo.

Before him lay the languorous curves of the River Nadder, a slender waterway replete with trout near this old village in the county of Wiltshire, 100 miles west of London. Somewhere, at the back of his mind, were arguments that catching fish was cruel. In front of him, though, was the dimpling of the water that betrayed his prey.

He cast his line. A speckled brown trout rose to his artificial fly. After a brief tussle, the trout was captured, destined for that night's dinner table.

That bucolic moment was one that has been repeated on untold occasions since Izaak Walton, a British writer and fisher, composed "The Compleat Angler," a compendium of lore in the 1650's. But Walton's assessment that "God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling" is now under challenge as rarely before.

Eminent scientists have concluded that, despite anglers' longstanding protestations to the contrary, fish do indeed feel pain when hooked. Animal rights activists, who have fought a stubborn campaign against the hunting of foxes, hares and stags, now say they feel encouraged in their insistence that anglers should desist from their pastime.

"While fishing might seem fun, there's a terrified animal fighting for its life at the other end of the line," said Dawn Carr of the European branch of the lobby group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The Royal Society, an independent scientific research body, seems to agree with him. In one of its journals, the society published research last month by Lynne Sneddon establishing for the first time, she said, the existence of nervous system receptors in the head of fish that respond to "damaging stimuli."

By injecting bee venom and acetic acid into the lips of captive rainbow trout, the Royal Society said, Dr. Sneddon and other scientists at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh discovered that the fish displayed "profound behavioral and physiological changes" over a period of time, "comparable to those observed in higher mammals."

After the injections, Dr. Sneddon said, "fish demonstrated `rocking' motion strikingly similar to the kind of motion seen in stressed higher vertebrates like mammals, and the trout injected with acetic acid were also observed to rub their lips onto the gravel in the tank and onto the tank walls."

"This indicates, the researchers believe, that fish can perceive pain," the Royal Society said in a statement, contradicting the riverbank lore of anglers drawing on earlier research by Prof. James Rose of the University of Wyoming that fish do not feel pain because their brain is incapable of that response.

Dr. Sneddon said the research did not make her anti-angling. "I wouldn't say it was cruel as long as the angler is getting the fish out quickly, killing and eating it," she said. "That outweighs the short period of discomfort for the fish."

She did, however, seem to question the logic used by fishing types to protest her own research. "A lot of anglers have condemned me for using bee venom," she said in an interview. "If these anglers condemn me for that, they are acknowledging that fish feel pain."

Under pressure from the dispute are the 3.8 million anglers including Mr. Jervis-Reid, a 55-year-old banker, who make fishing Britain's most popular participatory sport. They cast lures, artificial flies or baits on or below the waters to catch, and often then release, species that range from carp in ponds to mackerel at sea by way of myriad others like roach, tench, bream, dace, pike, grayling, trout and on to the aristocratic Atlantic salmon.

"When you catch a fish, you want to cause it a minimum amount of pain," said Mr. Jervis-Reid in a conversation before his latest capture. "Most good anglers will be very quick about releasing it" or dispatching it for the pot, he said.

Of course, this being Britain, there are certain connotations of class. Anglers sitting on the banks of lakes and canals casting maggots and other bait for coarse fish like roach or barbel tend to be seen as a blue-collar bunch by those who cast artificial flies for game fish, usually trout or salmon.

But if there is one thing that unites them, it's an animal rights activist. "You won't get any distinction" between the various disciplines, said Martin Salter, a Labor legislator who acts as the government's spokesman on angling. "The anti-fishing lobby," he said, "is a few extreme vegans. It's nothing we take seriously."

The new research has prompted a chorus of rebuttal echoing through newspaper columns, broadcasts and barroom debate.

"When you hook a fish, the fish always will dash away into the far bank or bore away into the deepest water," said Rodney Coldron of the National Federation of Anglers. "If there was any pain involved, the fish would swim toward the angler to take pressure off the line."

In more of a scientific vein, Bruno Broughton, a scientific adviser to the pro-fishing lobby, said: "In our brains there's a neocortex. That's the part of our brain that is associated with pain and fear. Fish don't have that. So if fish are feeling pain, how are they feeling it? With which organ?"

At the back of many anglers' minds is the fear that Britain's militant animal rights movement, which has disrupted fox hunts, threatened scientists performing experiments on animals and blocked exports of calves, may also turn on anglers as they fish.

Two years ago, militants wearing ski masks and wielding baseball bats threatened an angler in Cambridgeshire. Animal rights activists sent a nail bomb to a fish and chip shop in North Wales. Also in 2001, an activist smashed fishing poles and leapt into the murky waters of the River Trent in the English Midlands to protest an angling competition.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals placed a newspaper advertisement the same year, Ms. Carr said, showing a dog with a hook through its lip and the question, "If you won't do it to a dog, why do it to a fish?"

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Sid Guppy]

pretty heavy stuff

And there's another argument as well: what most people forget when hunting and fishing are compared is that with hunting, usually the animal is killed (for food and skin, or a trophy or both). With fishing, all too often that particular fish is released to get a hook through it's jaw the next day. And the next. And the next. And so on....


Believe me, the outcry would be deafening, if we went out to the wood, used light bird-shot to shoot deer, bears and other animals, catched them and patched them up, so another hunter can have a go at it, the next day!

I've got no problems with hunting or fishing if you kill and eat it! (or sell it to someone who will eat it, no problems with professional fishermen either)

It's the deliberate maiming, exhausting and hurting, without having the cojones to eat them fish that I oppose.
And all the crap that comes with it:
-no returning or even exterminating of piscivore fish like Pike, Gar, Bass, Catfish and others.
-releasing zillions of inferior muddwelling fish every year, because still millions of fish die due to bad handling (and diseases due top being inbred etc)
-releasing herbivore strange fish to give those "anglerfish" more room, and endangering all native small fishes and amphibians because of this (like the Chinese "Grass-carp")
-increasing the amounts of fishdiseases because due to the worsened waterconditions (visibility!) the few piscivores that remain cannot hunt
-decreasing the amount of zooplancton too much (because there are too few piscivores and too many muddwelling and daphnia eating fish) wich leads to algae-bloom, bacterial bloom and eutrofe waters, wich will lead to botulism, masses of fish dying and waterfowl too....

Use a rod = eat your fish!