The CA again!!

[mikeclough]

I agree with Newt. The statement found at that link is total rubbish.

 

I've been a member of the BFSS since it was created and a member of WAGBI (its precursor) for many years prior to that, and I can assure all that I've never seen any evidence that the BFSS promotes 'killing for kicks'.

 

I will say however that I've now given up shooting because I could no longer justify the cruelty involved. No matter how good a shot you are some of the quarry will be wounded at some time, and will suffer. You either accept it or not. I can no longer personally accept it. Similarly, in fishing, any sort of fishing, at some time you will inflict cruelty on the fish, no matter how careful you are. We do our best to minimise the cruelty, and we hope that those authorities who tell us that the fish don't feel much pain are correct. But we'll really never know. However, I accept the (hopefully) small amount of cruelty I inflict on fish, and can live with it.

 

I fully agree with those above who say we should distance ourselves from the CA. Fox hunting with hounds is doomed in England and they know it. They are just making last desperate efforts to garner support for a blatantly cruel activity.

[Jim Roper]

The chap on the Pike Anglers Club stand at the CLA Game Fair had never heard of a Peter Waller!

 

An incident with a dogfish on the beach a few weeks ago has now convinced me that fish feel pain!

 

RSPCA supremo, Jackie Ballard, says she sees no sense in catching fish that are not going to be eaten!

 

If WAGBI was the BFSS in a former life, then my prick's a Bloater.

 

If people don't know the difference between the CLA and the CA or the Difference between the BASC and the BFSS, they are as in-informed as most of the antis. Perhaps they are antis!

 

[ 28. July 2004, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Jim Roper ]

[StuMac]

Peter Waller:

 

Peter Waller:

iam on both sides pete,an open outlook,not tunnel vision,fishing is a bloodsport,period!!!

Oxford Dictionary time! Bloodsport, a sport involving the wounding or killing of ANIMALS.

 

A fish is not an animal.

 

For your information I am not opposed to shooting and I was brought up in the country.

Not ***again***.

 

Peter - this is at least the second time you've come out with this nonsense. If you really want people to take you seriously, then this is one point you realy ought to get right.

 

A fish *is* an animal. There is no room for debate on this subject, it is a simple fact of biology which you just have to learn.

[Peter Waller]

So you say Stumac. Fortunately it seems that most people, yourself excluded, seem to have grasped the fact that by fish I mean pointy ended things with fins and a flipper like tail, and without the ability to feel pain; and that by animal I mean someting with a leg at each corner and the ability to feel pain.

 

But if someone is daft enough to support the CA then I really don't worry if they take me seriously or not! Non so blind as those who don't want to see etc., etc., etc.!

 

Jim, that a PAC member at the CLA has never heard of me is no great misfortune! Had enough articles in the PAC mag over the years but I certainly am not going to loose any sleep over lack of recognition!! Infact I rather like it.

 

[ 28. July 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[StuMac]

I think the word you are looking for is 'mammal', and I wouldn't be so dogmatic about fish being unable to sense pain. Animals a lot more 'primitive' than fish (worms) can be conditioned to change their behavior by 'painful' stimuli.

 

Fish have all the necessary nerves to feel pain, and it's nonsensical to suggest that any free living animal could have evolved without a sensation of pain to tell it that something really nasty was happening and it'd better get away as fast as possible.

 

Game anglers are all told that a fish should be killed straight away so as not to prolong it's suffering unecessarily. It is considered very bad form to unhook a salmon before knocking it on the head and several prominant game anglers have come out against catch and release because it is wrong to put a salmon through the stress of capture if you're not going to take it. (There was an interesting link to a Norwegian group that presented their arguments against catch / realease on here)

 

At least one section of the angling community is quite happy with the idea that fish can suffer!!! (Although they may well be the section that support the CA)

 

 

The issue is whether fish are sufficiently evolved to be able to experience pain in the same way we do, and I think the answer to that is "no", and thionk that any observant angler would agree.

[waterman1013]

Peter

 

I think the word you want is quadruped, but even they are not all furry and cuddly!!

 

To use the term "animal", even in jest, just confuses those who are trying to read what you have to say.

 

If something is alive it is either a plant or an animal. If it is not an animal then by definition it must be a plant. Fish are most certainly not plants.

 

Mike

[Tog]

The CA is fighting NOW the pressure groups we anglers will have to face in the future if they lose the hunting issue.

Our great leader is now peddling some new laws to curb the activities of some of the anti mob but only if they effect those working in the ‘bio industry’ sector. No mention of the fact he jumped into bed with them many years ago!

I don’t see how any angler can distance himself from the issue of ‘using animals for sport’ which is the anti’s view of what we do, Just because ‘our’ animal is not four legged and furry does not stop it being an animal! How much ‘discomfort’ you can cause a fish before your being labelled ‘cruel’ is a definition I wouldn’t want to find out in a court.

I try to cause as little discomfort to any fish I catch (including a smart tap on the head if it’s for the pot) but a lot more fish are killed by accident by well meaning anglers every day than foxes by hunter’s in a year.

[waterman1013]

Stumac

 

Can you name the research which shows that fish have "all the necessary nerves to feel pain"?

 

Dr Rose would certainly disagree with you, as would most of the angling community.

 

Fish, both game and sea, are given the priest as soon as possible to preserve the flavour and texture of the meat, not because they might "suffer unecessarily". I game fish and no one has ever given me such advice. Indeed the waters I fish were amongst the first to resist taking spring run fish.

 

Now no fish may be taken and all are sent to the hatchery to strengthen future generations of fresh run fish. But I have been surprised at just how much "playing" of the fish some game anglers can manage. No wonder they knock their prey on the head, it is fit for nothing after having been played for so long.

 

Mike

[StuMac]

Dr Rose would certainly disagree with you, as would most of the angling community.

 

I'm sorry but Dr Rose would almost certainly agree! He maintains fish cannot *experience* pain in the same way we do, and I agree with him. I've never seen anything that contradicts the idea that painful stimuli are sensed by free nerve endings in the skin. These are found in fish. It is not a question of citing papers, the basic anatomy was worked out a long time ago and nobody has really ever disagreed since. Read any standard textbook of vertebrate anatomy.

 

Higher vertebrates have more specialised organs that allow them to differentiate pressure, heat, cold etc and these allow a more subtle range of sensations. However, the basic free ending sensory fibres are found in all vertebrates (and most invertebrates). In afct the people from Edinburgh showed that some of these more specialised sensory endings are also found in fish, which caused the fuss last summer.

 

The argument amongst biologists is over the extent that fish can *experience* pain in the way we do - there is absolutely no reason to beleive that fish simply lack the ability to sense painful stimuli. In fact the idea that a free living animal could evolve with no mechanism to tell it when something nasty was happening to it is just stupid.

 

This difeferenc between sensing pain and experiencing it may sound subtle, but its actually a very importantof idea that has largely come from the work of Pat Wall. What started him off thinking about it was when he noticed that the capacity to experience pain could be switched on and off in very strange ways.

 

People who have undergone horific injuries (e.g. in battle) often report that they experienced no pain despite the fact that limbs were ripped off.

 

In complete contrast, amputees quite often experience very real and intense pain from limb that aren't there any more. The pani they experience is very, very real (in fact some amputees say its actualy the worst thing about loosing a limb) and yet no nerve endings are being stimulated cos they're feeling pain in a part of their body that isn't there any more.

 

These things happen because our ability to experince pain is a very advanced brain function. What Dr Rose said is that fish do not have sufficiently advanced brains to allow thme to exprience pain in this way. To a fish a painful stimulus is just that, something that tells them something grim is happening and which trigers a pattern of escape behaviour. Once the stimulus stops, things go back to normal. Although they have responded to a painful stimuli, they have not experienced pain in the same way that we do. What the people from Edinburgh showed last summer actually doesn't alter this arguments in any way.

 

As for game angling ethics - look at some of the stuff Hugh Falkus has written about catch / release in Trout and Salmon!

 

Talk to some of the anglers who ceremoniously pour whiskey onto the Tay on the last day of the season to 'Toast their Quarry'! Pipe bands playing in the background, fireworks bursting over head. Tell one of them you let a salmon flap to death on the bank but it was OK cos fish can't suffer and see what reply you get.

 

I even heard Rex Hunt say how fish should be killed immediately if they are to be taken.

[Guest allibee]

(phylum Chordata, Peter )