Fish feel pain !!!!!!!!

[Vagabond]

Just out of interest trout sometimes get their own back on the bees - See "Flight of the Bumble Bee" on the Fly Fishing Forum.

 

It would seem the trout mentioned there are not too fussed about the possibility of getting stung.

 

[ 01. May 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Vagabond ]

[Jim Roper]

mmc1:

I posted on there over 4 hours ago and my post is still not up. Did you wait long for your post to appear?

They are very selective. I've posted on dozens of those Talking Points and not seen one screened yet.

Can't think why!!

[Chris Plumb]

Yup - I know of half a dozen folks that have replied to this (me included) none have appeared...

 

 

Chris

[Bill Eborn]

mmc1:

mmc1:

The BBC have a discussion thread on this here

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2988181.stm which could do with some of this excellent discussion. I put my pennorth in, but i'm sure that some of you could do a lot better.

 

Bill

Hi Bill

I posted on there over 4 hours ago and my post is still not up. Did you wait long for your post to appear?

It is now approximately 23 hours since I posted my response of the forum and it still hasn't appeared and neither have any others favourable to us or not.

[mmc1]

Looks like they formed their opinion and our posts were obviously putting up a good arguement.

I wondered when i saw that the posts would be checked if it was worth bothering with.

[easternangler]

having tried to read the actual scientific report, the experiments they did on the poor old trout actually made me feel quite sick. If anglers actually did what they did then it would probably get banned, pain or no pain.

On a lighter note, my science may be way off, but isn't acetic acid another term for vinegar??? Maybe they did this bit during there lunch break.

[Bruno Broughton]

Barry

 

Yep, it vinegar alright. In view of the fact that a saline solution contains salt, the inevitable joke is that the research at least ensured that the trout got their salt & vinegar before they died.

 

I know, I know. My poor current sense of houmour is probably attributable to the media battering I have had for the last four days. When the phone fianally stopped ringing constantly, I was so confused I started making outgoing calls lest I had to cope with the 'real' life I had left behind. Wierd!

 

My mental state can be judged from the fact that I actually found this contribution funny (it's originally from Terry Mansbridge, but I have modified it):

 

"When a poll was carried out of people in the 'Happy Haddock' takeaway in Ipswich, 100% of those asked said that they did not think that fish felt pain. However, 35% thought that the chips looked a little frightened."

 

As a footnote, I wonder how many researchers (to some, 'live animal experimenters') - who proclaim that fish feel pain and that angling should be banned - are even now busy filling out research proposals and stocking up with syringes and even more noxious poisons...

 

You couldn't make this up and get away with it.

[phil hackett]

Bruno

Keep up the good work mate! Long hours, no and/or very little pay, no social life, the list as we both know is endless.

You may or may not get your just rewards elsewhere when you shed your mortal coil and become a cosmic traveller.

 

But sincerely it is very much appreciated.

[Elton]

Posted on behalf of Brian Crawford:

 

ANGLING AND THE R.S.P.C.A. – Fish and Pain

 

The Panel of Enquiry into Shooting and Angling set up by the R.S.P.C.A. which sat under the chairmanship of Lord Medway (later the Earl of Cranbrook) between 1976 and 1979 produced their Report in May 1980.

 

The Medway Panel was established to enquire into practices relating to angling and shooting which might involve cruelty and to make recommendations which might appear appropriate in relation to such practices. While it was not thought necessary to establish the facts of pain-perception in mammals and birds it was considered necessary in the case of fish.

 

The evidence which appeared to have influenced the Panel decisively was mainly of a pharmacological nature. Section 3 of the Report deals with “the problem of animal suffering” and gives details of neurological and pharmacological research undertaken in relation to pain. As a result of this evidence the Panel came to the conclusion (paragraph 57) that, if vertebrates other than man feel pain, the evidence suggests that all vertebrates (including fish), through the mediation of similar neuropharmacological processes, experience similar sensations to a greater or lesser degree in response to noxious stimuli. (note – this assumption was not new but was expressed in current legislation in the U.K. dating from the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act). From this stemmed the recommendation that anglers who previously thought there to be no evidence that fish might be capable of feeling pain at all should reconsider their attitudes.

 

The evidence to support the Panel’s conclusion lies in the discovery of nerve endings in the skin of fish, especially near the mouth and of the discovery in the brain of trout of two pain-related substances: substance P and enkephalin. Substance P is a peptide molecule known to be important for the transmission of pain in man and found in all mammals so far investigated. Enkephalin is an opiate which is believed to function by blocking the release of substance P and would, therefore have a pain quelling function. The Medway Panel thought it reasonable to assume that the presence of these substances known in man to be involved with pain should have a similar function in all vertebrate classes.

 

However, a scientific group set up by the then National Angler’s Council, whilst accepting the validity of the research establishing the presence of substance P and enkephalin in fish, queried the conclusion drawn in the comparison between fish and higher vertebrates and that the substances found in fish are identical to those found in man and have an identical purpose regarding implications of pain as understood by human beings. The definition of pain presented to the Medway Panel was that of a stimulus perceived by an animal when tissue is damaged (paragraph 38). The sensation of pain experienced by humans is largely a function of the manner in which the nerve fibres are linked within the brain, and there is no evidence that the nervous elaboration within the brain of fish is sufficiently close to that of humans to produce similar sensations however similar the mechanisms for detecting and conduction of stimuli around the body may be.

 

It was accepted by the Group that the hooking of a fish could be regarded as a stimulus to which the fish will react but the question raised by the Medway Report is whether this reaction constitutes an experience of pain by fish as understood by human beings. There was no evidence to support this, in fact the Medway Report (paragraph 29) refers to the possibility that fish are an example of vertebrates in which many normal responses are of a reflex nature. The implications of this involve the possibility that many reactions on the part of fish to potentially damaging or unpleasant stimuli may be automatic responses free from painful sensations. The Group also considered the numerous occasions when fish, severely damaged by injury or disease in the natural course of events, give no indication that they are experiencing pain. Although massive wounds in fish are not uncommon (as was evident during the outbreak of roach ulcer disease) in many observable cases the fish continued to act in an apparently normal manner.

 

The National Angler’s Council Scientific Group concluded that the scientific evidence did not show that fish feel pain as commonly understood by human beings. It should be noted that there was nothing in the Medway Report to indicate that the Medway Panel formed any different opinion.

 

The National Angler’s Council Scientific Group also stated that it could not support any proposal to ban the use of fish as live-bait on the grounds given in the Medway Report but is opposed to the use of more advanced vertebrates, frogs, birds, etc. but recognises that it may be necessary to limit the use of fish as live-bait to restrict the spread of disease from one water to another.

 

In conclusion, the Medway Report, which cost the R.S.P.C.A. over six million pounds, (in 1980!) failed to produce any substantive evidence that fish have the necessary body functions to experience pain as we understand it when hooked.

 

Recent research obviously supports this view studied in the late 1970’s.

 

However, the anti-angling lobby will continue.

 

Anglers must publicise and follow the recommended angling code of conduct to maintain public support.

 

Brian Crawford

[mfduk]

So thats why acetic acid and bee sting venom are not popular boily flavours!

 

Who financed this research?