Fish feel pain !!!!!!!!

[John S]

kleinboet:

Just a quick line on something I just thought. How many of you anglers out there have caught the same fish TWICE on the same day, and why are large carp named and identified, to be caught over and over again, if they feel pain. I don't think so!

The same day?! I've caught the same roach twice in the same minute. After unhooking it the first time I just dropped the (still baited hook) in the water. The fish followed quickly afterwards, whereupon it immediately took the bait again.

 

I don't think any fish in distress would think "Oh the pain! Oh the agony! Oh, maggots! Yummy"....

 

Tight lines

[Peter Waller]

Eastern Angler, no I didn't hear the whole thing. It was still being plugged as I came home this evening. I was grateful that the presenter on Radio Suffolk also gave me a chance to knock those who keep pointing a finger at us over the lead shot issue. The presenter on Radio Suffolk at about 7.00 this evening clearly thought the whole thing rather silly. There was a good reference during my lunch hour by a lady who condemned the Vegi-Anti-Angling crowd, obviously PETA, who wanted to change the whole life-style of the country-side by having vegetable crops only and no hoof crops at all. What little I heard came over as anglers winning the day, I hope!

 

The annoying thing is that this research cost us tax-payers money. The lady (no surprises there) professor admitted that fish DO NOT FEEL PAIN as humans do. But had she asked anglers, and saved the research money, we could have told her that fish have sensors in their mouths, how else can they detect food? So what's new? But how can a fish that is NOT equipped to feel pain possibly feel pain?

 

Basically we were being asked by the BBC (no surprises there either) to defend ourselves. What have we to defend ouselves against?

[frodo_uk]

well what a farce!!! if abnormal behavour is proof of pain they could say "we took a group of fish which where a control group and no interference had taken place, and another group whose heads had been removed, the control group fed normally the headless fish all sunk to the bottom of the tank and never resumed feeding therefore proving that fish feel pain!

ok slightly sinacle I grant you, but on a more even keel my better half "is" a biomedical scientist and i have no trouble believing her when she says "anything" can be proven by science, it dosn't actually have to be true, but it can be proven. Want to prove grass is pink science could if it wanted to.

If there is ever a report that fishing causes distress and pain that was actually irrafutable i'd hang my rod up tomorrow but i for one do not beleive it for one second and whats more if they want to go down the road of chemical reactions disturbing fish then thank god for the fisherman and the angling clubs that in the past have taken countless companys to court for polluting rivers and waterways with just such chemicals !!!

this sort of selective sceince just makes me :mad: :mad: :mad:

[peter mccue]

One more thing guys, keep an eye on your local papers etc for the inevitable letters from the activists & bleeding hearts who love this sort of thing.

 

Keep it civilised & polite, there is plenty of solid evidence to hit them with along with the rose report.

 

I've copied Dr Rose's comments, they will be very handy.

 

Just don't let these letters go unanswered, it gives them creedance & allows them free rein to try & manipulate the publics opinion if we do.

[ayjay]

I think this "scientific evidence" is yet more conjecture,it does seem a strange method of testing.

 

But what about this sentence pulled from the report,is it factual or is this just more conjecture?

 

 

quote:

---

 

"However mechanical thresholds were lower than those found in, for example, human skin. This may be due to the more easily damaged nature of fish skin.

Perhaps it's just an attempt to portray the fish as something soft and fluffy!

 

I would have thought that human skin is softer than a scaly fish skin.

 

Any taxidermists or fishmongers out there to enlighten us?

[peter morton]

ITV teletext are running a vote at the moment on page 347 should fishing be banned.

Text 8899 with the response 'Teletext no' to register your vote.

 

You can also phone in your vote and calls will cost no more that 12p

 

To vote NOT TO ban angling telephone: 0901 4701033

[rickster]

one thing that puzzles me in all this is if they succeed in banning angling whos going to pay for the up keep of the rivers etc, erm yes everyone, whos going to pay the people out of jobs, homes etc from there fisherys and tackle shops, erm yes everyone. Now when old mr Brown gets up on the budget again if angling gets banned watch those taxes creep up to pay for all this. Lets not forget all those fish and chip shops, companys like bird eyes etc who will have to find another way to farm there fish etc as that will be the next thing to get the chop.

I just find this whole thing a waste of time and money.

Also what would they say if this report would of came back saying fish DONT feel pain??

[Vagabond]

Excellent and reassuring as the response from Professor Rose is, it is difficult for non-specialists to get their heads round - even as a trained scientist I found it heavy going. I suspect most of us would get lost in a argument of this complexity.

 

If involved in the question of "pain or no pain" with non-anglers, I think it best to keep the argument simple - like this

 

Point out that the Sneddon study showed that injecting venom caused prolonged distress to fish, whereas injecting weak saline solution did not.

 

Injecting weak saline solution is very like catching a fish on a hook. Therefore if the Sneddon study shows anything, it shows that catching fish on a hook does not appear to cause them lasting distress.

 

Anglers knew that anyway!

[Bill Eborn]

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

[Peter Sharpe]

Perhaps for comparison they should have tried injecting noxious chemicals into a slug. I feel fairly safe in predicting that it too would show a response indicating that it felt "pain".

 

Just to get you all thinking, I will quote a great philosopher, my dad:

 

If you were submitted to excruciating pain, in a way that left no marks and no other after effects, but immediately afterwards you had no memory of it...would it matter?