the fish and pain issue

[malevans]

The mist clears if the use of the word pain is not used. We struggle to read the word and divorce it from the human or higher mammal collateral that goes with it.

[Liamsm]

Hi All,

I also think that getting away from the word pain, would make for a better understanding of the fishes actions and reactions to things.

The whole theory of evolution from the amoeba is formed on survival and avoidance of being caught.

Also better ways to catch.

I don't think that the lower forms achieve this with the same intelligence, or capability to feel pain as we do.

The word pain is a descriptive word for what we feel.

Even given this, we cannot prove that this word is equal to all humans, never mind lower species.

I think that for a better understanding, flight reactions and instincts might be a better path to travel for a balanced debate on this subject.

..........Liam.

 

[ 14. April 2004, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: Liamsm ]

[The Flying Tench]

Glenn, in answer to your last post suggesting natural selection as the answer to how and why fish learn from being caught. Natural selection takes many generations to take effect. I can see it would explain how, in a country where anglers kept their catches, a new breed of fish came into being which were very wary of hooks and lines. But individual fish learn from being caught within a year or two, and there must be something about the experience they don't like.

 

Malevans and Liamsm - I see your point about avoiding the term pain, and I certainly hope they don't feel pain like we do. But we can't be sure. The fact they don't have the parts of the brain that process pain in mammals (the cerebral cortex) doesn't prove anything. Maybe we just haven't discovered the part of a fish's brain that fulfils this function. The use of the term 'flight reaction' is interesting, but that is the response, not the cause. What causes a fish to develop a flight reaction if it doesn't find the experience unpleasant?

 

I'm fairly convinced by people's arguments that lip-hooking doesn't cause too much 'pain', but what about the case mentioned earlier when a chub hooked in the eye didn't fight at all? On the one hand it supports the view that, by comparison, lip-hooked fish don't feel much pain. But what other explanation do people have to explain why the eye-hooked fish came in so meekly? Not instinct, not flight reaction I suggest, but something a bit close to what we call 'pain'.

[Nik]

This is a really interesting thread with some very good points. All I can add is that from observing my own tropical fish over a number of years, thier pain reflex ( for want of a better phrase) is very different from that of humans. I have seen fish inflict terrible damage on themselves and it doesnt seem to bother them ( ie they feed and go about thier business normally ). However, some fish do have very good memory and generally I have found that the larger the fish, the more memory they have, for example, some of my fish can recognise me with a tub of food approaching from 10 feet away and get excited, they also know what time feeding is to within an hour, and congregate at the surface in anticipation. They also show a marked dislike for the net when I have to transfer them to other tanks for cleaning or medicinal purposes and avoid it. I know im rambling here, but these observations of memory and pain awareness do tie in generally to the behaviour of our coarse fish. Wariness of hooks, lack of fight in well caught fish and shoaling behaviour at feeding points and most importantly the ability of the fish to feel pain. I love wildlife, and if I thought I was putting a creature through agony, I couldnt deal with it and wouldnt do it.

[malevans]

But John Clarke you are missing the point. Natural selection has been operating a long time to favour those fish that learn quickly and modify their behaviour accordingly. They would learn this for no other reason than fighing an angler is not good energy budget management.

"We don't know they do feel pain as we understand it." well neither do we know that they do, and the evidence you quote would imply a significant percentage shot that they do not.

The chemical releases associated with flight/fight response in humans can be addicative, ask any extreme sports enthusiast. Or for that matter successful salesman.

 

Finally why does the hair rig repeatedly work when the hook is in full view ?

 

I think anyone who thinks that there is serious probablity that fish feel pain and emotional distress the akin to humans or mamals should put their tacke on Ebay immediately and give up.

[Dick Dastardly]

Glenn, in answer to your last post suggesting natural selection as the answer to how and why fish learn from being caught. Natural selection takes many generations to take effect. I can see it would explain how, in a country where anglers kept their catches, a new breed of fish came into being which were very wary of hooks and lines.

 

How? Surely in a country that "kept their catches" the experience couldnt be passed on? After all a dead fish can not pass on a lesson through genetics or any other way? Or am I simpley missing/misunderstanding your point John? :confused:

[GlennB]

BUDGIE:

Glenn, in answer to your last post suggesting natural selection as the answer to how and why fish learn from being caught. Natural selection takes many generations to take effect. I can see it would explain how, in a country where anglers kept their catches, a new breed of fish came into being which were very wary of hooks and lines.

 

How? Surely in a country that "kept their catches" the experience couldnt be passed on? After all a dead fish can not pass on a lesson through genetics or any other way? Or am I simpley missing/misunderstanding your point John? :confused:

Hi Budgie -

I wasn't suggesting that being captured conveyed an evolutionary advantage directly, but that not being captured does.

For example, if a more-cagey-than-average roach can learn to avoid negative stimulii (such as getting pricked in the mouth by hard metallic objects in food) quicker than the less cagey ones, they may pass on that inherent caginess to their offspring.

Obviously hooks are too recent an invention to have affected evolution. But pike, herons, otters and so on have been around for millions of years and their predation and near-misses will have conferred an evolutionary advantage to the careful and the quick learners.

So, it's not angling that has caused this evolution, just that millions of years of "general danger", and surviving it, favour both the careful and those that don't make the same mistake too often.

Hence stalking and being generally wary as you approach a swim. From the fishes point of view, a shape on the bank is not a problem. It's just a bush or whatever. But a shape that has just appeared is a heron, and millions of years ago the easily-spooked fish survived better than the confident ones. And those that were confident but unconsciously 'learned' from the fright of a big feathered thing swimming amongst the shoal would also be favoured by natural selection.

In the same way, a large shape stamping around on the bank is clearly a bear, whose sharp claws will be slashing around the water pretty soon .

All of which explains why match and carp anglers have to fish the far margins (oops, how do I edit this thing?)

 

cheers

[The Flying Tench]

Some interesting points.

 

Malevans, I accept that natural selection has given us fish which learn quickly. But there's still the question of why they would want to modify their behaviour. You're suggesting it might be because they find getting caught is an inefficient use of energy. I admit that's possible, but isn't feeling something like pain another possibility? And which one would most ensure their survival?

 

Budgie, my point is that, where anglers keep their catches, it will tend to be the more cautious fish which survive to pass on their genes. Glenn has made the same point, I guess, in more detail.

 

I've found this an interesting thread. As one of those who's been arguing that fish might feel pain, I want to say that, obviously, I hope they don't! and I've been encouraged by several arguments the other way - for example by Nik, from observing his tropical fish. But it's one thing to say that, in normal angling practice, they don't feel much pain. It's another to argue that, whatever we do to them, they can't feel it. I feel we'd need to be very sure of our position to say that.

 

One point no-one has picked up on - the chub that was hooked in the eye which didn't fight. Admittedly this was a one-off case. But the theory that it didn't fight because it was painful would make sense, whereas some of the others don't seem to fit that case. Has anyone else foul-hooked a fish in the eye? Or got any theories on that? the good news is that, if it's true, although it indicates that fish can in principle feel pain, it would argue that lip-hooked fish don't.

[Nik]

It is very interesting to see the discussion on evolution. The thing is, hook avoidance has to confer a survival advantage to the fish that exhibit it. Because we practice catch and release the " dumb" fish survive to procreate, so wariness is only passed on in a percentage of the total fish population, not in the entire stock. The result? status quo, unless the fish caught were killed and prevented from breeding, fishing should, in theory stay the same, lots of "dumb" fish and the odd cagey individual who requires real skill to bag.

 

[ 17. April 2004, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: Nik ]

[malevans]

Excellent John, we agree at last, there are lots (myriads even) of sound reasons for behavior modification, of which feeling pain as we define it, is but one candidate. The excellent news is that the other reasons do not require us to speculate regarding function translocation between brain components to bridge a few layers in the evolutionary pyramid. Which brings me back to the percentage shot and Ockams (not sure how you spell it and no time to look it up) Razor.

 

I also agree that the act of capture conveys some form of biological stress. We await data to see if the return of salmon in the long run has a truely positive impact (given netting and sea predation) or just shallows the curve for a while, as fighting an angler must have a serious impact on the finely balanced energy budget of a fish entering a river in April or earlier to breed the following winter and its potential for successfully doing so.

 

Agree with Nik reference hook avoidance confering advantage. Lots of parameters to set to see whether the fish are selected before extinction kicks in, in the 100% kill model. An interesting project for an A level computer science or biology student. Friend of mine did his on a similar basis for rabbits, predated by foxes. Unfortunately unlike the rabbit model the normal S curve population model does not apply properly as we do not starve, decreasing our population, if the numbers of fish get too small. Which of course is why we humans are the most dangerous animals on the planet.