open question to Bob Bradford

[GlennB]

.... To kill it on the grounds that you are offering it some form of humane euthanasia, flies completely in the face of what we uphold as our core belief as anglers, i.e that a fish does not have the capacity to suffer pain or trauma in the same way as a warm blooded animal. Why else would you think it 'kinder to kill a fish', than release it, if not because you think it will suffer when released?

 

Excellent point, and one that had not quite entered my addled brain.

However - to kill it for deadbait or for the pot would also seem to be pretty reasonable too? And killing it and chucking it up the bank also puts it "in the food chain" (just a slightly different one, though they all join together eventually). So, in the end, maybe it doesn't much matter either way?

[The Flying Tench]

?

 

Personally, unless the fish was deemed edible, I would always return it to the water.

 

For info, the fish in question was highly edible - went down well with salt, black peppers, and lemon!

[Bob Bradford]

For info, the fish in question was highly edible - went down well with salt, black peppers, and lemon!

 

First of all John , (The Flying Tench) I will be sending you a PM in answer to your questions in your PM to me late last night, bear with me.

 

It is your legal right to take two fish for the pot caught by legal angling practices, and although I do not exorcise the same right, I have no objection to you or anyone else taking full advantage.

 

Your original question was how best to dispatch quickly and humanely your quarry for such a purpose, well, that is really quite simple to answer, go to a tackle shop and purchase an implement known as a "Priest" (I presume this is because it is used to administer the last Rites?) it is a small ,heavy, blunt metal club, it will cost you under £10 and is easily transported in your pocket, all you need do is hit your quarry firmly over the head above the eyes, once, maybe twice to make sure it dies instantly, it may well thrash about for a while afterward, but it most certainly will be dead and you need not concern yourself with that.

 

If you deep hook a fish and cannot get your hook out without damaging it fatally, but do not wish to kill it to eat, my advice (and the general advice given on this forum) is to cut the line as close to the hook as you can comfortably manage, leaving the hook in place, the fish stands a good to better than average chance of surviving and living out it's days naturally, it will not be in pain as has been scientifically proved, fish do not have the necessary cerebral capacity, true they have a brain, but much in the same way a man born blind has eyes, he is incapable of seeing, then a fish born with a brain is incapable of experiencing pain, there is something necessary lacking in the overall structure.

 

I expect that some one will trot out the "Rose Report" but that has been proved by far more qualified people than I to be utter tosh!

Edited February 19, 2006 by Bob Bradford

[Leon Roskilly]

I expect that some one will trot out the "Rose Report" but that has been proved by far more qualified people than I to be utter tosh!

 

 

Bob,

 

Do you mean the Sneddon Report? (where fish were injected in the lips with bee venom, and produced a reaction)

 

The Rose Report sets out the argument that fish don't feel pain

 

see: http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm

 

As far as I'm aware, the Rose Report has never been scientifically discounted.

Edited February 19, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Bob Bradford]

Yes I do Leon! it is fairly early and I had a dram or two last night, relying on my fading memory looks like a very bad move!

thanks for correcting me! I feel I should edit my post, but if I do ,none of this will make any sense!

[Bob Bradford]

An extract taken from the Rose report;

 

HUMAN EXISTENCE IS CEREBRALLY-DOMINATED- A FISH’S EXISTENCE IS BRAINSTEM DOMINATED

 

Human existence is dominated by functions of the massively developed cerebral hemispheres. Fishes have only primitive cerebral hemispheres and their existence is dominated by brainstem functions. The brains of vertebrate animals differ greatly in structural and functional complexity. Cold-blooded animals, such as fish, frogs, salamanders, lizards and snakes, have simpler brains than warm-blooded vertebrates, the birds and mammals. Fish have the simplest types of brains, of any vertebrates, while humans, have the most complex brains of any species. All mammals have enlarged cerebral hemispheres that are mainly an outer layer of neocortex. Conscious awareness of sensations, emotions and pain in humans depend on our massively-developed neocortex and other specialized brain regions in the cerebral hemispheres. If the cerebral hemispheres of a human are destroyed, a comatose, vegetative state results. Fish, in contrast, have very small cerebral hemispheres that lack neocortex. If the cerebral hemispheres of a fish are destroyed, the fish’s behavior is quite normal, because the simple behaviors of which a fish is capable (including all of its reactions to nociceptive stimuli) depend mainly on the brainstem and spinal cord. Thus, a human’s existence is dominated by the cerebral hemispheres, but a fish is a brainstem-dominated organism.

 

As I said, as a worker in the construction industry, far more qualified people than I have proved the point!

[Leon Roskilly]

Yes I do Leon! it is fairly early and I had a dram or two last night, relying on my fading memory looks like a very bad move!

 

Been there, done that!

 

thanks for correcting me! I feel I should edit my post, but if I do ,none of this will make any sense!

 

 

I expect that emails are already flying and 'anti' websites are ialready n the process of being updated.

 

'Top UK angler Bob Bradford describes the Rose Report as 'a load of tosh' LOL

[Bob Bradford]

[slodger]

Excellent point, and one that had not quite entered my addled brain.

However - to kill it for deadbait or for the pot would also seem to be pretty reasonable too? And killing it and chucking it up the bank also puts it "in the food chain" (just a slightly different one, though they all join together eventually). So, in the end, maybe it doesn't much matter either way?

 

Yes Glenn, any smaller fish reckoned to be in danger of not surviving if returned to the water would probably end up in my dead-bait freezer too. The reason I made the point about returning a large (seemingly injured) fish was, as Bob has elaborated on, because we simply can't be sure the fish won't just live out a normal lifespan. Why dispatch a fish (Unless, of course, you wish to eat it.) if you're unsure that it may recover in the water? As i said before, in the worst case scenario it may expire and become part of the food chain, alternatively it may well survive.

 

I very often catch pike, and occasionally other species, that are carrying remnants of broken tackle, or, specifically in the case of pike, have had the trace cut close to the hooks by someone unable to remove them from the throat or stomach. While it may not be very appealing cosmetically, it often doesn't appear to be hindering the fish overly. Usually I'm able to remove the hooks, however sometimes it's impossible to do so without causing further serious damage to the fish's stomach.

 

Without meaning to berate anyone, the very best we can do is to gain adequate experience in unhooking fish, so that the instances of this happening are at a very minimum. Of course nobody that chooses to fish on their own can do this without suffering a few mishaps in the short term. C'est la vie.

[The Flying Tench]

Why dispatch a fish (Unless, of course, you wish to eat it.) if you're unsure that it may recover in the water?

 

I understand where you're coming from, and you may well be right. Having heard the arguments, if it wasn't practicable to eat it, I might well put it back with the hook in. (I certainly would do so if it was a small hook). My slight cautions are:

 

1) Although I accept that probably fish can't feel significant pain, I'm not 100% sure. My brother is a professional brain scientist, and this is his view - we're all influenced by informed people we know personally.

 

2) Isn't there some risk if you leave a fish swimming around with a large barbed hook in it's stomach, and it doesn't survive and is eaten by a pike, that it will kill the pike as well.

 

In practice the fish I've found to swallow the hook are normally small perch, trout and grayling - and they are all highly edible!