Fish feel pain?????

[Guest ouachitabassangler]

Nobody but God could "prevent" delayed mortality from releasing a fish properly or improperly. We can, however, reduce it with proper handling. But unfortunately even with reasonable handling, as in the case of the LaCrosse incident, that doesn't amount to much sometimes.

Nerve stimuli pulses can be measured electronically. Specialists can evaluate electronic pain profiles to determine the reality of your claim to pain. But even humans can interpret those stimuli differently. The brain can receive stimuli but not necessarily always interpret that as pain. But enough research has been done on fish of many species to link damage stimuli to adverse bodily reactions such as trembling or convulsions to leave no doubt fish experience pain.

Jim

[KenDammit28]

do things without brains experience pain, then?  There have been studies of things such as amoeba and Starfish that move away from or act adversely to damaging stimuli, even without a brain.  Do they feel pain?

[Lane]

I guess my question would be, what do you consider proper handling? Yes, only

God can save a fish that has been mishandled, subjected to EXTREME heat, etc.

I would be more than happy to send you a delayed mortality study funded by

federal grants that had a combined mortality of 10.1% over a two year period.

I would consider that an acceptable and low percentage. There is no reason why

delayed mortality levels cannot be 10% or under. I addressed the La Crosse

mortality in a previous thread, but high temperatures is what caused mortality

in both the smallmouth and largemouth bass. Handling was NOT a factor, regardless

of how anyone wants to spin it.

Yes, starfish and amoeba respond to stimulus.

[Bass Smacker]

If you are around long enough it might be possible for you to sit down and have a conversation with a bass as they become more educated, but until then it's up in the air.

[janalon]

Pain is relative, bet your pain is different than mine.

If pain in fishing is truly the question, mayhap you stop eating chicken.

If you do, we feel your pain. You will probably starve!

cluck cluck.

moo moo.

Peta should get a knock outta this.

Nice posts from some of the members.

Just makes me wonder, is peta here among us?

[Bass Smacker]

Pain is relative, bet your pain is different than mine.

If pain in fishing is truly the question, mayhap you stop eating chicken.

I you do, we feel your pain.

cluck cluck.

moo moo.

Peta should get a knock outta this.

Nice posts from some of the members.

Just makes me wonder, is peta here among us?

I gurantey that there here and moniter this sight. Its a given. They are a evil and desterbed grupe of people. just my .02  

[janalon]

Human.

The only species that can reason.

Deduce, sorrow, worry and relate pain.

Is that truly what makes us human?

Or is it the fact that we can make the call for other species?

Can you feel my pain?

[Guest ouachitabassangler]

Theoretically speaking, try shooting your yard dog with a BB gun once a day, from a particular window so he can't see you do it. I bet in a week you won't see the dog pass by that window. Why not? Because the POP scares him? Because he drags his rear across the yard whenever that happens and for the life of him, can't figure out why his rear is dragging? Or is the dog dragging his rear and yelping because if pain? Would you bet the dog will never figure out the pain is directly associated with that window? If you came out and popped him once with him watching, do you suppose he would never associate the sound and pain with the next sighting of you with that gun?

Brains. What is a brain? Very simply it's where a nervous system ends, then begins. Stimuli travels down a nerve, gets processed, and results in some action. Some organisms can process a lot more nerve stimuli and data resulting from it. A worm might only curl up when poked. A bear might eat you if poked. A human might sue you in court over being pinched.  ;D

As for the mortality figures, I don't believe total tournament mortality is at or below 10% in warm months. Immediate and delayed mortality might be 25% if everyone involved was honest and stop blaming the problem on the weather. Recent research is supporting disturbing rates, even reported in BASS Times with Ray Scott looking. Rather than talk about and admit a problem officially, BASS came out with stronger recommendations, which is good, but not going far enough.

Jim

[K_Mac]

I have noticed that once in a while the reading of a certain thread will cause me pain. It is interesting that though the words are processed in my head, the pain is located in a completely different location. I don't think I understand everything I know about this. Just thinking...

[Lane]

I have copies of the studies you refer to as, "recent and disturbing studies". Maybe

I sould rephrase that to say, "The STUDY". Of course there have been MANY delayed

mortality studies conducted, starting back in the 80's. I guess if your agenda is to

regulate tournament angling by charging, "Impact Fees" so that you can line your

pocket with federal grant money, then you need to make sure that your studies

reflect high mortality rates. The only studies that I consider VALID, are the various

studies that have been conducted state or private biologists. States can set creel

limits or slot limits to offset any impact to the fishery. I am FIRMLY against federal

IMPACT fees for tournament anglers. BTW, most of the delayed mortality studies

that were conducted back in the late 80's showed mortality rates around 10% or

less.   :)

I have found that most tournament anglers are honest, and care about the fishery.

Of course there are events that have resulted in higher mortality, and give tournament

angling a black eye. That is not the norm. Summer mortality rates CAN be high, but

there is not enough collaborating research or data to support imposing restrictions.

Like I mentioned in the previous e-mail, I have a two year study conducted by the

Kansas DNR that shows combined TOTAL mortality for 99 and 01 to be 10.1%. I would

be happy to send it to anyone who wants to review it. More studies are due to be

conducted in the near future, by state biologists that have nothing to gain from the

results. Get the picture yet?????? This bassresource site has the absolute best information

on everything anyone would want to know about bass in general, and Glenn has published

great information from DIFFERENT sources! In fact, I am going to start directing anglers

that contact me to this site!

[Guest ouachitabassangler]

Lane, you bring up an issue that will come down our way eventually, that of impact or user fees on federal lands. Launch ramp fees were just the beginning. The idea is the average taxpayer that never launches a boat shouldn't have to help support the cost of building and maintaining such facilities. Soon enough there will be consideration of impact fees to cover costs of dealing with boaters spreading exotics, and though you oppose it, fishing impact fees. I expect that to begin with permit tournaments where practically ALL observed mortality and waste of fish is observed to be strongly associated. All such events cost money to deal with. States are beginning to supply C&R services for redistributing tournament fish to prevent stockpiling. That has a side benefit of cloaking the full extent of mortality, spreading bass out around a lake instead of letting hundreds wash up on shore at only one spot in the lake, the weigh-in site. All of such services cost taxpayers money. In making up budgets, directors use those costs to project future budgets that require funding by legislatures. A way of cutting appropriations in an effort to relieve constituents of theoretically unnecessary tax support is to assess user fees. It will come to every state to some degree.

Add to the pressure on legislators the rising objections from "animal rights" advocates who have lots of money, apparently far more than us fishermen, who are willing to spend some of that on politics while we spend ours on fishing. The majority of voters could perceive us as more trouble than we are worth, even though fishing benefits overall economies. Voters forget such benefits, easily persuaded to take up some "higher" cause than protecting the fishing industry.

We need to always be honest and admit the negatives, then do whatever it takes to better the sport and protect its future. I'd say that is a higher cause than personally releasing a bass for the next guy to catch while claiming the fish don't suffer, that C&R doesn't kill fish. That's taken as ridiculous, that fishermen can't be left to self adjust to realities. It's that kind of position that fuels the anti hunting/fishing crowds into a feeding frenzy.

I believe that in the long run there would be little danger of political oppression if fishermen kept the fish they catch for consumption. That would at least remove a perception fishermen are like hunters target practicing on deer, just trying to let a little fur on the ground. People perceive things long before gaining a good understanding of what we see. I just think we need to always be sure we are not guiding people to false perceptions that get proved false just when we need their votes the most.

Jim

[Lane]

It is important to remember that anglers ALREADY support federal funding through

the Breaux/Wallop Act of 1984 that imposes a 10% FEDERAL tax on all boat fuel,

electric motors, tackle boxes and related items. This money is distributed to the

states through the Sportfish Restoration. There is NO evidence that Catch and Release

is not working. In fact there is plenty of data to suggest that is is working!

Wisconsin is a state that issues permits to tournament organizations, but that has

not really worked very well. What does work when it comes to tournament mortality

are stiff penalties for dead fish brought to the scales! When dead fish penalties

mean the difference between a check, boat, etc, anglers start to pay attention

to the handling and care of the bass. Most of the smaller regional or national trails

are doing a great job in this department, and there are alot more anglers that fish

the smaller trails than the big ones. There is NO scientific evidence to support

federal impact fees for tournament anglers because of mortality, that

may or may not occur.  I expect to see livewell technology improve in the near

future that will reduce mortality even further. Boat manufactures will install the

new technology in their livewells. We have come a LONG way since the 70's and

to penalize anglers with more fees is just plain STUPID. Many companies like mine

in the sportfishing industry provide states with additional funding and resources in

order to further conservation and protect the sportfishing industry.

Anglers need to protect their rights just like the NRA protects gun owners and hunting.

Animal rights activists have fought and failed against the POWERFUL NRA. Why? because

there is NO PROOF to back up their claims, and their scientists have failed to prove

otherwise. We need to give this animal pain issue a rest!  My kids felt plenty of pain

when I spanked them. Did they suffer, yes!  Did it cause long terms effects, yes.

They have all grown up to be responsible ADULTS that LOVE to fish, because moma

took them fishing when they were KIDS!

For anglers wanting to protect their rights to fish, check out the National Assembly of

Sportsmen's Caucuse's. You can see just how much FEDERAL money is collected from

sportfishing sales in YOUR state. They are working in your behalf!

[George Welcome]

"Do fish feel pain when we hook them? I would like to think that they don't. What is your opinion?  ??? "

The above is the original question.

No is the right answer: everything else is wrong.

[Guest ouachitabassangler]

My vote is YES, fish feel pain from being hooked. Pain receptors in the mouth have been counted.

I also would agree C&R works fine, but only on lakes where sampling and management models indicate the need for it. Where armchair biologist anglers impose it it is probably harmful in some way to some age cless, likely of no positive use, and most definitely in opposition to goals of lake managers (fisheries biologists figuring in harvest). Without statistics to prove effectiveness, no practice of C&R could possibly be supported. Without science data the issue is an emotional belief issue. That's in the same category as not believing in cutting trees down because tree souls are killed, resulting in global warming due to the wrath of Gia (Mother Nature). I also know people who still refuse to believe any man has walked on the moon, believing that to be a government stunt. No matter the evidence, they will never believe otherwise.

Jim

[gatrboy53]

any fisherman that thinks fish feel pain shouldnt fish,they are sadist.any person that feels any wild animal feels pain should not eat meat.how can one justify doing something if they are imposing pain on that creature.how can a person relate human values on lower creatures,you cant,and trying is futile.being raised on a farm this is one of the first emotion that has to be dealt with.the only place i ever got clarification from was the bible,and jesus said in 1st. corinthians its alright to eat meat,and jesus wouldnt tell me to sin(causing pain to another being)if killing that animal was causing it pain.AS HUMANS KNOW IT!!! fish included.oh, and also there is no humane way to kill a wild animal!!!

[buzzbaitfool12]

Man what a post...anyhows if you guys think animals dont feel pain you are fooling yourself..I understand in the testosterone world of hunting and fishing we want to think that to make ourselves feel better when we shoot a deer with a nice broadhead or kill a dove and ring its neck if it is not dead but they do..This post opens up alot of wounds because I for one dont hunt anymore because if i want meat I will go to the store..That is my right and if someone wants to kill a deer fish or whatever it is there right..My buddy craig caught a beaver the other nite..do you think it felt pain..sure it did..It is a part of the human dominants that we feel that we are the only one that feels..come on..The bottom line however is we all will keep fishing for the rush or feeling we receive when we get that 10lber on the line..I hate hurting or killing the fish but I love to fish..If craig would have tried to pull those hooks out of that beaver it would have hurt him and he would have hurt craig..

[KenDammit28]

having "Pain receptors" does not equate to "feeling pain"  You have to have something to register the stimulation of those receptors, and fish don't have the capability.  It no more complex than that.  They just can't do it.  

Buzzbaitfool, deer and beavers are not the same as fish.  Fish are reptiles, the animals you're speaking of are mammals just like us and as such, have brains developed and comprised in much the same way we do.  They do feel pain, because their brain has the capability to do so.  Its still not the same kind of pain that we feel, but they do feel it.  Fish on the other hand, have no way of "recognizing" pain.  Their actions are controlled automatically by the spinal cord and brainstem, not thought processes or reasoning or logic or anything else.  Automated response.  Believe it or not, our brain also works that way, in milliseconds our brain tells our body to pull away without our having to think to do so,  but then our brain goes a step further and is able to tell us "that hurts" by registering the information that the nerves are sending.  

[Guest ouachitabassangler]

OK, so where's the research proving fish don't process pain as pain? Is this an opinion? While holding a crappie in hand removing a treble the fish began trembling each time I tore its mouth. That's a simple observation of a reaction to moving a barbed hook through flesh. What automatic response was that otherwise? What purpose the trembling?

As for the ethics of causing pain, let's look deeper at what Jesus might do. God of the Bible commanded Hebrews to kill Cananites. Cananites were humans. Humans experienced pain then like now. Jesus wouldn't have contradicted God. BTW, he never condemned war, saying more of them were coming.

When I take a deer down, especially with one arrow not quite through the heart, I often hear it bleating, crying, groaning, doing things deer are not observed doing in nature while fully functional. Causing pain in animals is a necessary part of gathering food for billions of people on earth. As far as God is concerned, doing that is OK. Inflicting pain out of meanness, not intending to kill, is not OK with God.  

Jim

[Lane]

I would like to hear from Pond-Pro. What did you tell your friend at school? Were you able

to give him an intelligent opinion based upon available facts? What was his reaction?

Have you ever taken any of your friends fishing with you? Your generation is the future for

this sport! :)

[KenDammit28]

OK, so where's the research proving fish don't process pain as pain? Is this an opinion? While holding a crappie in hand removing a treble the fish began trembling each time I tore its mouth. That's a simple observation of a reaction to moving a barbed hook through flesh. What automatic response was that otherwise? What purpose the trembling?

As for the ethics of causing pain, let's look deeper at what Jesus might do. God of the Bible commanded Hebrews to kill Cananites. Cananites were humans. Humans experienced pain then like now. Jesus wouldn't have contradicted God. BTW, he never condemned war, saying more of them were coming.

When I take a deer down, especially with one arrow not quite through the heart, I often hear it bleating, crying, groaning, doing things deer are not observed doing in nature while fully functional. Causing pain in animals is a necessary part of gathering food for billions of people on earth. As far as God is concerned, doing that is OK. Inflicting pain out of meanness, not intending to kill, is not OK with God.

Jim

Jim, unless you have the necessary brain parts to actually register what your nerves are saying as pain, then there is no pain to be felt.  Fish do not have a brain with the requirements to do so.  An automated response from the nervous system does not equate to you knowing that there is pain being inflicted upon you because you have no way to recognize it, and thus, you don't feel "hurt" by whats happening.  Automatic responses are not indicative of feeling pain.  Its an indication of protection response.  Heres something I found that I read some time ago..

http://www.g-feuerstein.com/Presse/fishpain.htm

[KenDammit28]

just a follow up so that you know who James D. Rose is

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/10/1044725683181.html

heres more describing what I was talking about with the pain receptors

http://aquanic.org/publicat/state/il-in/faq/pain.htm

more on "feeling" pain

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb98/886297343.Zo.r.html

the "scientific study" done on the trout you refer to

http://www.fishingmagic.com/news/article/mps/UAN/2416/SP/330371628436272377430/v/1

using bee venom as a measure of feeling pain?? lol. I don't think it takes a real genius to even understand that those "responses" from the fish are not because they "feel pain"...its a response of the nervous system due to being poisoned....not a terribly hard finding.

BTW, that "study" was under the influence of PETA...hmmm..the people also responsible for the site fishinghurts.com...wow, subjective anyone?

http://www.abc.gov.au/science/news/stories/s844965.htm

[FatBoy]

I've been ignoring this thread all along, but got bored today and decided to read it.  Lots of interesting opinions from both sides.  

I think a lot of keyboard strokes could have been saved, though, if we had first agreed on a definition of "pain."  (BTW, agreeing on definitions is ALWAYS the place to start in any argument/discussion.)  

So what is "pain?"

1. It could mean a signal in response to a "negative stimulus" sent to the brain from nerve endings.  

2. It could mean a feeling of distress or suffering resulting from a negative stimulus.  

Regarding #1: There's no doubt fish have nerve endings in their mouth and therefore can detect negative stimuli.  Their typical response is flight.  Get away from the negative stimulus.  This response is instinctive and exists to get them away from predators (birds, other fish, etc.).  This is exactly the same as what happens to a human who sticks a hand on a hot stove.  You jerk your hand away without even thinking about it.  I think most of us will agree that fish feel pain in this sense.  

Regarding #2: This is what happens AFTER you get your hand off the stove.  This aspect of pain is psychological or emotional.  This is where the debate is centered.  But the scientific evidence suggests that fish cannot experience pain in this sense.  Their brains are too primitive.  They cannot get sad or angry or happy or lonely.  They cannot suffer or be emotionally distressed.  

As with everyone else in this thread, these are just my opinions.  Of course, I have the advantage since my opinions are right!  ;D ;D ;D ;D  (Don't get offended now.  That was a joke.)

[K_Mac]

KD28

Good information. Thanks.

FatBoy

I support your opinions-right up to the point they differ from mine. ;D

[Guest ouachitabassangler]

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (Sherwin, 2001).

Over my career years I've had to deal directly with animal rights activists that are drawn to meetings they might benefit from attending though not particularly welcomed. As a governement employee I couldn't take sides and disparage either side of any debate, but was and still am allowed to stand on facts, avoiding any simple opinion I might prefer. I must remain totally objective, as honest with those people as knowledge allows, or end up doing great damage to causes I cherish, such as fishing and hunting. In this discussion about fish pain, even though my preference would be to deny that fish feel pain, I can't support that preference.  Here's an example of why I can't:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm

Animal rights people read those reports too. To take one expert's opinion while ignoring others is a good way to destroy confidence in any angler holding to a disputable belief. I realize we wish it could be forever settled fish feel no pain, hoping to remove that from arguments opposing our fishing. But it's intellectual dishonesty to avoid facts that remain undisputed.

Please note I am not linking to animal rights websites. I just ran through some of them and find they are basing their beliefs almost entirely on the findings of scientists around the world. The facts are out there and more coming.

A powerful response to Rose's theory that fish do not feel pain:

http://www.vet.ed.ac.uk/animalwelfare/Fish%20pain/Pain.htm

Jim

[KenDammit28]

that example of why you can't is the exact "study" backed by PETA and showed no real signs that it was a feeling of pain that caused the reaction.  If I poisoned you, do you think your body would have an adverse reaction to it, even without the feeling of pain?  Do you think it would cause reflexes in your nerves such as muscle twitching, contraction, rapid movements and so forth?  Of course it would, its poison..which is why it kills.  Bee venom is a poison and thus, it will cause an adverse reaction in ANY body, not just those with the ability to feel pain.  Further, believing the findings of a group such as PETA is not a very smart way to go about this debate.  After all, those are the same people who think its perfectly fine to cause harm to humans in order to "protect animals" and like to liken fishing to hooking cats and dogs(which are mammals, completely different than fish).  If you want to believe the garbage that group spews and call them 'scientists", then go ahead, you're standing on very shaky ground.

One need not feel pain in order to have a reflex action to painful or damaging stimuli.  It happens with all forms of life, and happens to us humans every day.  Being the way we are, though..we think that everything MUST feel pain because we're not able to detect the moments between stimulation and the perception of pain..we think it just happens, even though it doesn't.  We're just going to assume that because birds and mammals feel pain, fish must feel it, too?  All I see in that second link you posted are a few assumptions not backed up by any facts and sounds like its more trying to convince people of something which they have no idea about rather than dispute scientific evidence.  Sorry, I already have scientific evidence done by someone who's NOT associated with a group willing to do anything to "protect" any animal they see fit.  

What facts do you have that are "undisputed?"