Fish feel pain?????

[George Welcome]

Notice any similarity in the URL? I wonder when who the last person was, and where someone went fishing in the UK for bass. I am only concerned with bass. I don't care what trout, or any other fish may or may not feel.

Just Bass! I think since this subject was brought up on a Bass page, (Bass Resource), that the indidual bringing it up was talking about bass. Not babies, chickens, dogs, cats, or trout: Bass!

[Guest ouachitabassangler]

I failed to find proof PETA backed the study I linked to. Even if it is true, then to be fair, any research backed by BASS or any other pro fishing interest group would be equally questionable? Many researchers rely on outside funding from somewhere other than their own pockets. Universities, foundations, government entities, etc fund research. Just because PETA representatives MIGHT have funded that project with the trout is not a logical reason to discard the findings of the scientists. Scientists who sell out their integrity lose their credibility and end their careers.

Jim

[Guest ouachitabassangler]

George, you can study any species of fish to learn about basic functions. Sure, one species might not have an air bladder or react to sudden depth changes as well as another, but in general fish share mostly the same features. Surely nobody would declare bass don't feel pain since maybe no bass have been specifically studied about that? If that's declared then the discussion will have sunk to a desperate level of futility and not worth spending further time on.

Jim

[KenDammit28]

Lol, the ONLY people pushing that ONE study are PETA.  No one else believes it, but PETA.  Only PETA representatives try and defend it.  Quacks like a duck, looks like a duck....

BTW  http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/Zoology/faculty/rose/Critique%20of%20Sneddon%20article2.doc

read that.  

[Matt Fly]

If the answer is that Bass do feel pain, whos gonna stop fishing? anyone?

If it doesn't matter if they do or don't and your not gonna stop fishing, try this.....................................................................

[FatBoy]

According to the acknowledgments section of the Sneddon paper, the work was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council.  You can check them out here: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/  .  I can't find any evidence that the BBSRC is linked to PETA or has any particular agenda.  However, that does not mean that Sneddon does NOT have an agenda.  

As KD pointed out, the fact that they found nociceptors in fish is not surprising.  The only provocative findings were the following:

"Fish demonstrated a 'rocking' motion, strikingly similar to the kind of motion seen in stressed higher vertebrates like mammals.

"The trout injected with the acid were also observed to rub their lips onto the gravel in their tank and on the tank walls. These do not appear to be reflex responses."  

The statement "Fish demonstrated a 'rocking' motion" is data; the rest of the sentence is opinion.  Similarly, "The trout injected with the acid were also observed to rub their lips onto the gravel in their tank and on the tank walls." is data.  "These do not appear to be reflex responses." is opinion.  A respectable scientist would not make such speculations, even (or especially) to a reporter.  I think this suggests that either (1) Sneddon has an agenda, (2) The notoriously liberal BBC selectively quoted Sneddon because of THEIR agenda, or (3) both.  

The data are:

(1) fish have pain receptors in their mouths;

(2) after injection of acid or venom fish 'rocked';

(3) after injection of acid or venom fish rubbed their lips on hard surfaces.  

One explanation is that the fish are distressed because they feel pain.  Another explanation is that the rocking is a physiological response to venom/acid and the rubbing is an instinctive behavioral response (for example, if a bass gets poked by a spiny fish or other creature, it may be beneficial to rub the wounded area on something hard in order to get rid of any pieces that may be stuck in the fish).  

There are no DATA to choose one of these explanations over the other.  However, if you choose to accept the first explanation - that the fish feel pain - you now have to explain how that is possible given their lack of a neocortex.  Therefore, in the absence of further evidence, an explanation like the second is preferable to the first.  

THAT is how an objective scientist would interpret the data from this study.  

[KenDammit28]

If the answer is that Bass do feel pain, whos gonna stop fishing? anyone?

If it doesn't matter if they do or don't and your not gonna stop fishing, try this.....................................................................

Matt, I used to do that all the time but then those peskie peta's started getting mad about it.

[George Welcome]

The diet from one fish to the next varies greatly, and it is the diet that would generate or degenerate reaction to stimulus through evolvement. Further, you continue to leave the gist of the discussion to wander into other areas. As for studying a trout and then concluding that the findings can be taken throughout the entire range and diversity of fish is wrong.

I contend that if you aren't studying bass, then you shouldn't be including bass in your study findings. Bastardized studies and twisted statistics are the bane of the science world. To study one and apply those studies across the board is that type of study.

[Lane]

Jim, with all due respect, the document that you presented as evidence that bass

"feel pain", in the same respect as higher organisims is GARBAGE!!!!!

First off, even annelids (earthworms) respond to stimulus. They do not have brains.

Response to stimulus is an autonomic response!

Second, the Webster's dictionary describes pain as: 1. physical or mental SUFFERING

caused by injury, disease, tribulation, etc.

Third, there has been no scientific evidence provided to backup the THEORY that fish

possess the ability to rationalize pain as in terms of an EMOTIONAL response to SUFFERING.

Fourth, I am a UNT grad, and Dr. Moorman is a HIGHLY respected zoologist. His SCIENTIFIC

evidence has been accepted by his peers in the scientific community and his papers published.

Futhermore, scientific evidence presented by other NOTED scientists collaborate his findings.

Fifth, the document that you presented only contains CRUDE diagrams, no biopsied slides

or photos of the cells, or brain tissue were presented as evidence to backup the THEORY!  Scientific

method must be used in order to be called SCIENTIFIC! As a scientist, I fail to see any

proof that scientific method has been used to prove the theory that fish, "feel pain" or can

rationalize pain.

I do have three of questions for you.

First, what is your agenda? From what I can deduct, you are AGAINST tournament angling.

Second, were you a state or federal employee?

You have mentioned, "Animal Rights" and "PETA" in several posts. What is your POINT????

You have a right to your opinions, as long as they are not presented as SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

Especially when relating to a 16 year old boy's question.

[Guest ouachitabassangler]

One of my points is too much of the angler position is falsehoods such as claiming PETA is behind such as the BBC reported study that points towards fish feeling pain. Just because a study favors the PETA position doesn't mean it was PETA backed.

I was a federal forester, one of my jobs conducting townhouse meetings concerning wetlands, forestry practices, and wildlife management. Those were tough events, PETA and others always present, sending out powerhouse members that cannot be refuted. I've been shut up by a retired microgeneticist and a veterinary neurologist in two meetings I'll never forget. Issues entered in that questioned our apparent lack of concern for frogs, non-migratory birds, rare & endangered fish, and other animals using wetlands. They want fishing and hunting, herbicides, and other evidences of human activity exclused from wetlands under federal management. No matter how many fellows stood by in those meetings, including top state DNR experts, the animal rightists always detect any smoke & mirrors such as ignorance about issues like this one. You can't succeed bloviating around as though you know something about which you are really ignorant.

Opposed to tournaments? I didn't say that. You haven't been around here long enough to know my positions. They are in print here. I am on record as to the need for drastic changes in the conduct of tournaments in the face of real life scientific evidences that convince voters to take charge of those things while we guess about what's happening. Our opponents are willing to spends hundreds of millions in a mad dash one day to end all use of rivers, lakes and forests, even private ponds, for the purpose of disturbing wildlife or even vegetation there. They will get voters to declare all wildlife declared as wards of the state. The goal includes ending all recreational boating regardless of economic impacts. If any of us blindly defend what we believe and are later proved very wrong, we will all lose, and I suspect such a loss could last 100 or more years before a voting public could be educated enough to permit outdoor sports again. We'll have to be a lot smarter than we've been on this thread. So far we are no match against the wits of the activists, or their money. Do you know Earth First has had a major goal of emptying the middle half of America within 200 years of first embarking on the project, making a huge unpopulated wildlife preserve out of it all? Another goal is a allowing a mere 20 million humans living on each coast. You get those facts from meetings, booklets, periodicals. I have a daughter that's an officer in one of these groups. She watched me "abuse" fish, reluctantly lived with it, but once in college turned on me. I hope it's something she will grow out of. Meanwhile, I am keenly aware of majorities of college kids falling for the activist's agendas, future voters growing up to hate outdoor sports.

Some say they release fish so future anglers might catch a larger bass. Well, it's possible you might be the last person to catch that bass, nobody else having opportunity to do so.

Agenda? One of the main concerns of many activists is the practice of catching bass for pure sport with no intent to utilize. All we need is a few more big fish die-offs following tournaments to seal their determination to fund nationwide voting against our sport. Tournaments will likely be outlawed first, almost a sure thing since anglers are not aware of the affronts to human beings that pledge their fortunes against us. We won't do that. I predict most of us will holler around they'll pry my rod from my cold stiff fingers to stop me from fishing. That won't hold up among voters, most of whom have no appreciation for outdoor sports. Have any idea what they are up to? Does anyone here  read to keep up? Apparently not. A good general of an army at war knows he needs to know all he can about his enemy, particularly how their generals think.

Jim

[Guest ouachitabassangler]

Pain:

Any uneasy sensation in animal bodies, from slight

       uneasiness to extreme distress or torture, proceeding from

       a derangement of functions, disease, or injury by

       violence; bodily distress; bodily suffering; an ache; a

       smart. "The pain of Jesus Christ." --Chaucer.

       [1913 Webster]

a somatic sensation of acute discomfort; "as the intensity

         increased the sensation changed from tickle to pain" [WorldNet 2.0]

Would a bass feel a hot laser beam punch it? Probably not enough mass in a beam to be felt. I don't feel sunlight rays striking me, but can feel the heat. So lets assume a bass gets shot with a laser that has no physical impact other than heat. I would postulate the bass will suddenly remove from the source of heat. If the bass feels no pain, it shouldn't mind staying put to let the laser burn a hole through it. After all, no pain, no reason for alarm. We realize the bass can't reason like we can, concluding the pain is life threatening, especially upon first encounter with such a beam.

Automatic response causing the bass to swim off? How could the nerves evolve to react properly (as a timely escape mechanism) to something foreign like that, something not happening to bass? Well, of course there would be no such adaptation. If the heat stimulates a nerve to cause discomfort or an automatic response, it's inflicting pain. I don't have to think about jerking a hand back from a hot pan. A dog doesn't have to think about doing that. I watched a robin get some fire ants on its legs. It went nuts trying to peck them off, then wallow in the dirt, then fly away. Automatic responses? Both automatic responses and controlled, deliberate responses are part of dealing with pain. If I burn my finger, an impulse is to grab it with opposing hand for some reason. Sometimes I run around shaking it. Automatic response or something else? Eventually I remember to run cold water over it. Automatic response is overtaken by reason in humans. But we do exhibit automatic responses to pain, sometimes a very illogical jerking motion, or saying things we don't usually say. Hmmm. Maybe some of us deliberately say those things when burned? But I bet you drop a hot pan before thinking about what to do next after picking it up.

I'm afraid some folks will have to take an aquarium raised fish in hand and stick its mouth with a fish hook, then post their opnion about a fish feeling no pain. It's OK to do that. We do it whenever we hook a bass. Use a cheap goldfish for the experiment. Hold it in hand and pierce it's lips. Observe reactions of the fish during and following puncture. Let it settle down, then do it again. I predict you will conclude it feels pain. I also predict you will go out and hook more fish without worrying about inflicting pain. To do so is human. It's part of life. Of all the animals to do that to, fish don't scream, cry, or sob. No tears. Just maybe some strange wiggle. Inflicting the pain doesn't scar a fish's memory to hold a grudge like a dog or horse might remember and avoid giving you further opportunities to injure.

Jim

[Lane]

Jim, Maybe you should do a bit more homework on the BBC. They are a liberal and bias

media wheel, with MANY ties to VARIOUS animal rights organizations. They are tied

to the The European Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals. The documents

that you posted do not contain scientific evidence!

You know the old saying money talks and BS walks. Tournament fishing, recreational

angling,etc, brings way too much revenue for lawmakers to pass legislation to

impose major restrictions or ban activities that generate TAX dollars. Don't forget

that TAX dollars collected from recreational activities paid YOUR salary, and

your federal pension. It is NOT the animal rights groups that anglers should be

concerned about, but a few scientists that have worked their way into federal positions.

I have files and files on these people, and HARD EVIDENCE that expose their hidden agenda.

Their studies are flawed and based on JUNK SCIENCE. I may be new to this forum,

but not to the science involved in within the industry.

On what, "scientific evidences", do you state that there is, "a need for drastic changes in

the conduct of tournaments"? I REALLY want to see it! I do believe that tournament

care and procedures could use improvement, but there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to

support DRASTIC changes. A few ill advised mistakes on the part of one or two

tournament trails that resulted in a high mortality does NOT constitute DRASTIC

measures, or at least not at this time. In fact a BASS regional tournament was held

a few days latter, and the mortality was LOW for that event. The bass population

will be just fine.

[KenDammit28]

shoot a laser beam at a fish, do whatever you have to do..but an AUTOMATIC RESPONSE TO STIMULI IS NOT FEELING PAIN! A bass' automatic response to heat is to move to an area thats cooler. Pain is not driving them to do so...they automatically seek to keep their body temperature at an acceptable temperature.

You think that heat is foreign to a bass? How can you not understand without the necessary brain parts to process "pain", one CANNOT FEEL PAIN

Automatic response is NOT overtaken by reason in humans. Dropping the hot pan, the example you used, is automatic response to stimulation....its not rocket science. Automatic responses are happening constantly. Are you breathing right now? If so, you're body is having an automatic response. A bass breathes because its automatic...they see because its automatic, they eat because its automatic, they avoid dangerous things because its automatic...the end.

we're talking about the actual evidence here. Go ahead and try to do it. You have presented no known truths in this entire argument. Perhaps thats the reason you had such a tough time with those activists.

[Keithscatch]

Jim,

I would argue that Bass do feel pain in certain areas of their body. Basically the sensitive areas. I am sure when I hook a fish in the side of it's body that it felt that pain or puncture wound. However, this discussion started mainly about the lips of a fish. As an analogy we as humans feel pain and pleasure both in our skin. Yet we do not feel anything when we cut our fingernails. Are they dead? No. Just no sensory nerve endings in them. At least not in the part past the wick. Cut that fingernail below that line and you will feel pain.

I think fish have the ability to feel things with their lips. I think they can distinguish between a hard plastic bait and a soft plastic bait. They can distinguish between a real fish in it's mouth and a fake one. That is why they reject the meal. I think Bass can indeed feel certain things but I will draw the line that they feel pain or hurt in their lips. I can be persuaded that they feel pain in their bodies just not in their lips. It is different.

Your analogy of shooting a laser beam into a fish might make sense if you said shooting it at their body. The extreme heat that they would "feel" would make them move. However, if the same laser beam was aimed at their lip I think it would burn a hole though it before they would notice it. Or at least they would not notice it as fast as if it were aimed at their eyes for instance or their belly.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[gatrboy53]

i dont care what some study thinks ,only what some individual has pondered in their heart and came to a conclusion they can live with. i hope the young man who started this thread doesnt base his opinion on any post on this subject and deals w/ matter on a personal heart felt decision.

[Lane]

Mike, you brought up a EXCELLENT point! Scientists must remain OBJECTIVE

when engaging in scientific studies. Personal agendas, beliefs and attitudes

must not be a factor. For example, I evaluate and use research conducted with

Koi, catfish, etc. Or I use research conducted by zoologists, human researchers,

etc. When I evaluate a document presented as scientific evidence, I FIRST review

the references. If the document does not contain several references from

many different sources, I usually find that the document is weak and lacks creditable

scientific evidence!

I find it offensive for Jim to use parts of the bible, God, Jesus,etc, in this

discussion. I read the bible as well, ALL OF IT. I would NEVER bring my personal

faith, quote scripture, or use bring biblical theology into a debate like this. I find it MORE disturbing

that he was a FEDERAL employee conducting town hall meetings.  

Mike are you a FLORIDA GATOR that owns a GAMBLER?????? I am married to a Gator,

and he is a brilliant scientist :)

[George Welcome]

To study one type of fish and say that the findings apply to all fish is bad science. To do so would be akin to studying a manatee and say that the findings apply to all mammals. The opossum is immune to pit viper venom - based on that finding do we want to profess that all mammals are immune to pit viper venom? Inversely, humans can be very vunerable to pit viper venom: do we want to say that all mammals are vunerable to pit viper venom.

There are over 29000 species of fish.

If you want to talk about bass then present studies about bass. As I said previously, what an individual organism eats will greatly determine traits within that individual. Since there is no study, (although I would very much imagine there has been with results negative to the cause or expected results), of the mouth of a bass, and based on the diet of bass that would most definitely cause injury to that mouth, I have to conclude that they don't have or feel pain akin to anything that we humans know. Further, after observing thousands of bass pierced by hooks, scale hooks, stringers, etc., and not seeing any reaction of note from a bass, I have to conclude that their mouth areas don't feel what I would classify as pain.

[Matt Fly]

I have seen too many spiney creatures get eaten to think that a hook is the first point ever jabbed in a bass throat.    There conditioned to eat certain spiney fish or they don't survive.  You think crawdads go easily?  

Why do bass have thorns protruding up from the gills?   To protect something more sensative, ie..... the life support system, the gills.

Bass don't ever flop around under the water, but put them in the boat and watch them flop on deck.    Why?     Something told them "fish out of water", flop around time.    

I have had the same bass hooked on top water, lost her, to only have her come right back and hit it again after one quick fight.   Because she still had my lucky 13 in the side of the mouth.

You would think, the pain of one hookset might make her shy off, but to come back after being hooked once and hit it again.     Pain didn't make her shy off.

How many hook marks do you see on bedding bass?     I have caught the same bass as many as three times in one setting.    

Does this say bass feel no pain?    Are numb to pain in certain areas?

Doesn't stop them from getting caught time after time.    You would think pain would over come them and stop hitting the bait after awhile.

A guide takes a number one client to his spot that surely holds the same old 12 pounder that other clients have caught before.      If pain is questioned, why does the same bass continue to stay where unpleasant experience keeps occurring?

You know, the holding out of water, grabbing the lip, and that flash that keeps going off, then, being thrown back only to be asked to jump one more time for the camera.

All that pain keeps them coming back for more.    

Don't know who said all tests have to be scientific,

but what I have seen say they aren't as sensitive in the mouth area.

Just my two cents

[Guest ouachitabassangler]

No scientist starts a project without some level of agenda. Any science inquiry begins with a problem, a mystery, the unknown. Edison embarked on building thousands of light bulbs believing he could make a light producing appliance. He had a belief he was determined to prove valid. Some actual theory was involved. So what would you have a sacience researcher to do? Put some fish in a tank and begin doing random tests without an objective of satisfying some belief or suspicion? Objectiveness in research kicks in when a scientist accepts data that contradicts his hypothesis. Here are the accepted steps in scientific inquiry:

Stating a question

Research topic

State hypothesis

Test hypothesis through experimentation

Analyze results

Draw conclusion

Report results and conclusion

Submit to peer review

None of that could happen without an opening agenda to prove something true or false. Objectiveness isn't blowing up a lab to see what results from a random arrangement of molecules.

BASS responded to mounting evidences of poor survival rates in tournament bass with a vigorous program to improve the numbers. BASS TIMES has reported, honestly BTW, some research results that call for reforms. One of those is to conduct tournamewnts in cool water months. Sorry, I don't have the data to support that. I accept the reports. If I had to have the actual evidence at hand I couldn't believe most of what I know.

Jim

[Shrike]

Discussion is good, but topics like these bring out the worst in people. Is this forum usually like this?

[gatrboy53]

george, the original q. was "do FISH feel pain"the intellectuals on this thrad have turned it into a study.its a 2 sided question.do fish,ALL fish feel pain?the answer is YES.do fish,assimilate that pain as humans do?NO.there is no amount of study that can refute that.humans are the only living life form that can assimilte any emotion to reason.not even other mammals.to say otherwise is agreeing w/ evolutional theories and attributing human qualities to animals.ive lived on a farm all my life and have killed animals for human consumption,as well as herd control.i have learned first hand from those animals that they do not reason pain.why? cause they caint.fish included

Lane,yes im a tried and true gator fan.and i do have a gambler boat.i live just n. of g,ville.im not a scholar just a old country boy that knows not to mix humans w/ animals.

[Lane]

I have not seen any creditable evidence to support that fish can rationalize suffering or pain. There are MANY documented cases of VERY LARGE bass being caught several times, and over a period of several years. Religion,politics and war should be left out of these debates.

[Guest ouachitabassangler]

Appreciate that, Mac. Well spoken.

I bring in the spiritual element because that happens to be a huge part of many animal rightist's arsenal. You might as well get used to it.

Just before a general election in November a few years ago, billboards began springing up on every highway. One message was "Jesus was a vegetarian. Protect innocent life. Vote for LIFE"  The picture was of Jesus surrounded by swimming fish, deer playing in a glen, a fawn in his lap.

Message number two was of a shaggy cute dog with big sad eyes, a large fish hook in its lip. A man was in the background holding a fishing rod, pulling on the dog. His wife and children were terrorized, pleading with Daddy to stop hurting an innocent animal. "Would you do this to your pet? Pray for an end to senseless harming of innocent animals. Vote to stop hunting and fishing."  

The result? A county vote that lacked just 100 votes of banning all hunting and fishing in the county. That would have included 3 major lakes and hundreds of thousands of acreas of National Forest, and empower enhanced enforcement of existing animal abuse laws. The appeal was to religion. The truth was that Jesus never supported those beliefs. He was not a vegetarian, but now a lot more people believe He was. They were brainwashed daily by the billboards, TV ads, curculars left on windshields.

So what would become of the tax revenues, the fishing & hunting economy? Those would have left our county. But a PETA victory here would have easily enabled more victories in other counties until a state prohibition emerged. State by state could follow suit beginning here in Arkansas.  Those people have sworn to try it again, having a lot more money, members, and greater determination. They know we are sitting ducks, not even likely to vote yea or nay on their day. I don't know of one outdoor sportsman that voted that day. I do have an agenda. I was really stirred when I saw the final vote tally. My hope is we will all come together somehow. But we can't even agree over a simple matter of a fish feeling pain.

Whether they do or not isn't really the heart of it. How we respond to public accusation in days to come is at the heart of it all. If we stand declaring we are not hurting fish, we will lose all confidence among the non-fishing group that vastly outnumbers us. The voting public will never believe a fish can't suffer. An effective response would be "Yes, the fish might feel pain, but I take responsibility to inflict as little pain as necessary." You need to be able to honestly say you harvest a few fish in the following of the sport, that you are not fishing solely for thrills or killing bucks solely for horns. Very few reasonable people would go to the extreme of prohibiting taking of game for food, but would prohibit that if they believe game is abused unnecessarily. If we fail to make necessary corrections, the ballot box will do that for us.

And yes, it's OK for federal employees to be guided by their religious convictions. I never opened a meeting with prayer or invoked religious sayings there, in keeping with policy. I kept my standards very high because of my convictions. But soon enough federal employees will be approached from religious perspectives in very inflammatory situations.

Jim

[Lane]

A 16 year old boy asked the question. Please keep that in mind. I am a believer

as well!  However, it is up to his parents and church to instruct him about the bible,etc. That is how I raised my kids. I read the bible to them, and then we discussed it. As a parent,

I would not want someone else or the government to do it for me. I heard enough about

PETA to last a lifetime! Thanks, KD for posting! That was GREAT information!

[Lane]

Easy to understand links to the ongoing debate.

http://www.flyanglersonline.com/alcampbell/ac051203.html

Bad links removed. Fluke