do fish feel pain, round two

well and truly battered on national
radio and tv, considering we are supposed to be 3 million strong,who
or what representative body came to our
defense,and more importantly, did anyone listen to them???
i think its about time we had proffesional representation, to defend ourselves, and to be listened to.
its no good shouting it out in the
angling weeklys or monthlies, its the
general public we need on our side.

As the Angling correspondent for BBC Radio Sheffield I was involved in a Wednesday morning Phone discussion on-air with the lady scientist responsible for these findings. It seemed to me that her theories are far from convincing, and she didn't put up too much of an argument. I pointed out that you could inject bee sting venom and acetic acid into just about any creature and get an adverse reaction. In fact you could inject it into some plants and they'd react. So the theory is fatally flawed from the start. Why didn't they take two trout from the water, put a hook into the lip of one, leave the other hook free, put them both back and see what the difference was. Seems a simple enough experiment to me.

the other thing that didn't get much of a mention is, they also did a control test by injecting a fish with a saline solution, and got a greatly reduced reaction from the trout. Kept that part a bit quiet though didn't they.

Like it Wayne.....but its too simple. Scientists cant hide behind anything then!!

but then they wouldnt get their big grants to do cruel tests on fish

Why didn't they give them a large Scotch and se what reaction they got. How many bees have you seen swiming in your local water?. Humans have adverse reactions to bee stings. Bees and wasps have clearley defind markings on them warning animals and humans to leave them alone because you will have some sort of reaction to their sting.

Their research is flawed and i wish i could of got this artical for Wayne eariler I got this from Dr Bruno Broughton today :


A rebuttal to the paper: ?Do fish have nociceptors: Evidence for the evolution of a vertebrate sensory system? published in Proceedings of the Royal Society, 2003 by Sneddon, Braithwaite and Gentle.

By Prof. James D. Rose



The paper by Sneddon, et al. is seriously flawed and does not provide any legitimate evidence that trout are capable of feeling pain.

The crux of the matter is that the authors of this paper used an invalid way of attempting to identify pain. Thus, this paper does not actually deal with pain (conscious experience). It deals only with nociception (unconscious responses to noxious stimuli). I have already addressed the kinds of conceptual confusions that undermine the paper by Sneddon et al. in my 2002 Reviews in Fisheries Science Paper. They did not cite this paper and apparently hadn't read it.

The flaws in their argument include the following:-

(1) Their definitions of pain and nociception are invalid and misleading. Pain, as defined by investigators who study it (e.g. the International Association for the Study of Pain) is purely a conscious experience, with a sensory and emotional component. The detection, processing and transmission of information related to injury by lower levels of the nervous system (below the neocortex of the cerebral hemispheres) is unconscious nociception and not pain. Contrary to the assertions of Sneddon, et al. complex, non-reflexive behaviors can be purely nociceptive (and unconscious) as well.

For example, humans with extensive damage or dysfunction of the neocortex in the cerebral hemispheres can still make a complex of responses including facial displays, vocalizations, and struggling and avoidance reactions to nociceptive stimuli, but they are unconscious and unable to experience pain. By the definition of pain used by Sneddon et al. it would be concluded that these unconscious humans are feeling pain rather than making purely nociceptive responses, which is clearly erroneous.

There are many other examples of complex, non-reflexive behaviors that can be performed unconsciously, like the fact that sleepwalkers can open doors, navigate around obstacles and speak while unconscious during deep sleep.






(2) Secondly, a sustained change in behavioral activity in response to a sustained nociceptive stimulus (in the Sneddon, et al. paper, the bee venom or acid injection in the jaw), shows nothing more than that behavior can be persistently changed, especially if a nociceptive stimulus is sustained; there is nothing about these behavioral responses, including the rocking behaviors and jaw rubbing by the fish that proves conscious awareness. Furthermore, it is likely that a sustained nociceptive stimulus would cause a hormonal stress response that could, by itself, produced a sustained change in behavior, purely unconsciously.

Most important, in order to show that a fish (or any organism) experiences pain, it is necessary to show that a fish has consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no pain. Nothing in the information presented in this paper necessitates predication of consciousness for its explanation and the authors don't even deal with this essential issue.

Furthermore, as I have shown in my 2002 Reviews in Fisheries Science paper there is extensive scientific evidence which shows that pain and consciousness depend on very specific brain regions, namely specialized neocortical regions of the cerebral hemispheres. These brain regions are absent in fishes and there are no likely alternative systems to perform the same tasks. Consequently, there is no basis for assuming that a fish might have a capacity for consciousness or pain.

theres more below!

The burden of proof that trout are conscious and potentially capable of feeling pain is on these authors, and they have ignored this issue by citing previous studies that also used invalid criteria for demonstrating pain. Only anthropomorphic speculation would lead one to conclude that the trout in this study are experiencing pain. Complex behaviors are known to occur without conscious mediation, even in humans and the fact that there are non-reflexive, nociceptive reactions of trout to sustained, noxious stimuli in no way justifies a conclusion that these fish have a capacity for the conscious experience of pain.

Regarding the difference between a lack of nociceptive receptors in sharks and rays and the evidence for nociceptive receptors in trout presented by Sneddon et al., their evidence for nociceptive receptors comes as no surprise. A paper published by Whitear in 1971 showed the presence of C-fibers in bony fishes (e.g. fishes like trout). C-fibers are the principal type of nociceptive receptor. I cited Whitear's study in my 2002 Reviews paper, but Sneddon et al. failed to cite this earlier anatomical evidence of nociceptors in fish, treating their results as wholly new.






The bottom line is that any attempt to show pain in fish must use valid criteria, including proof of conscious awareness in fish. This is not something that can be taken for granted because on neurological and behavioral grounds it is so improbable that fish could be conscious and feel pain. We know a great deal about the neurological requirements for consciousness and the experience of pain. Extensive, specialized regions of neocortex are required. Fish lack these brain regions and have no likely substitute systems for performing the same functions.

The improbability that fish can experience pain in no way diminishes our responsibility for concern about their welfare, because they are still capable of robust behavioral, physiological and hormonal responses to stressors, which, if sufficiently sustained, can be detrimental to fish health, but the idea that fish are capable of experiencing pain or suffering resembling our experiences is, on the basis of extensive factual evidence, extremely improbable.


Well lets see if the BBC will broadcast this lot then!!

Well guess it says the lot! Thanks to Dr Bruno Broughton for this document.

thanks guys, but can you see the bbc ect
broadcasting these reports, no neither can i,
as i said before we need to enlighten the
public, but we do not have the means, even if we are supported by the present minister
of sport, but what about the next minister of sport.?????????????

day 3 of this news story.
Apart from the initial news stories there has been no further media coverage on the main news channels.

We have all made valid points, provided evidence and discussed the education of the general public.

If our governing bodies have made statements along with scientists backing our views, why has this not been aired by the national media and TV news.

Do our governing bodies read FM?
Does the media at large know about FM or read it?

What about ministers for sport, environment, counry afairs etc?

I bet the Antis read FM.

Just a suggestion, could we pass on all relevant posts on FM to the relevant organisations or atleast invite them to take a look and check out the response.
Oh, not forgetting the media companies.

Would we recieve their public support on the national media?

Just a thought.

I know we can relay on DR Bruno.Hes done plenty over the years.

In case anybody didn't see this in today's Sunday Times my edited version follows.
A message to jonathan.miller@sunday-times.co.uk wouldn't go amiss.
I've sent him one.

'I have never seen such complacency as among the anglers in response to this news.I am certain they are going to lose their sport'.
'On the science,my own observations are conclusive that a fish is sentient compared with the spotty dorks with rods and poles.....etc.'
'Banning fishing would cause a bit of a grumbling-but nothing the regime can't handle'
'Logically,there is no reason why fishing should not be outlawed at once.The Government has made clear its view in the case of foxes,where the tests are cruelty and utility.The case for banning angling is far stronger than the case against foxes'.

I think it says it all,the press release went unnoticed in most areas!!!
Unless you know different?

I actualy received a reply,see below.
Your note surprises me as I would have thought it obvious to anyone that the article was stating that to ban fishing was just as absurd as banning hunting. A pity anglers have not stood up for the rights of hunters.

Jonathan Miller

You didn't stand up for us, so we will make you suffer too ??

Without wanting to open up the whole debate about fox hunting, what Miller failed to point out was that the test of crulty and utility relates only to mammals. The act was crafted that way so some smartarsed lawyer couldn't do what Miller has attempted to do.

However, I wouldn't expect anything less from a pompous, arrogant t*** like Miller.

Hold the fort a minute,a response from Jonathan Miller.

Fred

You certainly have a respectable point which is that my article contained sufficient ambiguity ? endorsing the immediate banning of angling in one breath; railing against government regulation on the other ? that it was not immediately transparent, which is what I am told all respectable journalism should be.
If you have followed the column for some time you know I have grappled with the moral and ethical ambiguities of all this for some time ? and have concluded that while everyone is entitled to an opinion on hunting animals, nobody is entitled to impose this on anyone else. These are ?the rights of others? which should be respected in a democracy. Of course, it is my opinion that the system we have is not a democracy.
I am very glad to stay in contact with you on this issue so please send me any further press releases. I rather wish I?d had this one BEFORE I wrote the column. But how effective is your distribution? You ought to demand equal time on the BBC for your study ? they certainly gave plenty to the fish feel pain study.
Best regards

Jonathan


I have yet to respond,can we make use of this jounalist?

I've sent copies to Graham and the NAA.

Looks like this may be a foot in the door to address the actual information banded around by the media and seperate it from the FACTS from these reports, if Mr Miller actually does redress the comments made in his article and perhapse write another, perhapse an original with none of the scaremongering and sensationalism.....one with an outsiders views on the points raised in this and other recent threads and the previous report by Professor James D Rose of the University of Wyoming, as well as his personal response to the scientists from the Roslin Institute and the University of Edinburgh which is posted in Anglersnet.co.uk

Professor Rose's response

Well done Fred.

I have now read a great many of the comments on all the threads on this subject, some criticising the Edinburgh research and some still in doubt. My piece is based not so much on psychology, but more on the evolutionary theory in that, what sense or feeling isn't required by the animal is disregarded and lost. For example, we have lost much of our survival instinct - if an animal or fish hears a loud noise it immediately identifies the direction and moves away from it whereas we stupid humans now move towards it to find out what's happened, (rubber-necking).

With fish, I don't believe they have a need for pain and a hundred million of years ago or more probably lost it. I know I am trying to think like the animal here, but when logic is all that's left to examine, that's the way you go. At the end of the day, it's a belief, like a religion, impossible to prove.

I don't think the BBC were deliberately being 'anti' anything here, they just enjoy sensation, like any other jounalism. If they found Tony Blair had two belly-buttons tomorrow they'd give it wall-to-wall coverage. I just want to see us better represented in future and thank you Bruno, I told you just a few weeks ago that we'd be nowhere without you.

thanks to all for your concern and input