Do fish NEED to feel pain?

Hi All,

Have been reading the threads about fish and pain and the Edinburgh research recently with much interest as as well as being a keen angler, I worked for several years as a fish biologist - have a Ph.D. in the subject and have written may scientific papers myself. Also, the principal author of the Recent report (Dr. Sneddon) used to be a colleague of mine at Glasgow University.

I hope people won't think that the last point makes me biased, but some of the arguments we have been posting on this site are not very sound.

Firstly, the work was published in a very highly respected scientific journal, and the qualification of the researchers are really quite high. I'm also fairly sure that contray to one suggestion, the reaserchers don't have links to anti hunt/angling groups - the work was initiated by fish welfare issues in aquaculture.

Secondly, the "common sense tell us.." arguments are not very sound. Common sense has a nasty habit of being wrong. At least this reaserch has tried to test our preconceptions about fish and pain in a well-controlled and replicated way. The suggestions that if fish feel pain they couldn't carry on as normal are not sound. Everyone accepts mammals feel pain, yet in certain circumstances they carry on as normal after severe injury. I suggest we as anglers don't use this argument.

The above doesn't mean I agree that fish CAN feel pain from fishing, because...

The point some people have made that the fish in the experiment didn't react to harmless injection of saline, which is more similar to a hook, seems valid.

But more importantly, Prof Roses, argument about the perception of pain as we understand in requires higher brain function is crucial. The research shows that fish can react to potentially damaging stimuli, but how these stimuli "feel" to the fish is unknown and really the crux of the matter. There is a large body of research on the psychology of pain, that shows, amongst other things, that the presence of the structures for pain reception is not sufficient for pain, in the human sense, to be felt.

Anyway, I've downloaded the original Edinburgh reserach article (from Proceedings of the Royal Society) so will read it over the weekend (as well as moving house!) and hook back up with the debate (no pun intended) then.

Cheers

Ian Morgan

I have no qualification relevant to the "do fish feel pain debate" but I see no reason why fish like the vast majority of living things (not to include plants and vegetation)should not feel pain to one degree or another. The latest published research appears to confirm this. I have always accepted that if you look at fishing logically then you have to accept that the process of catching fish causes them if not pain then certainly distress. However people do not operate logically and perhaps the world is a better place for that. I fish because it gives me deep enjoyment (whether or not fish are caught, but better if they are!)and I will continue to do so. It is a hobby that causes harm to know one (litter is another problem but lets not get in to that one here)and I do my best to cause as little harm/distress to the fish as possible.

As far as I am aware, the question "Can a human fetus feel pain?" has yet to be conclusively answered.

Allow me to suggest that Rose's work is not only athropomorphic, it is highly speculative. Examining physiological responses to stimuli is interesting, but it can be very misleading.

Not wishing to be cynical, but the only way we would know if the fish experiences pain is when it tells us so. But then we may have to differentiate between the agent and the actor. Of course, as Wittgenstein said, "If a lion could talk - we would not understand it"!

My belief is that for example if you put you hand on a hot radiator you pull your hand away and then after you feel the pain, however with fish they just react but dont feel the pain, try it and you`ll see what i mean. You will pull away from the radiator and then after feel the pain. also along with Dr James Roses's report they dont have the brain to feel pain but have the ability to react to a stimuli. Theres my theory!

I only know this, scientist are not supposed to come forward with their findings and keep repeating the word "might" as in it Might or they could.
Scientist are meant to deal in facts! not fudge things.I see ian has followed in his freinds footsteps...."the qualifications of the researchers are really quite high"And to say they have no links to anti's and the study was initiated by fish welfare issues....who paid for it then the fish?Im sure the answers out there but after seeing what the good dr had to say on tv i dont think ill bother looking.
Like Terry wogan said" where did they get these underwater bees from"
Third world famine would be a more fitting thing to research.

clipity clop clippity clop "i can see for miles from up here"

i went in to asda today and on thier instore radio they where claiming that trout feel pain. i agree with micheal hall if fish feel pain why do they come back so often. how can one report say fish dont feel pain as in the report in a recent edition of the angling times and another report claim the opposite. shouldnt we validate these so called experts before we consider thier reports as valid. some one needs to regulate these people.

The thing is now though tis that their findings can be easily manipulated I wouldn't believe the date on Sneddons report!! lol

I've not read all the threads on this topic today, so I don't know if anyone has pointed out that on Anglers Net, there is a response to Dr Sneddon's published work by none other than Professor Rose himself. In my view, he comprehensively destroys the premises of Sneddon's arguments about what the trout can feel. He points out that the cells concerned are not used for "feeling" pain, but for sensing damage. We have such cells ourselves, and they form NO PART of our pain-sensing faculties.
I also agree with Ian Morgan regarding his points about pain as we know it requiring the prior existence of far higher faculties than possessed by fish. More importtant I think is his point that common sense arguments are inherently dodgy - they are always open to attack by careful argument, especially when backed up by evidence!

Finally I'm itching to have a go at Ian Jay, who, like most people, misunderstands [and overestimates] Wittgenstein, the philosopher of pain par excellence. Re the lion story, the point is that, if he's right, then Wittgenstein's point is unarguable from the start. He really had nothing to say, being only another vapid presenter of common sense so-called arguments that lead nowhere and never could. Rose's arguments are NOT anthropomorphic - they simply suffer from having to be stated in human terms -- or not even WE would understand OUR OWN talk - never mind the lion's!! [That's seen Wittgenstein off then!!! I've been dying to have a philosophical argument with someone for ages! Please come back at me Ian!]

Just a few more points about the methods used by scientists. Scientists do NOT know "the truth" - they SEEK for it. If "the truth" was to become known, then the need for science and scientists would come to an end. It would mean that we would know EVERYTHING.

Scientists are validated in their never-ending search for truth by their knowledge, painfully gained over many years, of the work done by previous scientists. As many great scientists have modestly claimed, they "stood on the shoulder of giants".
If we ignore the scientists, then we might as well toss a coin if there is any disagreement. Most of us - including me - just have to accept that there ARE people who know a LOT more than WE do!

Ian Morgan, Respect, BUT,

The fish did not react to the saline injection as it is the same as ahook.

The fish did react to a stimuli.

OK. Fish dont feel pain from a hook.
Like any other living creature, put a venom or acid into its system it will react.

There fore it suggests to me that you agree and those collegues of yours agree fish dont feel pain but do react to a stimulant.

Sorry old chap but they are personnaly anti fishing and the experiment is therefore biasd and void.

That there is possibley a hiden agenda with the Antis. Or some higher authority/person.

If the saline injection showed no sign of causing pain, why then was Acid and venom used??????

Anglers do not put acid or venom on the hook.

Who did funded this research?

How much was spent on this?

We now have at least two major studies that prove fish feel no pain.

Cheers mate.

I think Jeff Woodhouse has found his spokesman - himself
What a wondefully articulate and reasoned response!I could not fault a word he said. Good un mate

Mind you PETA were straight into it with the media and I am sure their only strength lies in their media skills which is worrying. We really do need some seasoned media "People" fighting our cause.

We also need to portray ourselves in a better light. Having factions arguing against the close season and even deliberately fishing the Severn to exploit loopholes in the law is just adding ammunition to PETA's cause. Leaving line and litter does not help either. The Angling mags also need to do their bit by not running headline stories of a negative nature be it close season, cormorants, the ruddy duck cull etc. Yes we may all agree with what they are saying but the antis read the papers as well and can and do glean plenty of ammunition from within their pages.
Come on everyone lets portray angling in a positive way and behave responsibly while we are at it.

Off me soap box and roll on June 16th!

It seems to me that the method of testing so called 'pain receptors' is dangerously flawed. All anglers, especially carp anglers, know that fish certainly have 'taste receptors' in the mouth and the surrounding area. I can only guess that these are the fishy equivalent of the human tongue. If one was to put bee venom on ones tongue I'm quite sure that a certain amount of pain would be felt. Are the 'pain receptors' and the taste receptors the same thing? Or are they randomly situated about the mouth in equal numbers? Is it possible to apply bee venom only to 'pain receptors' and not to taste receptors? There are many questions that I would like to see answered before I am convinced that fish feel pain. After 53 years of angling I tend to believe that they do not! I also tend to believe that most prey animals have 'switch off' mechanisms which turn off the 'pain receptors' when massive shock to the system occurs. There seems little point in the antelope brought down by a lion and having its guts slowly eaten while it still lives, in feeling pain. If it does, we are either the victims of an incredibly cruel god or an incredibly stupid evolutionary system.

On the whole subject of fish feeling pain I would ask any Carp angler the question. Why?
Well most will have had the occasion when they have hooked a Carp and it has felt like a lead weight and seemingly drifts in for a while then suddenly realises it is hooked and goes off on a run. If the fish felt the pain surely it would react immediately.

Next
On bee venom it is strange stuff and has differing reactions, in many cases it actually numbs an area rather than causing actual pain. I would say it is rather a false test as the fish may be reacting to say loss of taste receptors or inability to feel with their mouths or even move their mouths. I would have thought any decent scientist would have considered these points before using such a substance.

Chrisx Ess

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof on must remain silent". LW

Get you teeth into that, mate! ;-)

Ian

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent".

Must buy a new keyboard! This one is clogged with groundbait ...

If we keep our collective backs to the wall hoping to base a fight FOR angling on the premise that this and all future research suggesting fish feel pain can be refuted then we're on very dodgy ground indeed. Why make ourselves hostages to fortune? Who can say that at some point in the future a piece comprehensive and conclusive research might not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that fish DO feel pain? Where have we left ourselves to go then if the basis of our counter-argument is that they DON'T?

We need to make a number of credible cases for angling's defence, and they would include scenarios whereby the pain fish MAY feel can be added to the equation. We would then have to justify that pain by setting against the benefits of the sport to the overall fish population and the flora and fauna generally.

I think that would make for a sound utilitarian argument.

The appropriate line from Proc. Roy. Soc. paper where the findnigs are summarised is:

Quote

This study provides significant evidence of nociception in teleost fishes and furthermore demonstrates that behaviour and physiology are affected over a prolonged period of time, suggesting discomfort.

Unquote

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. There's nothing in that statement that is in anyway controversial or contentious.

Everyone knows being hooked can change a fish's behaviour (although pike can just swim 'round and take a bait again if they unhook themselves).

Almost all mustlicellular animals have the capaiocity to respond to stimuli that we would experineced as painful, and almost all can modify there behaviour to avoid them. You can teach leaches to modify their behaviour by givnig electric shocks. Has no one noticed that earthworms tend to wriggle when put on hooks?? That because they are capable of nociception!

The sugestion that fish are incapable of responding to such stimuli is nonsensical, there has *never* been any doubt of this.

The important thing is that pain in the sense that we understand it is somethnig that is percieved in the brain, the presence of nerve endings does not mean an animal can experience pain. The authors of the paper have been careful to avoid making this suggestion, using the phrase 'nociception' which has a very specific meaning.

Suggstions that they are in any way motivated by an anti-angling agenda are nonsensical and quite frankly insulting to people who seem to be very good scientists.

There's been lots of work done by Pat Wall (amongst others) showing that pain is a higher brain function. The neural pathways that control 'pain' have been described, this mechanism means that the pain response can be shut off, as often happens after very severe injuries. Strange though it may seem, some of the worst accidents / battlefield ijuries involve little pain. Many painkillers (like the opiate drugs) do nothing to the nociceptors that that sense 'pain', but affect the brain and prevent the input from these receptors from being sensed as a painful stimulus. Strange though it may seem, many patients treated with such drugs can tell a doctor what is and what is not painful - they stil have nociception but do not experience pain and the associated distress.

Ian Jay:

" " [LW Tractatus] :} :}

Sorry. A bit late with my response.

Sorry Ian, the site' format has mangled my meaning...
"..........................................." That's better!