Pain perception

"The very act of a fish feeding causes tissue damage – hence detection by endorphins and then simultaneous pain suppression by oparins and repair goes ahead. Much of a fish’s metabolism must be devoted to day-by-day tissue repair and regeneration."

What sort of nonsense is this? A bit like a pharmacologist standing up and explaining to the angling commuinity how fish eveolved from crustaceans!

I am in now way an expert on pain detection but.....

Endorphins do not mediate pain neurotransmission. Why don't you try doing a Google search on "purinoceptor, neurottransmission and pain" and "substance P, neurotransmission and pain". You may learn something.

Oparins - well what the hell are oparins. I've lectured in Pharmacology for years (although not CNS pharmacology) and done searches on Google and Pubmed and can't find a single refence to Oparins / pain perception.

Endorphins are involved in the *perception* of pain, and are found in the brain (although are also present in the gut, which is why morphine / heroine makes you constipated). Endorphins (or enkaphalins) have pain killing effects and surpress pain sensation by the brain. Opiate drugs (heroine, morphine) mimic this effect. These receptors are also involved in all pleasant sensations, which is why opiate drugs are so addictive.

The key to this whole argument is understanding the diffeernce between detecting tissue damage and being able to modify behaviour in a way that avoid sit. This involves nociception and almost all multicellular animals (even sea anenomies and jellyfish) can do this to some extent. Perceiving 'pain' as we understand it is very different event which is dependent upon higher brain function. Do a Google search for Pat Wall - (many orbituaries as he died recently) he is responsible for our current view of pain sensation and our understanding or the way in whch analgesics work. True analgesics prevent the sensation of pain as opposed to local aneasthetics which prevent pain by blocking nociception (the perception of tissue damage).

The arguments set out here will not convince anyone of anything!

I reckon 'the key' to all this is much simpler - the Roslin Institute report is the reaction by the anti's to the Rose report (they'll be behind it somewhere, probably buried very deep). And with the financial, political and 'celebrity' clout they have they've made sure 'their' report has received maximum media coverage.

Debating with an anti just doesn't work, logic isn't in their remit.

Where do you get the idea that the Roslin is a nest of 'Antis'? Have you ever been there? I was there in january and its quite a place - I wouldn't mind a job there myself if one came up.

People at the Roslin clone sheep for gods sake! When you are involved in that sort of thing you attract enough attention from 'antis'(opposed to animal experiments in this case) to know exactly what they're like! The suggestion that this is an 'anti' paper is just laughable.

Where was it I wrote that Roslin is a nest of antis? That's either a gross exaggeration of what I wrote or a case of myopia.

I'm referring to how the report was used, and the word 'their' (as in 'their' report) was enclosed within quotations which is usually taken to mean it isn't meant literally.

It IS an anti paper, not authored by antis, but picked up by them and used by them.

I agree with you!

That's buggered it for more good argument then.

Back to the antis.

I am interested in writing to PETA to see if they condone or condemn the Roslin research. Their slogan is after all, 'Animals are not ours to eat, to wear, to experiment on, or for entertainment.
Injecting venom into a fish's mouth sounds a fairly brutal experimental technique to me but maybe animal research is OK in 'certain' circumstances.
(Does anybody have an address for PETA?)

It's the last part of Barrie Rickards article that bothers me the most. The way it is now being put over by whoever? that it's OK to fish and kill your catch, but not put it back. As Barrie says this is the bedrock of our (well coarse fishing anyway) sport, we return the fish unharmed, threfore we aren't doing any wrong. It's also, in my view at least the preception of the non fishing public, it's what makes angling different from hunting.
For the Antis to undermine this would be a disaster. After all we can argue til the cows come home over sicence, but the real battle ground is public oppinion.

We need to counter this view at every turn, and I don't just mean big name and celebs in the media. I alway make a point of telling non anglers the lengths we go to to protect fish if ever the subject is brought up in conversation. They're usually quite impressed.

The "it's OK to fish for food, but not for fun" argument may also cause problems within the unity of fishing (if there is any). Does this justify the game fisherman or the sea angler over the coarse fisherman? Some of our "friends" in the Country side allience have already tried to make that distinction.

I'm not against taking fish for food, but would I still want to fish if I had to kill my catch?

That's the whole point of Barrie's message though Davy. What he's saying is already law in Germany and if we allow the greenies to have their way it'll surely follow here too.

This is why I never leave any accusation cruelty go unchecked.

I don't expect anglers to walk down the street with a banner saying "Angling is great" but we do need to point out the truth even on a one to one basis. There's no point waiting for Chris Tarrent to jump up on TV and do it for us. And it's no good saying it'll never happen, because it has

Actually I would like to see anglers walking down the street with banners, if the opportunity was right.

I'm affraid Lynn Sneddon's view is surprisingly common. Many non anglers are surprised that I fish and just throw them back and express exactly the same view.

When I explain that carp anglers like ponds that have been deliberately stocked with fish for them to catch, and that these are given names.......well I'm afraid that they're generally appalled!

I'm afraid a good minority of people hold the view that we catch our fish and 'just throw them back' without taking the care to see that they are actually returned safely. This was the thrust of my complaint about Jackie Ballards, the new head of the RSPCA, comments in Angler's Mail in January. Even small fish that are apparently "thrown" back into the water are usually pointed in the right direction, ie. head first, so that the return is no different to that of a leaping fish.

Back to the report though and how come we catch fish that sometime have an old detached hook already in their mouths. It never appears to cause them much distress as they continue feeding. I'm not suggesting this is all-out proof and no doubt Stuart will bring his wealth of knowledge to bear on this.

Please Stuart, remember and old adage for writers - don't use a big word when simpler smaller ones will do. You're not lecturing at the Nobel Academy for a Prize, we're just simpleton anglers or at least I am. Just tell us - do you agree with the Edinburgh research or not? SO far I'm not clear where you stand.

It seems clear to me that Stuart is agreeing with the reply to Sneddon made by Rose on the day the story broke. I believe it's posted on FM somewhere, but it's definitely on Anglers net. You'll find it if you look, and understand it - after all, you're no simpleton!

Graham - precisely WHAT is illegal now in Germany? (Ruck box is ace by the way). This is important to know. Is it federal law or just in one or other of the states? Some of the German states like to act independently and are the deepest of deep green. PVC is banned in some states in Germany for instance. So is MDF (handy andy eat your heart out).

'On the Farm' columnist in the Sunday Times said he couldn't understand the complacency of anglers when the news broke last week.

Davy anglers did walk down the street with banners. it was called the liberty and lielyhood march.The trouble is people like to tap on there keyboards and cant realy be arsed to get up and shout for what they believe in.How about next time anglers steal the march instead of fox hunters.It realy upsets me to see anglers trying to justify what they do by saying fish dont feel pain when in truth, though alot wont admit it we dont really care.Ask yourself this question if it was proved without doubt that fish felt pain would you voluntarily give up fishing.I for one wouldnt.Just like i will NOT give up livebaiting.I have to add that i respect all wildlife.But a roach aint a human.Lets get our prioritys right.Political correctness belongs to those who have f*#k all better to worry about.

I think the day will come when anglers march....A day too late.

Ok, so if Anglers did stand up and march, how many would turn out, 200,000 or 200?

What effect would the march have if only 200 turned out?
Or 200,000?

How would the public respond?
Would it give us greater public and government support?

Would it make the non Angler aware of what fishing is about?

People need to be educated about all aspects of angling in a positive and constructive way.
If we fail to address this then they will never understand angling and the Antis may gain more support.

Im not going to go on about angling and PR as i have spoken on this matter several times on FM, AM and CF.

The point is that fish simply CANNOT feel pain. Having followed the current controversy I am now completely convinced that it cannot be proven otherwise with current knowledge - but I don't say never. This does not imply that fish feel no discomfort, or that they enjoy the experience of being caught. There is of course a further very doubtful question as to whether fish feel anything at all, or have the intelligence to suffer or to enjoy or experience any sort of emotion in any way at all. The pain debate is more about non-anglers than anglers, more so even than about the fish themselves. Hence the political correctness, as Darren says. The battleground will not be about pain, but about whatever can be portrayed as needless suffering - yanking fish out of the water, chucking them back to catch them over and over again, etc. Livebaiting will inevitably be at the forefront - I livebait too, by the way.

We have to accept that whatever observations we make, however true, it makes no difference in the court of public opinion - it's just grist to the mill...so don't expect celebs like Chris Tarrant and Steve Hancock to commit media suicide for the sake of angling - they won't. In many ways I feel we're better off with a lower profile anyway. If we have a high profile media bod he'll keep angling continually in the news. Do we really want that?

Did somone mention pr? I agree with chris we keep a lower profile.Im not saying we hide but if we keep jumping up every time they attack us we look guilty and we havent done anything wrong.If we show solidaritry"like Lech"and keep banging out the same message it narrows down the points of attack they have By the way Ash if youd been on the march youd know there was plenty of anglers there.Theres a big difference between reading the papers and watching tv and actually being there.In fact id go as far as to say the majority of people there were anglers of one description or another and if angling could unite they would of all been wearing a pro angling badge.If u thought the march didnt obchieve its objective as far as fox hunters are concerned, how many of them wont be hunting this year?