Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,567 Posts
That made me think twice about "going angling"....ya right whatever!! I dont even know how to say what im thinking without being politically incorrect???

I guess all I can say is the good Lord above put the fish here for a reason!! And you better believe im gonna fulfill his reasoning :thumb

~Patrick ><>
 

·
Idaho Resident Craftsman/Artisan
Joined
·
1,110 Posts
Hahahaha, why do we think that fish freak out when they get hooked in certain places? You hook a fish in the eye or the nose and you will see that they can feel pain. They freak out.

That article is cracking me up. The funniest thing is that I think there are some people who read this forum who will stop "angling" now that there is "proof" that fish feel pain. hahahaha

When a fish is caught it is serving its purpose as recreation for man. When a fish spawns it fulfills the measure of its creation.

MAC
 

·
Just an Old Man
Joined
·
35,207 Posts
I used to know it all---but now that I'm older I seem to forget it all.

No,the reason fish are here is to make us all to spend ungodly amounts of money to see who can catch the most and the biggest fish. But as for pain I feel it the most when I have to buy something new.

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Fish lack the cranial (sp?) cortex, (the part of the brain that intrepts nerve sensory to pain.) Therefore they can not feel pain.

The thrashing on a hook up has been attributed to thier reaction of their inability to escape, not pain or fear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
I know if I was hooked in the lips with a sharp hook, the last thing I would do is give resistance to whatever was pulling me. I would probably grab the line and try to move as little as possible. Hook a dog in the lips or any other mammal for that matter and it would have a similar reaction.
Fish on the other hand fight like crazy when hooked, in what seems to just be an attempt to get away from whatever is pulling them. They probably feel something, but I doubt it's to the extent PETA would like us to believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
each fish is made differently. i wouldnt expect a sunfish or bass to be as hurt as a trout would, which has a much more fleshy mouth and thus more nerves. although im sure getting hooked is a less-than-pleasant experience for the fish i wouldnt let that discourage me. just think of it this way: just imagine how much more the fish will value its life after the experience or how relieved it'll feel! and with all due respect, Arlington: what the hell are you talking about? -ryan
 

·
Retired Mod
Joined
·
11,079 Posts
LOL Arlington

You're spot on with that post. Most of the people who strive for animal rights wouldn't go to war even if it meant losing their rights to support animal rights (which was brought about by same people who gave up their lives for this country). I deliver to a few PETA enthusiasts (they have NO idea I hunt/fish) and I know most are against everything that America stands for. Pretty funny.

It's funny. I know for a fact I read an article published by scientists here several months ago that claimed just the opposite. I do have quite a few friends who live in UK that are ghillies and own beats for salmon/trout fishing. I heard from them PETA is trying to make it's way into the UK fishing scene. I wouldn't doubt since it was British scientists that PETA funded the whole thing. If you pay for a study, chances are you'll get response you're looking for.

I do agree with the fleeing response. They probably feel the tug, but why would a fish that's being hurt purposely make itself hurt more? I know I don't. I've caught many trout/steelhead/salmon and some will run towards boat, but then make dashing runs. I've had strong 9 and 10wt rods bent in half on huge winterrun steelhead on the Hoh and Sol Duc. To buckle that type of rod takes some pressure. I know if I had a hook imbedded in my mouth, I wouldn't pull with all my might. I would try to ease up the pain by taking slack out.
 

·
Retired Mod
Joined
·
11,079 Posts
Ok, I was right about article, here's something to read

I knew I had read something about no pain. Here's a response from a writer who is in the UK. This comes from a BB I frequent in the UK. Here it is........

Hello all,
I'm the fishing journalist who broke the original story that fish don't feel pain. It was done by Professor Rose of the University of Wyoming.
I wrote it for Trout and Salmon and it was then followed up, as you know, by other print media.
Having been contacted by everyone at the Beeb from the Today programme downwards (!) I sent the Sneddon report to Professor Rose.

This is his reply: Graham,

As you might have guessed, I've been contacted by several writers about the Sneddon paper already. I've copied, for your information, my reply to a writer for Nature.

The Royal Society paper by Sneddon, et al. does not actually deal with pain. It deals only with nociception. 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 haven't read it.

The flaws in their argument include the following. Their definitions of pain and nociception are 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 is nociception, unconscious and not pain. Contrary to the assertions of Sneddon, et al. behaviors more complex than reflexes are are frequently purely nociceptive as well. For example, humans with extensive damage or dysfunction of the neocortex in the cerebral hemispheres can still make facial displays, vocalizations, and show struggling and avoidance reactions in response 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. Secondly, a sustained change in behaavioral activity in response to a sustained nociceptive stimulus (like the bee venom or acid injection in the jaw), shows nothing more that that behavior can be persistently changed if a nociceptive stumulus is sustained. In light of the probable intensity and sustained nature of this noxious stimulus, it is quite likely that a physiological and/or endocrine stress response was elicited in the trout to a much greater degree than procedues to which control fish were exposed. A physiological response of this type is known to alter the ongoing behavior and physiological function of trout and is perfectly understandable, but it is not evidence of a pain experience. I'm quite surprised that the authors of this paper didn't thoroughly consider the confounding implications of the likelihood of a physiological and/or endocrine stress response.

In order to show that a fish 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. Furthermore, from the extensive knowledge that exists on the neural basis of consciousness, there is no basis for assuming that a fish might have such a capacity. 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 nociceptive reactions of trout to sustained, noxioius stimuli in no way justifies a conclusion that these fish have a capacity for the conscious experience of pain.

Regards,

Jim Rose

James D. Rose, Ph.D.
Department of Zoology and Physiology
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071
USA
Phone: 307-766-6719
Fax: 307-766-5625
e-mail: [email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Ok, I was right about article, here's something to read

Anyone who is feeling bad about hurting the poor trout and would like to quit fishing I will gladly take all your gear off your hands. If the fish start screaming there is always earplugs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Pain? Is it ethical to fish? Who do we think we are to inflict ourselves on another life form?
I will tell you who I think we are:
We are the people who nurture and release thousands upon thousands of fish of all breads who would not exist; would not have the possibility of "one good day" without us. We are the people who spend our time and money through organizations like TU raising bloody hell when someone wants to turn a stream into a barren water raceway or oxygen depleted septic tank. We are the ones who carry rocks to place "wing dams" along bulldozed channels so that trout may return. Hikepat has told me he goes to TU's trout pens every evening to feed the trout being raised for release there.
Do we inflict pain on fish? I do not know. Jim Rose seems to make a good argument that we do not.
Some where else, on some other day I read that of a million fish eggs hatched in a year something like 850,000 are lost to accident and disease during their early stages. 145,500 are lost to larger fish feeding on smaller fish. 4,250 are taken by birds of prey.248 live and die a natural death without ever being caught and two are caught by fisherman. Damn us, we are not doing what we must, let's kill the birds.
Roll Cast
"Rules, there ain't no rules around here! We're trying to accomplish something!"J. Belushi
 

·
Not Quite A Luddite, But Can See One From Here
Joined
·
1,433 Posts
RiverFishing

I think Jim is onto something here. And I would swear the old stocker I caught last week looked at me pretty damned contemptfully, so they must know something about irony, which I count as something of a higher function.

Mike:7
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top