Do Fish Have a Brain for Pain?

[Gad]

Going back through some FW email newsletters I came across this one.. bit of a long read,some may find it interesting

30 Apr 2012

By Martin Salter

WHEN I first arrived in Sydney and got around to reading a few fishing columns I was quickly struck by the huge disconnect between many fishos and the wider environmental movement in Australia. I've long argued that there is much common ground and that we need to make mainstream environmentalists recognise that as anglers, we are the eyes and ears of the aquatic environment on which our sport depends.

For the most part that is accepted here in the UK and in much of Europe. However, just as there are idiot rednecks in fishing who think conservation is a dirty word there are plenty of extreme greens who would love to see fishing banned because it doesn't fit in with their personal ideology. They trot out spurious "science" claiming that we are barbarians and that fishing is cruel because fish feel pain in the same way as humans or warm blooded animals. This is, of course, bollocks and many of these people are little more than "lifestyle fascists" who want to stop us eating fish or meat and ban the keeping of pets.

The arguments of groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are not new but with access to some serious funding and occasional hard hitting advertising, they can have an impact on public opinion. My friend and colleague Dr Ben Diggles will be addressing some of these issues at the forthcoming National Recreational Fishing Conference in Brisbane and I will be arguing in my keynote address on how we need to be better organised politically to counter those who threaten our sport and lifestyle.

In the meantime I thought it might be helpful to demolish the "fish feel pain" argument advanced here by Animals Australia: http://www.animalsaustralia.org/issues/fishing.php

They claim: Fish have nerve structures which are anatomically similar to those of humans and other mammals. The lips and mouth of fish are particularly well supplied with these pain specific nerve endings - the very area impacted upon by hook and line fishing.

And that: Having to acknowledge that fish feel pain and distress is not something that those who enjoy fishing, or those whose income is generated through fishing, want to know about.

Well, unfortunately for Animals Australia there are plenty of us who are more than happy to expose the false arguments and headline-grabbing claims by animal rights activists who regularly try to initiate brief but public debate about the ethics of angling every few years. I am extremely grateful to the respected fisheries scientist Dr Bruno Broughton for his input into the following case for angling in general and catch and release in particular.

We should recognise that there is nothing particularly new in all this as lurid claims about angling and anglers have been made in the UK and USA for more than two decades. The target of this publicity is the general, non-angling public, of course. The anti-angling theory is that by attacking and softening-up the sport, public attitudes to angling will change. This would pave the way to increasing restrictions on the sport until, weakened by a thousand cuts, the coup de grace could be applied by banning angling altogether.

Animal behaviour

Any discussion on what fish do or do not feel is rarely based on the scientific evidence alone; it invariably encompasses aspects of animal behaviour and anthropomorphism (giving animals human emotions), interspersed with claims about anglers' litter and damage to wildlife. In tacit acknowledgement that the general public feels little natural empathy with a cold, slimy animal living in a different medium to ourselves, animals regarded as more cuddly are recruited to the anti-angling cause. This culminated in the campaign by PETA featuring a poster of a yellow labrador hooked through the mouth with the caption "You wouldn't do this to a dog – why do it to a fish?"

Other common arguments usually begin with the phrase "How would you like it if...", totally ignoring the radical differences between fish and humans. You and I could not exist underwater; we do not eat live fish or invertebrates; and we are not cold-blooded animals. A fish is a fish, not a primitive human being, notwithstanding the best anthropomorphic efforts of cartoonists, the makers of children's films and animal rights fanatics.

The Research Evidence

It is hardly surprising that anthropomorphism is a favourite tactic employed by those who wish to campaign under the "angling is cruel" banner because they find little meaningful support if they consider the research science alone. As far back as 1980, the so-called Medway Panel – established by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals – was unable to prove that fish felt pain.

Since then, an RSPCA report in 1994 stated: "We do not know, and perhaps never will know, whether animals (including fish) experience pain exactly as it is understood by adult humans."

In 1988 research was conducted in Utrecht, Holland in an attempt to discover if hooked fish are capable of "suffering". The results of experiments on fish (mostly carp) were interpreted as showing that the behavioural response of releasing "spit gas" (bubbles) was proof that the fish experienced fear. The quasi-scientists then claimed that fear was an indication of pain, without any evidence whatsoever! Even so, this published research concluded that "... the pain caused to a hooked fish, if any..." is at the most basic level.

In 2003 research conducted by Sneddon and others received widespread media publicity as evidence that fish could feel pain. In a series of bizarre experiments, chemicals were dripped onto the exposed brains of live trout to measure their brain activity, and bee venom and acetic acid were injected into live fish to observe their behavioural reactions. The actual results confirmed nothing new – fish have an elaborate system of sensory cells around their mouths and when their lips are injected with poisons, fish respond and behave abnormally. The conclusions that this was evidence that fish could feel pain were and still are contested strongly by leading neuroscientists, ichthyologists and fisheries professionals.

Brains For Pain?

It is important to realise that there is a distinct difference between an animal's unconscious reaction to noxious stimuli – known as nociception – and the conscious feeling of pain. Nociceptive responses are those types of behaviour that follow from injury or disease. Just because an animal reacts to a potentially harmful stimulus is not an indication that it is experiencing pain.

In order to show that any organism experiences pain, it is essential to demonstrate that the organism has consciousness because, without it, there can be no pain. The parts of the brain which involve pain are quite specific, namely the neocortical regions of the cerebral hemispheres. In fish, the neocortex is absent whereas, by contrast, it is huge in humans. Thus, it could be said that fish simply do not have the brains for pain!

In advancing his argument that fish are incapable of feeling pain, the leading neurobiologist Prof. James Rose, has gone on public record by stating that pain perception in fish is an anatomical impossibility.

Fish Behaviour

Perhaps Animals Australia would like to tell us why fish are able to eat sharp food items, including crabs, molluscs, spined fish and even sea urchins, which cause lacerations to their mouths and which would certainly cause pain were fish capable of experiencing it? Or why a hooked fish will pull away from an angler whereas we would be able to pull a bull towards us were we to fix a rope to a ring in its nose?

As anglers we know that a fish which seizes a bait but which is not hooked - say with a bait trapped within its jaws, for example - fights in exactly the same way as one which is hooked. No "pain" but exactly the same reaction from the fish – go figure!

We can deduce from these observations alone that fish do not need to feel pain to survive. In fact, the logical conclusion is the reverse: in their underwater world, pain must be absent because fish would be unable to survive otherwise. In an angling context, it is by no means unusual for a caught and returned fish to be re-caught in the same day... sometimes with the next cast. Whatever the fish felt when it was hooked originally could hardly be important if it "forgot" the experience almost immediately.

To summarise. It is a simple fact that fish lack the parts of the brain necessary for the registration of pain and, as such, they operate at the unconscious level. They are still capable of complex behaviour and can react to stimuli, but they cannot experience pain. Common sense – and our knowledge of fish behaviour – leads us to exactly the same finding. The inevitable conclusion is that angling is not cruel.

In the absence of any credible scientific evidence to back up their lurid claims of unspeakable cruelty the animal rights extremists fall back on crass attempts to portray fish as "sea kittens" hoping that the public and politicians will be seduced. As long as we are armed with the facts and have strong organisations at both state and federal levels capable of presenting our case with force and credibility then all will be well. The bunny-huggers can carry on eating lentils and beans and we will carry on catching and eating fish in the most sustainable of all ways – by rod and line.

[ellicat]

Fortunately it would seem the majority of fishos are awake up to the shallow end of the gene pool and are aware of the green groups' low ethics in dealing with the public. It is worrying that some accept their ethics and lies without the blink of an eye though, or through some unusual justifications.

There should be no mistake that the most well funded and best organised green groups in the World are hitting Australia with a view to stopping fishing altogether. Some of these partially fund The Australian Greens political party. Beware.

[Seiran]

It is worrying that some accept their ethics and lies without the blink of an eye though, or through some unusual justifications.

The exact same could be said about any political party, or any other group opposed to the same green initiatives the enviro groups are touting.

[Gary_C]

The easiest way to determine if something is ethical for me is whether or not it intentionally causes harm to another individual.

Just because I do not agree with a person's message does not mean that they are unethical, nor do I find all of their methods of spreading their messages to be unethical.

Destroying a person's property to spread your message is unethical because you are attacking the individual and causing them harm.

Making a parody of somebody's stance is ethical because you are attacking their message.

The Nazis were bad because they were intentionally attacking individuals BECAUSE of their beliefs. Atheists are not bad because they attack the message of theists rather than attacking theists directly; atheists who burn down churches are bad.

Greens who are willing to have an intellectual argument and consider other evidence and beliefs different from their own are not inherently unethical, but when they start throwing paint on your belongings or shoving your face into the entrails of an animal you have just field-dressed, they cross the line and can be considered unethical.

[Gad]

It is worrying that some accept their ethics and lies without the blink of an eye though, or through some unusual justifications.

The exact same could be said about any political party, or any other group opposed to the same green initiatives the enviro groups are touting.

Animals Australia and PETA are animal rights groups - not environment groups.

[ellicat]

It is worrying that some accept their ethics and lies without the blink of an eye though, or through some unusual justifications.

The exact same could be said about any political party, or any other group opposed to the same green initiatives the enviro groups are touting.

That doesn't make it right though, does it ?

(I am speaking of Green groups not The Australian Greens in that sentence, so it is not meant to be political.)

Highlighting green groups' lies and deceptions is beneficial to everyone here. Some may choose to be stubborn and maintain ignorance of facts, so be it. I have and will continue to highlight their disgraceful behaviour in the hope I am able to open more eyes to what is going on and preventing people being fooled over and over.

If you have a group who is doing similar things feel free to start a thread

[ellicat]

Gary, you have lower ethical standards and expectations than I do.

I know that Greenpeace made that website in an attempt to damage Shell. They did not do it as a joke.

If I turned up to a meet and greet and introduced myself as Gary C and then shat in everybody's tent, then left, I wouldn't consider that ethical.

If I turned up to a meet and greet and introduced myself as Gary C and then shat my pants after every meal, I wouldn't consider that ethical.

That sort of behaviour stinks.

[tugger]

I think all animals and fish would feel pain so with my fishing practises i don't like fishing to light so as to get them in quickly and when i have the fish they are dispatched quickly or returned to the water if undersized or inedible. This keeps the fish good qaulity for eating or released healthy other than that i don't think much about the short term pain fish would feel all animals go through some pain and get over it thats life.

If you were that worried about such things then you should be a vegetarian

[fishingnut]

Gary, you have lower ethical standards and expectations than I do.

I know that Greenpeace made that website in an attempt to damage Shell. They did not do it as a joke.

If I turned up to a meet and greet and introduced myself as Gary C and then shat in everybody's tent, then left, I wouldn't consider that ethical.

If I turned up to a meet and greet and introduced myself as Gary C and then shat my pants after every meal, I wouldn't consider that ethical.

That sort of behaviour stinks.

Now thats funny !! but ever so true . well put together elli

[fishingnut]

Havnt lived till ya shat ya pants, something that ya never forget ....

[tugger]

I know a few of the boys who have dirtied the grundies on south passage bar

Havnt lived till ya shat ya pants, something that ya never forget ....

[Seiran]

[quote="

Animals Australia and PETA are animal rights groups - not environment groups.

[ellicat]

Seiran, I will admit I just read your post and felt the blood drop from my face when you said you were an active member of PETA. :ohmy:

Then - phew ! :blush: :silly: You got me for a second :pinch:

[Gloomy Samurai]

I agree with Tugger in that I would have thought that fish would feel pain if for no other reason than to prevent further harm and prolong life. Same reason we feel it. So, I thought I would do a bit of digging to see if Salter was in fact correct.

I was quickly able to find the research done by Dr John Rose who claimed that fish could not feel pain due to differences in the make up of the human and fish brains. It is Rose’s work that Salter bases his argument on. Unfortunately I could not find any other research supporting Rose (despite Salter’s claim of the support of leading neuroscientists etc). What I did find though was that when Rose published his findings that fish could not feel pain, he was working at the behest of the American Fisheries Society, a lobby group for commercial fishing (FishCount.org.uk. 2010). That is an unbelievable conflict of interest which further damaged Rose’s credibility in the scientific community.

Rose’s claim that fish cannot feel pain is regarded as flawed, outdated and outlandish by his peers. Salter however refers to him as a “leading neurobiologistâ€.

There is plenty of research out there supporting the premise that fish do in fact feel pain (Grandin, Temple (ed.). 2010; Balcombe, Jonathan. 2006.; Purdue.edu [Purdue University]. 2009; Sneddon, L.U., V.A. Braithwaite and M.J. Gentle. 2003; Bekoff, Marc. 2007 just to name a few). Various experiments have been conducted and are continuing with increased sophistication due to the introduction of MRI’s & EEG’s etc. Unfortunately for Salter the findings are all supporting fish sentience.

Of additional interest is an RSPCA article (2010) stating that “evidence that fish are sentient animals capable of experiencing pain and suffering has been building for some years.†Salter claim that the RSPCA in effect agrees with him is clearly wrong. Again, he just doesn’t bother checking his facts (or has done and chose to ignore what he found).

The trouble with these sorts of emotive arguments is they do more harm to recreational fisherman than good. Salter’s arguments are outdated and incorrect and he obviously doesn't bother to check his facts. That only gives ammunition to those who would see recreational fishing stopped and does harm to those of us who enjoy fishing.

So, sorry Ellicat but in this case I don’t think you are right to agree with this…….. and I can show you the link (lots of them).

Cheers

Andrew

[Schmuck]

No question that fish feel noxious stimulus and can respond it in complex behaviours. IMO the verdict is still out regarding how complex those behavioural response are and whether they have the emotional/neurological capabilities to experience the subjective nature of pain to the extent that humans do (probably not?). Most of the 'pain' responses measured by Sneddon etc arise from primitive brain structures or even more primitive areas equivalent to the amygdala, hippocampus etc. Areas like the prefrontal cortex, absent in fish as per Rose, are obviously more highly evolved structures and their role in executive functioning allows even more complex pain and emotional responses seen in humans and some mammals.

Either way it just comes down to where you individually draw the line with the ethics of fishing. A pet hate of mine are the purist anglers who only preach C&R fishing, don't eat any fish and will give others a hard time if they kept a couple for a feed. I release the majority of my legal fish but at least I understand that without the need to go fishing for a feed, they wouldn't be able to C&R.

[ellicat]

Nicely put Gloomy. However I would not unwittingly trust anything that comes from the RSPCA, especially the Qlders who are headed by a raving lunatic lol I assume you can also see the huge conflict of interest with them ??

I did a similar sort of thing to you a couple of years ago and had no trouble finding papers and articles supporting the no-pain view. The reason I was motivated to look was the release of some new paper saying fish felt pain. Perhaps this was the '09 paper you referred to. Who funded the research you speak of ? Any potential bias there ? (I guess it would be impossible to tell of any personal ethical/idiot syndrome biases ?)

In any case I was happy to settle back to the no-pain view. At least not in the emotional way humans perceive pain.

As I have discussed on here before - considering the way a tusk fish or bream will hit and attack hard sharp reef, scallops, prawn heads, yada yada yada, to think that a hook is anything special to deal with is just mind-numbingly nonsensical.

Also, I know some humans that don't feel pain so

a fish definitely couldn't :silly:

[faulked]

i see absolutely no reason why a fish cant feel pain they cancertainly have individual personalities any long term owner of fish tanks can attest to this .

do i care not really cows sheep etc all feel pain and i have no qualms clubbin them on the head choppin of a leg and eating it so wheres the difference with fish

down with hipocracy

AND UP THE GREEENS

with a sharp stick

[elops]

Have a lot of respect for Martin Salters work but in quoting Rose he lowered himself to the same level as the radical Green groups who use similar tactics. Also used the old fish "forgot" chestnut long debunked by a multitude of published peer reviewed research.

Heres a curious dichotomy, when out fishing I can use livebait, allow fish to slowly die from oxygen deprivation or ammonia poisoning in a "livewell" (or release them 8 hours later to do the same)or kill them in all manner of ways.

BUT to feed live fish in any research the appropriate animal ethics approvals must be obtained or when disposing of noxious fish after holding them for public display they must be euthenised according to the ANZCCART euthenasia of animals used for scientific research guidlines.

Interestingly it is also against the law to feed pet fish "feeder fish" but live invertabrates are ok.

No links sorry Brian google it.

[muzz]

Anyone that is aware of basic biology or has any sort of understanding of the nervous system will laugh at the argument that fish do not feel pain. Multi-cellular organisms need to have a nervous system that relays heat, cold and pain so that they can avoid danger and/or death.

[crazywalrus]

Anyone that is aware of basic biology or has any sort of understanding of the nervous system will laugh at the argument that fish do not feel pain. Multi-cellular organisms need to have a nervous system that relays heat, cold and pain so that they can avoid danger and/or death.

I think they are arguing that animals are not intuitive enough to interpret the stimuli as pain as we know it. I think there is no argument that a vertebrate animals will have some receptors, it is in the interpretation of these stimuli where the debate begins.

Rayke has an example where a Bass was caught while tagging in NPD. It was tagged and released at one end of the boat only to be immediately caught at the rear of the boat. If they understood pain the way we do such an occurrence would not have occurred.

[ellicat]

Have a lot of respect for Martin Salters work but in quoting Rose he lowered himself to the same level as the radical Green groups who use similar tactics. Also used the old fish "forgot" chestnut long debunked by a multitude of published peer reviewed research.

Heres a curious dichotomy, when out fishing I can use livebait, allow fish to slowly die from oxygen deprivation or ammonia poisoning in a "livewell" (or release them 8 hours later to do the same)or kill them in all manner of ways.

BUT to feed live fish in any research the appropriate animal ethics approvals must be obtained or when disposing of noxious fish after holding them for public display they must be euthenised according to the ANZCCART euthenasia of animals used for scientific research guidlines.

Interestingly it is also against the law to feed pet fish "feeder fish" but live invertabrates are ok.

No links sorry Brian google it.

Google what, Steve ? You didn't say anything relevant to the question

Lizards throw their tails; could you throw your arm ?

The answer is yes (although you would have to cut it off and stop the blood leak.) There's more than one instance of this being reported. The usual story for these is that there was initial pain but then the all-powerful brain was able to block that pain and enable it's body to survive.

Fish have no eyelids or tear ducts so they cannot cry, therefore they could not feel pain :dry:

[muzz]

Anyone that is aware of basic biology or has any sort of understanding of the nervous system will laugh at the argument that fish do not feel pain. Multi-cellular organisms need to have a nervous system that relays heat, cold and pain so that they can avoid danger and/or death.

I think they are arguing that animals are not intuitive enough to interpret the stimuli as pain as we know it. I think there is no argument that a vertebrate animals will have some receptors, it is in the interpretation of these stimuli where the debate begins.

Rayke has an example where a Bass was caught while tagging in NPD. It was tagged and released at one end of the boat only to be immediately caught at the rear of the boat. If they understood pain the way we do such an occurrence would not have occurred.

Emotional pain versus physical pain? All multi-celled organisms react to physical pain, intelligent organism react to emotional pain.

If an organism didn’t have the ability to associate pain with danger then it wouldn’t have the capability to survive, i.e the dodo? fictional?

Memorising the cause of the pain would require intelligence.

Will fish be able to associate lures/ hooks /deception to a pain causing experience over years of being captured and released? I remember reading an article a few years ago about bass in a lake in the US associating the sound of electric motors and the ping of sonar to being caught.

/>http://ezinearticles.com/?Catch-Big-Trophy-Fish-With-an-Electric-Trolling-Motor&id=4173991

It is a well known fact that bass after being caught and released back into a school will spook the school. Could this be from them sulking after experiencing pain/discomfort and the rest of the school is then alarmed to danger? And in counter to Raykes post, maybe it was middle summer with a storm brewing, which is a sure fire for bass.

Maybe fish have evolved to have less nerve endings in the mouth region due to consuming sharp objects i.e, crustaceans etc.

This will all be speculation and theories until there are hard facts and figure which aren’t corrupted by emotional backed third parties. Maybe there is a Nobel Prize out there for someone.

Will this stop me from fishing? No. Will this stop me from catch and release? No.

Will I listen to politically/emotionally motivated groups? I may try to understand their way of thinking; however I may not agree to it. Then I will move on, wiser to the fact.

[shortie]

Havnt lived till ya shat ya pants, something that ya never forget ....

Woo hoo I'm alive

Many times

[crazywalrus]

I personally do not think they are that dumb and I do think they can learn, although the link provided is anecdotal and someones opinion.

Pain for me is an indication of intelligence. I am sure if I kick my dog they experience pain and learn from that. I am not convinced that fish are the same as that. The example that Ray had was anecdotal and would be hard to replicate but it still has value in this discussion. To be pulled out of the water with a hook, measured, weighed and a tag stuck into your back for us would be horrifying and would ensure that we would not immediately feed. I am pretty sure this would be the same for dogs and cats but I am not prepared to test it.

We as fisherman like to think that we are not hurting fish when we catch them. Hmmm I am not sure but what I am confident about is that there is no long term effect on them as long as the recover from the initial stress. Dogs on the other hand learn very quickly and cower under the hand of an abusive owner.

Greenies are fundamentally apposed to fishing and want it banned. We need to be careful to undertake our business in a humane manner.

We have an effect on this planet and we need to keep everything in perspective. otherwise where do you stop. "No more fly spray", "not able to take a leech off as it has a right to feed"?