She conducted four experiments looking at pain in fish. One of the primary problems with pain studies in animals is that the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), who refer to themselves as “the leading professional forum for science, practice, and education in the field of pain,” has given some definitions for pain that make it hard to determine pain in animals. The sticking point? The part of the definition for pain that says:
Pain is always subjective…and also an emotional experience…Activity induced in the nociceptor and nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain, which is always a psychological state, even though we may well appreciate that pain most often has a proximate physical cause. (found here)
“Subjective,” “emotional” and “psychological state” are all terms that make it more difficult to determine if animals can feel pain because it is difficult (impossible?) to determine an animal’s emotional or psychological state (or if they are even capable of such states).
In addition, the definition makes clear that “Activity induced in the nociceptor and nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain.” Nociceptors are receptors that, when stimulated, send signals to the brain through the nervous system to let the brain know that there might be damage to tissue at the site of the stimulus. This is a physiological process, not a psychological state. Those who wish to claim pain in animals must do so without the benefit of nociceptive experiments and responses.
Anyhow, the bulletin released by NSVS feels confident enough in Ms. Nordgreen’s research to say, “No single experiment can unequivocally answer the question of whether fish can feel pain, but the current findings, seen in the context of existing literature strongly indicates that fish are not only capable of nociception but also of conscious perception of pain.” (At that website you can get a brief glimpse of the research conducted that supposedly supports the “pain” theory, but I would like to see a more in-depth report of the research.)
A few question for the masses (or at least the three of you who read my blog):
- Is the proverbial noose slowly tightening around anglers’ collective necks, or is this just so much hokum?
- Anybody ready to wuss out yet and hang up the rod for good?
- Anybody ready to stand with me as founding members of AA (Anglers Anonymous)*, where our first step is in boldly admitting that we cause fish pain, and (unlike the real AA) we don’t care?
[*I in no way mean to demean or devalue the work the real AA does.]
No fish felt pain from the publishing of this post (although some might be when I get off work tomorrow at 2:45 and head to the local river)—though some of you may feel pain at reading it.
As a devout angler and one who is sympathetic even to the pain of a lodgepole pine under the bite of the chainsaw, all I can say is “Ouch!”
As the Buddah said, “Life is pain.”
If we worried 1/10-to-the-9th as much about issues like loss of habitat or global warming, we’d bring a lot more happiness/wholeness to the biosphere than dwelling on a few guys & gals waving sticks in the air with a line and small hook attached.
Now, maybe if the NSVS would do something about the guy in my boat who stuck me in the back of the shoulder last year with a salmonfly…
It’s a tough call for me since, generally, I’m also pretty sympathetic to the plight of things of a naturey sort. But it seems to stop with pricking fish.
A salmonfly pattern in the shoulder? Yep, that’s gotta be painful (and not just in the nociceptive way, but psychologically too).
Yea the pain thing, hmmm……..wait you get off work at 2:45!!
s’not fair.
Yes, I get off at 2:45 every day (except summers–then I’m off 24/7). But, school officially starts at 7:30 and I’m usually on the job around 5:30ish AM.
Anyone answering yes to question 2 may send their tools of torture to me for disposal. I will even pay for shipping. Scott you should really consider this offer. I had never witnessed so much pain being dished out to harmless fish before fishing with you.
Good thinking Doug, I hadn’t even thought of capitalizing on the
sillyrespectful ex-anglers’ now-useless-gear problem. Uhhh…you’re not referring to that small cutthroat that just so happened to sail over my shoulder during my rather boisterous hookset, are you?The more salient point becomes…… who even cares?
And by giving press to studies like this do we fall into the “any publicity is good publicity” trap of abetting bogus science that wants to infer the emotional state of piscids.
“I am the fish whisperer”
ohh yeah….. and all I know is that after I get back from a week at a 4 star hotel on sunny North Beach Miami (I’ll think of you all in the Cache Valley) is that I need to fish more as I haven’t been out near enough this winter.
Going hog hunting on a spring creek.
Does, “You suck!” make you feel bad? I didn’t think so! Have a great time.
Teachers eh, tsk.
Well, let me be the one to dissent a little here. It ain’t going to be how healthy the fly fishing retail sector is, nor is it going to make any difference how many children we get into fly fishing (you WILL like this) that affects the longer term future. The people on the other side of the issue aren’t anglers, never have been never will be. But they vote. The cruelty/pain issue might not affect us, but it might affect your children and almost certainly your grandchildren.
Switzerland and Germany, Norway is thinking about curbing catch and release. The EU has been going the rounds.
Anglers may shout “Rose said it isn’t so” but that isolated study is old hat. The direction is all against it now.
Who cares? Lots and lots and lots of people. Straw poll in the office (2 fishermen, 3 non) none could find an argument against the cruelty issue. Bogus science? No. Correct interpretation of experimental results? Maybe, maybe not. Lots of studies showing no pain in fish? – er no, sorry.
“Ah man, Do we gotta do this again?” Yes, and again and again and again until angling finds a cohesive argument rather than the dismissive, poorly thought out responses prevalent at the moment. Otherwise fishing will face the same approbation that hunting faced in Europe.
But that is ok, won’t affect me, I’ll be long gone. Jeez.
Eccles,
I’ll keep coming back to the pain issue, over and over and over and over and over… Because, I, like you, don’t think the other side is going to stop. Bad science? I don’t know. Bad interpretation of data? I don’t know. I would like to see the actual data, but haven’t found it yet (if they digitally publish their PhD theses, would you have access to it in some sort of academic database thingy?).
I think the passionate are going to carry the day, science or not (remember the Bush days?). Are we, as anglers, passionate enough to get our way? At the moment, no, because very few anglers are willing to look at this problem square in the face. We tend to have flip comments and attitudes (yes, I’m a bit guilty with this particular post). I know this from other posts I’ve written and everything I can find in popular writing these days. Very few anglers are willing to take the time and thought to really do it justice. As much as we think the “sea kittens” group are a bunch of crackpots, they are considerably more passionate and vocal than we are.
Anglers have few options:
* Anglers can “fight” them on their front by looking at the “pain” that is (or isn’t) caused by conducting their own research in this field (I have a feeling that eventually more data will show that fish do feel pain–when will this be substantiated, I don’t know, but I just have a gut feeling)
* Anglers can try and argue from a philosophical/ethical standpoint which will basically put them into the anthropocentric group
* Anglers can say that they just don’t give a shit (excuse the language) that fish feel pain (my guess is that 90%+ of anglers already feel this way), but this really brings us back to the anthropocentric view: it doesn’t matter that humans cause other species pain because it is for a human’s pleasure (I think most anthropocentric views have lost sway and there are many competing views that make it hard to argue along this track)
This leaves just a couple of options (there may be more–let me know what I’m missing):
* Give up fishing
* Become proponents of catch and kill (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, “Yes, I kill all the fish I catch. Why don’t I have any with me right now? The fishing has been poor.” etc. etc.).
* Claim Christianity and that God gave man dominion over all other species (this is tough to pull off anymore)
* Stick with the anthropocentric view and say that you don’t care that you might cause fish pain (that’s my current ploy, but it will only work for so long)
Is this a “dismissive, poorly thought out response”? Yep, but it’s the truth. And the only one I’ve got. And it’s the shortest argument.
We do have a little wiggle room in the slippery-slope that gapes its jaws at those following the pain issue: where do we stop? By simply existing on this planet, how many species feel pain? Every time I walk, how many species feel pain? What types of one-celled organisms can I avoid harming? Which species feel pain and which don’t? Do spiders? Dogs? Fleas? Etc. etc. If you legislate for one, will you legislate for all?
I could go on and on with this. But I won’t right now. I still have all of my papers, etc. from when we talked last year. And I’d still like to do a real post on this some time or other.
I’ll have a look for the thesis but better than that I’ll post on something else in a couple of days that will probably vitiate the need to read this thesis.
I think you are right, the passionate will carry the day and if some organisation with a little more savvy than currently out there really gears up to attack angling it would be very difficult to counter them.
No Scott I know through our conversations that you are not in the dismissive camp but it would help if other anglers pulled themselves together and had a go at switching caps so they could try and argue from the other point of view. It is in fact very easy to make a strong argument. Much more difficult, just as you point out is to make a convincing one from our side.
Like you I don’t have an answer – but I am working on it. The more anglers discuss this properly rather than dismissing it the better.
“who even cares?” or “it’ll never happen” sound like good epitaphs.
her thesis consists of 4 papers. if you send me your email, i will send you the pdfs.
The issue of causing unnecessary harm/pain to fish has been avoided by the angling community since the inception of “Fish for Fun”, i.e., catch and release fishing, in the 1960′s. Generally, the ardent disciples of C&R wish to avoid any discussion of ethics as regards injuring/traumatizing the fish, while at the same time demanding the high moral ground for not killing the fish (deliberately killing, that is).
For some years a few anglers have warned that C&R will be the fulcrum used by animal rights groups to ban sport fishing. Fortunately, thus far only C&R has been the victim, not angling itself. For example, C&R is illegal in Germany, but catch & retain is not. It is the element of “necessary harm”. Pure C&R cannot pass the necessary harm test.
OTOH, certain established fishery management techniques are compatible with necessary harm. For example, size limits and bag limits. At one time in this country a fisherman released trout only because they were too small by law to keep, but otherwise kept his catch. To catch fish without intent to kill them was considered barbaric. In fact, salmon fishing had no language for “catching” a salmon, you “killed” a salmon. After we had sufficient fish for our needs or reached our limit, we left the river. No hundred fish days, no golf-score counters clipped to our belts.
Would it be so bad to return to angling, the blood sport, with real limits?
JMO, YMMV
Reed,
I appreciate you taking the time to leave a comment. “…the ardent disciples of C&R wish to avoid any discussion of ethics as regards injuring/traumatizing the fish, while at the same time demanding the high moral ground for not killing the fish…” That is a very good point–I hadn’t really thought of it that way before.
You’re absolutely right about C&R being the main point (for now). Most of the stuff I have read that is against the pain and/or cruelty usually don’t have a problem with catch and kill: they think killing is more humane than releasing.
A great point about the use of the word “kill”–you definitely see that in all of the older literature.
I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to see C&R banned but catch and kill reemphasized.
Whatever the outcome, burying our heads about the issue won’t make it go away.
Reed’s comments are very well made. It would be worth re-examining our attitudes to catch and kill I think.
Interesting that the discussion in the comments died a death, yet again, apart from the usual suspects. Hey ho.
I wrote the following many years ago in order to arouse interest in the motivation behind mandated C&R. Please delete this comment if you consider it too contentious. Thanks.
The Origins of Catch and Release
Americans began to enjoy more prosperity in the days following World War II, as cars, gasoline, and fishing tackle became readily available. With this came the impetus to wander from Eastern cities into the surrounding counties in pursuit of trout. Eisenhower’s new Interstate Highway system, and the improvement of other secondary roads, gave easy access to previously inaccessible streams. Soon, the 15-25 fish creel limit that the mountain streams had once managed to sustain proved far greater than the fishery could support under the added take of the “sports” from afar. Rather than reduce the creel limit, most Eastern states increased the hatchery coverage. The fisheries management practice of “Put and Take” was now in vogue.
However, some anglers were not content to catch the “pale, liver-fed hatchery trout”. In an attempt to get more hold-over fish, and perhaps return to natural propagation on some streams, the Anglers Club of New York was one of the first to propose “Limit your Catch, Don’t Catch your Limit”. Others followed suit, and gradually many of the New England State Fisheries departments reduced the daily bag limit to five trout per day. Conscientious anglers might leave the stream short of even this new limit, having taken only those two or three fish they would eat that day.
In the early sixties, one of the Eastern States conducted an experiment, declaring “Fish-For-Fun” sections on one heavily fished trout stream… all fish caught must be released. This attracted the attention of commercial interests; guides and fishing camp owners who saw monetary gain in recycling the same fish past numerous fishermen. The foremost of these was a former Madison Avenue commercial artist, turned Newfoundland fishing camp owner, named Lee Wulff. Knowing the ad trade, he marketed the phrase, and its variants, “A fish is too valuable to be caught only once”. The sport fishing industry rallied to his banner, for they recognized two important side effects of this campaign:
1/ If a fish could be “Caught and released without harm”, then persons who might not wish to kill fish could now become, without shame, genteel fisherpersons, swelling the ranks of potential customers.
2/ The avaricious and competitive nature of man could be sated by unlimited fishing. No more would a person have to stop at some state-mandated limit, but could go on to “100 fish days”. [One fishing writer, Arnold Gingrich, encouraged the use of golf score-counters, to record the days catch.]
Commercial interests, principally guiding services, fly shops, and Chambers-of-Commerce, began pressuring their State governments to set aside some of the best streams as “Catch and Release”; and then, since the fish were “being released unharmed”, to keep the streams open year-round. Thus we have the “management policy” of Catch and Release. This leaves us with the question: What, or rather who, has been managed?