The practice of catch-and-release seems to be a commandment, not to be violated. When scientists or environmentalists or even widely admired writers on the sport politely suggest that it sometimes makes sense to keep and eat what is hooked, the reaction can be indignant.

Why is that? What if nature might be better off if we eat fish that are invasive species, for example? Does research show whether fish feel pain?

Read the comments left after each of the six panelists make their point. It is telling to see how “regular” people stand on the issues.

Maybe this will jump start more serious discussion on fish and pain? We’ll see.

Leave a thoughtful comment to this post addressing one of the following issues:

1. Do fish suffer when they are caught using typical fly fishing techniques? (you’ll have to supply your own definition of “suffer”)
2. What type of person would be interested in a book with this title?
3. Is the typical fly fisher cruel? (you’ll have to supply your own definition of “cruel”)

In your comment, please number it 1, 2 or 3 based on which of these three topics you are addressing.

I will draw a lucky winner on Friday, May 14.

Please supply a valid email so I can contact you and get your snail mail address if you are the winner.

There are a lot of imponderables in the annals of angling. You, I’m sure, have attempted to ponder many of them. One of the interesting aspects of fly fishing for this angler, is the cerebral aspect. There are so many variables at work when fishing, it’s a wonder we catch anything.

Have you ever had a particular question about fish behavior that science might be able to answer? How would you like to design your own experiment to answer your burning question? If only there was funding for such unimportant things as angling questions. Well, there just might be!

Eccles (of Turning Over Small Stones fame) said the following:

In the last month or so I have had a few conversations with fish biologists, proper ecologist, evolutionary biologist, physiologist type people. In the banter about this and that a question was asked by one of them which took me back a little.

“What experiments would you like to see done?”

“Eh?” [that was Eccles' reply]

“Well there are some students who are keen to run things and we could possibly rustle up a bit of seed funding if there is some academic rigour attached. The facilities are there so what would you do?”

Eccles is graciously passing on the opportunity to you, the inquisitive angler. Get over to his site, read the post, then answer his two questions. Pretty simple.

I have a quest. The quest involves answering several related questions. I won’t list them all, but the following two questions should give an idea as to the basic gist of them:

• Do fish suffer when they are caught using standard fly fishing techniques?
• Is angling cruel?

I have explored these types of questions in at least four posts on my blog (see links to them at the bottom of this post). And, frankly, I’ve been a bit disappointed at the lack of response. It seems like it is a topic that fly anglers do not want to discuss. I guess I can’t really blame them, who wants to think about their possible cruelty?

Over the years, the discussion has usually hinged on the aspect of whether or not fish feel pain. Various experiments have been carried out, and, depending on where one stands on the issue, various conclusions have been reached. One thing everyone seems to agree on is that “we” are right and “they” are wrong.

Which perfectly illustrates how the issue has been exacerbated through an “Us” versus “Them” mentality. Much of the writing produced in the debate has come from a person who is passionate about one side or the other, typically either someone from the angling community or someone from an animal rights group.

This is as good as spot as any to address two important, and quite different, terms: animal rights and animal welfare. Many groups espousing animal rights believe that animals have equal rights with humans (and in some extreme cases, an animal’s “rights” trump a human’s). The most well known group in favor of animal rights is PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Animal welfare advocates believe that animals can have benefits to humans, but that the animal should be treated as humanely as possible, give the situation. One of the biggest groups supporting animal welfare is AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association). These two groups are often at odds with each other.

Many anglers hear the words “animal welfare” and mistakenly think “animal rights” and begin bashing the views of those speaking on behalf of the welfare of animals. In a research paper from 2007 titled “Animal welfare perspectives on recreational angling” by Steven J. Cooke and Lynne U. Sneddon, they state that “informed anglers and fisheries managers can adopt practices to improve the welfare of angled fish.” They do not advocate the eradication of catch and release, but rather suggest that certain methods be observed to reduce potential pain and suffering. Many animal welfare groups are not against recreational angling.

One of the things most often missing in the debate is clear (to the lay person), reasoned (data, not emotion) and unbiased information concerning the issue. Enter Dr. Braithwaite and her book, Do Fish Feel Pain?

To illustrate a point made above, this is from the first paragraph of the preface, in which Braithwaite describes reactions from an Op-Ed piece she published in the Los Angeles Times regarding fish pain:

After the article appeared, the newspaper and I received letters and emails. These were of two sorts. Some told me that I was persecuting anglers by spreading untruths and myths—wasn’t it clear to everyone that fish don’t feel pain? But the others wanted to know why I bothered to investigate the question—wasn’t it clear to everyone that fish do feel pain?

This is an interesting reaction, in which it is clear to pretty much everyone, except for those who are most worried about the potential for scientific results to change their recreational lifestyle, that fish feel pain.

But that wasn’t her point. Rather than tell you about her point, I’ll let her speak for herself.

I had a certain amount of sympathy with both camps. I could identify with those who believed I was threatening the angling community. That was not my intention, but there had been a great deal of inaccurate information written about research on pain in fish so it was understandable that some people were being defensive. On the other hand, how were the others to know that no scientific analysis of even the basics of fish pain had been conducted before the turn of this century?

Those polarized reactions, which also played out on various websites, prompted me to wonder whether there was need for a fuller account of the science behind the fish pain debate. The result is this book.

My goal in writing this book has been to provide the background to promote informed discussion. Like other animal welfare debates, constructively arguing about fish welfare requires that we understand the issues, that we review evidence and discuss this appropriately. In the book, I examine what we know so far about pain in fish, and whether it is meaningful to discuss fish welfare at all. After reading this book, I hope you will be in a position to make up your own mind. I have no axe to grind—I choose to eat fish and I experiment on them, but while I have been fishing in the past, I am not an active angler though I have many friends and colleagues who are.

This is a difficult topic to cover, and one that will take great skill to do it justice. Having spent much time on my own reading, and trying to write, about the topic, I know that it is more than just the science behind pain. There are at least three branches of inquiry involved when tackling the topic: science, psychology and philosophy. Braithwaite also realizes this when she says, “As the book began to take shape, it became clear that the fish pain debate probes questions about science, welfare and ethics.”

I am looking forward to the continued reading, exploring and writing about this new book. From what I have read so far (the preface and chapter 1), I believe Dr. Braithwaite when she says she has no axe to grind. I believe this book could be a great asset to the serious inquirer.

I will probably post updates for each chapter or two (there are seven chapters in the book, containing 184 pages).

The book is published by Oxford University Press. The bulletin from Oxford Press says it’s available May 20. However, Amazon is selling copies (I don’t know if they are shipping yet).

Full disclosure: I received a free review copy, although I do not know the author and am in no way affiliated with Oxford University Press or any of its designees.

http://scarles.org/blog/cutthroat-stalker/1173/fish-pain-here-we-go-again/
http://scarles.org/blog/cutthroat-stalker/1186/hooking-things-survey/
http://scarles.org/blog/cutthroat-stalker/1246/css-double-dog-dare-why-not-birdermen/
http://scarles.org/blog/cutthroat-stalker/2120/gotta-again/

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):

1. Is the proverbial noose slowly tightening around anglers’ collective necks, or is this just so much hokum?
2. Anybody ready to wuss out yet and hang up the rod for good?
3. 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.

Climate Change and Other Stresses Expected to Affect Entire Populations of Fish

“Entire populations of North American fish already  are being affected by several emerging diseases, a problem that threatens to increase in  the future with climate change and other stresses on aquatic  ecosystems, according to a noted U.S. Geological Survey researcher giving an invited talk on this subject today at the Wildlife Disease Association conference in Blaine, Wash.”