FishProfiles.com Message Forums

when something is IRRITATING you, it is WAY different than pain.

enough said =p lol

^ good post

Angel Eel

There is no way somebody could convince me that a fish didn't feel pain if somebody were to inject it with a dye. How could it not hurt to be stabbed by a sharp needle? If a fish were to get one of it's fins ripped off, how could it not be in pain?

There's no way for me to prove that they do feel pain, but it's just really hard for me to imagine something not being able to.

oh rubbish I was just putting you in someone elses shoes,

hey look that albino cory looks cute Im gonna get my needle & dye it, it wont feel a thing

Fish can feel pain
How would you like it if a hook came ripping through your skin

I don't think I would enjoy a hook ripping through my skin... However, that is not really a valid argument as it does not give proof or much of a point. If your trying to convince someone of something, you really have to use facts.

-DJ :88)

Fish can feel pain

How would you like it if a hook came ripping through your skin

Rose's is only one of many opinions in this field. I also feel it significant to note that his research is sponsored by fisheries and aquafarmers. Possibly (not necessarily!, not surely, buy possibly) this could be a case similar to the sociologists whose results of their study on gun control can be predicted whether thier funding was from Smith and Wesson or from a liberal organization. Similarly, for the longest time, it was like 95% accurate to predict what the results of a global warming study were based on the ideology of the funding organization. This does not necessarily mean that his results were influenced or should be ignored, because they have been published in scientific peer-reviwed journals, so the work has been deemed to be valid by other researchers.

Next, I can find several articles also from peer reviewed scientific journals that showcase evidence against Rose:

Oidtmann B, and Hoffman RW. "Pain and suffering in fish" BERLINER UND MUNCHENER TIERARZTLICHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, vol 114, issue 7-8, jul-aug 2001. pages 277-282.

Here is the abstract of that article "The question on the capability of fish to feel pain and of suffering are still subject of discussion nowadays. In the article presented, the information available in the literature to date is summarised. based on this knowledge, the conclusion is drawn that fish are capable of feeling pain and that they are able to suffer in the sense of the word as used in the German animal welfare law."

Yue, Moccia and Duncan, Applied Animal Behavior Science 2004

From Yue et al. 2004:

Although the term ‘fear’ is used in everyday vernacular to describe the negative affect that
most animals are assumed to feel during, or in anticipation of, some frightening stimulus,
this term is more cautiously used today when referring to fish. This is partly due to the disbelief,
by some, that fish have the capability to experience conscious feelings. Rose (2002)
believes that conscious experiences like fear and pain are neurological impossibilities, due
to the lack of a neocortex in fish—the presumed place where consciousness dwells in higher
vertebrates. He therefore proposed that behavioural responses to noxious stimuli are separate
from psychological experiences (of fear for example)—behavioural responses to frightening
or aversive stimuli are merely reflexive responses and are not accompanied by a negative
feeling. Nonetheless, the term ‘fear’ has been widely used to describe fish behaviour for
some time (Pinckney, 1967; Gallon, 1972; Huntingford, 1990; Ledoux, 1990; Noakes and
Baylis, 1990). Others have put forth the idea that fish derive conscious experiences through
some mechanism other than the neocortically based consciousness of humans and other
highly evolved mammals (Verheijen and Flight, 1997). Recent anatomical, physiological,
neuropharmacological and behavioural data suggest that fish are likely to feel subjective
experiences, like fear, in much the same manner as tetrapods. A full review of
this evidence is beyond the scope of this paper, but briefly, the major argument lies in
the fact that the neuroanatomical structure and function between fish and higher vertebrates
are more similar than previously thought (Rakic and Kornack, 2001; Chandroo et al.,
2004).

Title: Can fish suffer?: perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress
Author(s): Chandroo KP, Duncan IJH, Moccia RD
Source: APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE 86 (3-4): 225-250 JUN 2004


It appears to me to be word choice. Rose choses to believe fish do not expereince pain and suffering, therefore they can't'. Chandroo et al. details a fair amount of evidence, and say that fish are more likely than not (to feel pain and suffering).

You cannot make a decision based on Rose's confident wording, and the more tentative wording of the other articles. In fact, because of the evidence of the other articles, isn't it fair to put Rose's confidence to question? How can he be so sure? If he has further definative evidence, why hasn't it been brought to light?
The more tentative word choices are because the answer is not definative, and they are basing their decisions on what they consider the best evidence they have at hand. New evidence may be just a single experiment away.



In conclusion, to me, there is significant evidence on both sides, and that further experimentation is probably needed to answer this question. It is a difficult question because the fish cannot just tell us how they feel, but we have to interpret the results. Nevertheless, I suspect an answer will be achieved someday. There are a few, not many but a few, people who argue that horses and dogs and cats do not feel pain, but the law uses many resources to protect them. Perhaps someday the same will be said for fish and many other pets.

Last edited by Bignose at 26-Mar-2005 23:29

Of course, it's easy for some people to dismiss the idea that things don't feel pain when they're not cute little furry things or things like ourselves. Sigh.

Look at it this way. You see a small fish getting a chunk bitten out of it by a bigger fish. The small fish writhes around and trembles. While its nervous system may have some differences from that of our own, who could not say that this fish is not experiencing its own version of excruciating agony? Just because the pain it feels differs from the pain we feel, doesn't make it any the less distressing for the fish. And, of course, fish have senses we don't, such as the lateral line. Which makes it acutely sensitive to pressure sensations. Which is why tapping on the glass is so distressing for a fish in an aquarium. When people tap on the glass at a dealer's I tell them this: to a fish, tapping on the glass has an effect equivalent to me tapping you on the head with a hammer. Now, you wouldn't like me to do that, would you? So, spare some thought for the fish.

Likewise, dragging a fish out of water on the end of a barbed hook is going to have a pretty serious effect upon its well-being. If hooked a child through the mouth with a big barbed hook and dragged it underwater, I'd go to prison. And quite right too. So why is it OK to do something similar to a fish?

I think it was Gandhi who said "you can judge how civilised a society is by how it treats its animals". I think he'd include fish in that statement somehow if he were still alive.

Last edited by Calilasseia at 26-Mar-2005 10:49

Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

Yes...compassion...something everyone should have but something not nearly enough people DO have (toward fish and/or other people/animals).

Yes, it's called compassion.

Whether they feel physical pain or not doesn't make a difference to me. They do show a mental ability to get stressed and their body is reacting to save itself. Isn't that enough to try to treat them as well as possible? Even if they can't feel pain I still would not put them in harmful conditions or leave them to linger on while dying. If someone can prove to me that they don't feel pain I'm still not going to treat them different or fillet them alive. Every animal deserves a certain amount of respect no matter what it is or how different it is from us.

Well, my contention is that if you have nerve receptors that can feel the need to itch, then they may feel other things. Afterall, when a white cloud nips my guppies tail, he sure flinches in a hurry. Maybe as it says above it is not pain as we know it, but it sure is uncomfortable.

I watched my uncle once fillet a fish without stunning it. He had removed both sides of the fish, didn't bleed him by cutting the gill arches, and threw what was left into the canal. I watched the fish respirate heavily in the crystal clear water as he lay there unable to move. I kept checking back every few minutes and only God knows how long that fish survived like that. As a 12 year old child, it horrified me, giving me nightmares for months. My uncle contended fish don't feel pain. Even today I wonder how much more compassionate it would have been to err on the side that it could feel pain and stun the fish.

The first time I seen my dad fillet a fish its exactly what he did. He put a rag over the fishes eye, then gave it a real good whack in the head loud enough to make a cracking sound. Then he filleted it. I believe it was my dad who instilled compassion in me by emphasising such things.

Last edited by Cory_Di at 25-Mar-2005 08:47

I couldn't help thinking the other day how experts are so certain that fish don't feel pain.

How is it that they feel itchy when they have parasites or when the pH changes, or there is nitrites, or even when some chemicals or ferts are added, yet don't feel pain.

I think I've convinced myself that more than likely, they do feel pain. It takes nerves to feel an itch, therefore those same nerves must allow pain, no?

So what I get from it is that they may not feel pain the way we do.

Interesting reads on farm fishing and angling.

DO FISH FEEL PAIN?

This is not an easy question to answer. Reasonable arguments have been made both to support and refute the claim that fish are capable of sensing and experiencing pain. Summaries of two such arguments follow.
The Case Against the Experience of Pain in the Fish

James Rose of the University of Wyoming has put forth a strong argument for the inability of fish to experience pain that relies on analogy between human and fish neuroanatomy. Rose emphasizes the distinction between reaction to injury and psychological experience of pain and emphasizes that the existence of the former does not evince the existence of the latter. Indeed, human experiments have proven that pain is experienced in the brain and that sensation of and reaction to noxious, or potentially harmful, stimuli can occur without the experience of pain. The concept of nociception makes this possible.



Nociception:

The term nociception refers to the detection of noxious stimuli by the nervous system. The peripheral nervous receptors we call nociceptors sense stimuli and report to the central nervous system where motor responses are initiated and the sensation of pain is perceived. Some fish species certainly do have nociceptive neurones analogous to those found in the human (see Neuro-physiology of Pain in Fish). However, this means only that these animals are capable of sensing noxious stimuli; it provides no evidence for the psychological experience of pain.



Pain Related Chemicals:

Teleost nervous systems also produce opiate-related compounds and proteins similar to the GABA/benzodiazepen receptors that play a role in the sensation of human pain. However, these compounds are not exclusively related to pain in humans and may play other roles in the physiology of fish. For greater evidence of the psychological experience of pain it seems appropriate to examine the brain.



The Brain:

According to Bermond (1997) the highly developed neocortex of the human cerebral hemispheres is responsible for our ability to experience emotions and sensations such as pain. The existence of this feature in the fish brain would strengthen an argument for the ability of fish to experience pain. However, the fish brain is dominated by brainstem components and features very primitive cerebral hemispheres that lack neocortex. Humans require this neocortex for basic sensory functions as it is thought to be responsible for interpreting the sensory information received and processed by our brainstem and spinal cord. In fish, a higher level of cortical sensory interpretation appears nonexistent, since fish behaviour is unaffected by cortical damage. For example, cortical damage in a human may cause blindness whereas the complete removal of a fish’s cerebral hemispheres causes no apparent change in sensory-dependant behaviour.

If we assume, as Rose and Bermond do, that the neocortex is necessary for pain sensation, then we must admit that sensation of pain in any animal lacking an analogous structure is unlikely. Fish would therefore lack the neurological capability to experience the negative psychological sensation of pain.

[Figure 1. Comparison of human brain with a trout brain. A. Diagram of a midline view of the human brain. The cerebral hemisphere is shaded in darker gray and the brainstem is in lighter gray. B. Diagram of a midline view of a rainbow trout brain. The cerebral hemisphere (darker gray) is very small relative to the size of the brainstem (lighter gray). The white region at the left of the cerebral hemisphere is the olfactory bulb, which processes odor information. The olfactory bulb of a trout and many other fishes is large compared to the size of the brain as a whole, but the olfactory bulb in humans is relatively small. C. Diagram of the brain of a 12 inch rainbow trout shown at the same scale as the human brain diagram.]



[Figure 2. The diagram below shows the basic regions of the human central nervous system, the large cerebral hemispheres, the brainstem and the spinal cord.]



The Case Against the Experience of Pain in the Fish:

How convincing is the argument as stated above? Is the lack of certain so-called higher brain structures evidence enough to deny that fish feel pain? The following argument may refute such a claim quite effectively.



Accessing Subjective Experience:

It cannot be denied that psychological states are entirely private experiences. This fact alone requires us to make inferences about subjective experiences of non-humans in one of two manners:

by analogy between the behaviours and physiological states of humans and of animals
by making the case that the existence of a subjective state is evolutionarily significant and a precondition for the species’ evolution


Argument by Analogy:

The first method is employed routinely by animal welfare scientists when assessing the experience of mammals and birds and has even been used to argue convincingly for the capacity of invertebrates to suffer (Sherwin 2001). In the argument outlined above, Rose makes a case by analogy to cast doubt upon pain sensation in fish by showing that fish neuroanatomy is sufficiently different from that of humans. The behavioural evidence provided on this site (kk) is similar to that used to explain painful experiences of mammals and birds and even human infants in other research (Dubner & Ren 1999, Sanford et al 1986, Anand &
Craig 1996). If we use such indicators to describe pain in so-called higher vertebrates, then why not use them to describe pain in fish?



Argument by Evolutionary Necessity:

The second method is used quite eloquently by Dawkins when she says:

Pain evolved because, by being unpleasant, it keeps us away from the larger evolutionary disaster of death. Pain is part of a mechanism for helping us to avoid immediate sources of injury, and also to refrain from repeating actions that have resulted in damage (1998).
This argument is highly persuasive. Clearly any animal could not be successful unless it featured both a mechanism for detecting potentially harmful stimuli and a kind of negative or unpleasant psychological or subjective state or experience with which it could associate such stimuli. Fish, it appears, may have remarkably different systems of nociception and brain function from mammals and therefore may not experience the precise sensation of pain that humans do but this does not mean that fish are incapable of experiencing a negative psychological state analogous to human pain in response to noxious stimuli.

This reasoning is undoubtedly compelling. Though what is quite apparent from both of the arguments outlined above is that our current body of knowledge about the neuro-physiology of fish is inadequate for either argument to be entirely convincing. Therefore it is particularly relevant in this case to remember that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (Sherwin, 2001). We must remain open-minded and recognize that our ability to answer the question "do fish feel pain?" with confidence is limited by the constraints of our own perception.

From http://www.vet.ed.ac.uk/animalwelfare/Fish%20pain/Pain.htm.

The human concept of "pain" has deepset psychological associations that are not necessarily applicable to fish. Does this justify disregard for the individual welfare of fish? Assuredly not.

Another article:

"Do Fish Feel Pain?".

Last edited by Veneer at 24-Mar-2005 19:52

Its funny how people can assume things about other people or creatures with regards to pain, hunger, thirst etc.

When I was born, I was born with a tumor above one of my eyes. IT was growing out and in. 9 out of 10 were malignant the doctor told my mother. They also told my mother that I wouldn't feel any pain. Back in 1962, doctors actually felt babies didn't feel the kind of pain adults do. Now we look at how silly that is and pain management for babies is more studied.

It just seems arrogant to assume that a brain would work identical in one species as another. While a fish may lack parts of the brain that we have, who is to say that another part of the fish brain did not evolve to feel pain?

Remember the gorilla who lost its mother violently by poachers then communicated it all to researchers after it was taught sign language? The animal was still emotional about it 9 years later when recounting the incident. His mother slaughtered in front of him. Yet, experts had felt that such animals couldn' tdo these things prior to that because their brains were different. Guess what - they were wrong.

I don't know if it is the compassionate female in me that is not even comfortable seeing my fish experience stress let alone pain.

Last edited by Cory_Di at 24-Mar-2005 19:33

Er ... actually I've just read some articles about how scientists have proved fish do feel pain. I don't think they've been sure they don't for a while, now.

-Molly
Visit shelldwellers.com!

What veneer is saying is that those habits are basic reactions by the body to stay alive. The animal doesn't actually feel pain it just reacts because it has learned it needs to in order to stay healthy/alive. Even with no ability to feel pain the frogs legs still reacted to remove something that could cause it damage. Whether I agree or not I don't know. We don't really have the ability to truly measure whether those types of animals can or cannot feel things. It's all somewhat a guess. They do however get stressed out when faced with something that could harm them and fish/frogs can panic. That's not just a physiological reaction.

I still see them itch...and still see them stress, still see them flinch when they get hurt, see them hide when there scared, I'm sure they feel pain or else they would have devolped these habits

IMO anyways...
Angel Eel

A cautionary note re "scratching" in fish:

In the course of Galvani's experimentation with 'animal magnetism', he discovered that, if one were to run a mild electric current through the back portion of a longitudinally bisected (with a cut perpendicular to the orientation of the spine) - and very much dead - frog, it would wipe off a drop of acid deposited on its back with a hind leg, just as it would if alive.

How much analogous piscine behavior is comprised of autonomous environmental reactions independent of "pain" (more specifically, the psychological associations that characterize "human" pain)?

Last edited by Veneer at 24-Mar-2005 13:20