Stay away from our kids!

[reelin 2]

Very Interesting topic! Firstly though PETA a good example of good intentions at the start skewed right out of animal welfare into over the top activism gone wrong!Obviously im not a scientist but i believe fish feel something, whether it can be interpreted into pain as humans feel it or something different is well beyond me, but i dont believe they experience trauma associated with pain as humans do.thats my opinion its not an educated opinion but based on observation of fish and also some of the listed reading material that Ranger supplied. It would be interesting to hear others opinions on this

[kon 300]

Wonder how many activists in organisations such as PETA also subscribe to the philosophy of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movementhttp://www.vhemt.org/ The biggest irony of this huggy-fluff approach being that the very languages most relevant to this cause seem to be conspicuously absent from the language options on the site home page!Western/developed world "enlightened" planet-saving ideology at its finest... :whistle:

[Ranger 48]

Of course fish feel pain! They are a vertebrate species with a spinal chord' date=' nerve endings and respond to stimuli and all that.[/b'] I think the initial study mentioned is saying that fish brains aren't developed enough to experience the emotional stress and trauma that higher animals like mammals (including us)experience when we are hurt.

EXACTLY!!!!!!Whether they feel pain is obvious.....TB

TB, you are really starting to confuse me! Maybe we can clear this up!You started this thread, claiming you will send the report from Dr Rose to PETA to show them the truth, as they are not big on facts!The report clearly states fish CANNOT feel pain, and here is that truth you claim, directly from the summary and conclusions of that report, which you will be sending PETA:

The fundamental neural requirements for pain and suffering are now known. Fishes lack the most important of these required neural structures, and they have no alternative neural systems for producing the pain experience. Therefore, the reactions of fishes to noxious stimuli are nociceptive and without conscious awareness of pain.

Clearly stated, fish have NO conscious awareness of pain, and they lack the structures for conscious awareness of pain, and the author couldn't have made that clearer..........The truth as you see it!You also fail to make mention of all the contrary research, which also clearly states fish CAN feel pain, and which I have since pointed out and also provided reference to.Yet when pussy-willow states "of course fish feel pain" you quote her, and your response to her is complete agreement!

EXACTLY!!!!!!Whether they feel pain is obvious.....

Which side of the fence are you standing on here, and why do you now seem to agree with both camps? To take things a little further!In another thread you clearly condemn ALL researchers, and have done your best to convince me they are all crooked and corrupt, and have been since the age of dinosaurs (in your own words) now serving their own masters for the dollars and stating "it's all about the money". There was mention of cherry picking, wordsmithing, etc, etc. I can quote that discussion for clarification if needed to jog your memory, but here's a fgew things you have to say about them:

he tells me of the 'selective' scrutiny that transpires within the peer review brigade these days. Play down the C02 threats or marine threats and loose your conservation/industry based funding forever.........do you seriously think that these groups are not capable of influencing a scientists findings?....you would never here it from any scientist in this country who seeks further funding.It's all about money dude...Science is out of control and love drunk on whoever provides the cash.

Yet here you are yourself, now quoting the paper of a researcher, claiming it to be the truth. Why isn't this also corrupt, along with all other researchers who serve their masters for dollar, if using your own logic and statements? Surely stating fish cannot feel pain is playing down the threat? Who is influencing this scientist? He must want further funding, so why isnt he keeping his mouth shut? Who's providing the cash in this instance? Is this a further example of science out of control and love drunk?I've seen thread after thread you've now started, all similar, and here are but a few of them:Greenpeace get our money againTourists the biggest loosers?Stay away from our kids!Marine parks and the media?Money for jam!And the consultation rort continues....These threads all appear to be about some group, some agenda, some cost, some form of corruption, unfairness, or someone trying to pull the wool over our eyes, deceive us, control us, suppress us or extort us.There's climate change, global warming, geothermal technology, desalination, water levels in catchments, CO2 levels in water, greenpeace, researchers, marine parks, politicians, doctors, professors, dolphin research, published articles, news reports, research papers, Tim Flannery, Warren Beattie, Greg Combet, Gillard Government, Paul Caica, Andrew Bolt, and many many other issues you have raised, all in a negative light, all with some form corruption, agenda or adversity.I may be totally misinterpreting things, and you may be nothing but a concerned and interested fisher, but from reading all your posted threads, it's beginning to seem if you wear a hat, have a qualification, do a job, specialise in an area, if it's environmental, scientific, technical, animal based, climate related, mentions water, is put out by the government, the media, a qualified professional, a university, or the tax office, then you have found a problem with it to tell us about how it's all wrong and deceitful. You seem to condemn anything which doesn't agree with your stance, but also cherry pick yourself anything which suits your ends (this report by Dr Rose as a prime example). This is the same behaviour you yourself condemned in another thread.I'm really starting to wonder if you yourself have some political agenda to push, as you openly condemn research as corrupt and a waste of money, but then also quote research and point it out for your own ends. Please convince me that I'm wrong, and merely confused about all of this!Are you actually here to discuss fishing and to network with other recreational fishermen, or is your participation here based on some other ends, agenda or affiliation? Do you have a barrow to push yourself, a political affiliation, a seat on an association, group or body related to recreational fishing, tourism or the environment and it's resources?Merely a question to clear up my complete confusion in regards to your posts, so dont take it as anything more.

[Pussy_Willow 0]

Fish feel pain they possess the nerve endings which send impulses to their brain which they sense. The more damaging the stimuli the more frequent the impulses to the brain are and the more unpleasant it is for the fish. This pathway is not an untested theory it is how it actually works. Fish can see they have eyes, fish can smell they have noses, fish can feel pain they have a central nervous system with a sense of touch. What is in qusetion is do fish process this pain stimulus intellectually and emotionally in the same way as higher organisms (like humans) do? Given their small brains and what limited and conflicting studies have been conducted probably not.I don't gut fish live, impale a tommie onto a squid jig live, throw noxious carp onto the campfire or play cricket with them and leave fish to suffocate in a dry bucket all because it would cause them pain as registered through their nervous system, their interface with the world around them.If for some warped reason I did and the fish happened to survive, the fish would not cry, develop PTSD, develop antisocial or violent behaviour or be emotionally tormented by the mere memory of its experience unlike people, dogs, apes and elephants.on a different note cockroaches do have a nervous system, quite primitive and relatively decentrallised but a nervous system none the less.a more interesting question (but rather pointless) is do jellyfish and corals (both animals)feel pain? they have no nervous system!

[Ranger 48]

Dr Rose's report:

This review examines the neurobehavioral nature of fishes and addresses thequestion of whether fishes are capable of experiencing pain and suffering.The cerebral hemispheres of fishes have only a more simple type of cortex that lacks the structural complexity, massive interconnectivity, and spatial extent of neocortex, the cortex necessary for pain experience. There is no alternate neural system that could provide another, functionally comparable, mechanism for pain experience in fishes.Whether fishes do or do not feel pain as we know, they most definitely suffer from stressThe fundamental neural requirements for pain and suffering are now known. Fishes lack the most important of these required neural structures, and they have no alternative neural systems for producing the pain experience. Therefore, the reactions of fishes to noxious stimuli are nociceptive and without conscious awareness of pain.

Dr Nordgren:

studied the response to potentially painful stimuli in groups of cells and at the individual. As consciousness is essential to feel pain

Dr Victoria Braithwaite:

'Do Fish Feel Pain?', Victoria Braithwaite argues that fishes are more intelligent than previously thought and have structures in the brain that allow them to feel pain.

Dr Lynne Sneddon:

concluded that fishes do feel pain

There are many more I could quote, but this is enough to make it pretty clear.They don't all bandy words around or all use the wrong word, so I think they ALL make it pretty clear, that the issue is NOT whether they can process it intellectually and emotionally as higher creatures can. They are discussing the physical "feeling" and "pain experience" and the presence or absence of the structures required in the brain (cortex, neocortex, neural systems) to be able to feel/experience pain.The Australian Museums stance:

The question of whether fishes feel pain can elicit very emotional responses from some people. Looking at a hooked fish or a fish asphyxiating in a drying stream, one cannot help but attribute human feelings of pain and suffering to the fish. But do fishes really feel pain?The jury is still out! Different researchers have come to different conclusions.

It is proven that fish suffer stress. It is proven fish respond to external stimuli. It is proven that fish have a spinal cord, nociceptors and brain. Everyone agrees on these issues.What is NOT yet agreed, is whether they have all the physical structures in that more primitive brain (cortex, neocortex, neural connections) to feel pain. Not to interpret it intellectually or emotionally, but to actually "feel" it.I always used to think fish and every other animal on the planet could feel pain, and had no reason to ever think twice about it. Dr Rose's findings ARE receiving growing support though, and when even our best Australian ichthyologists can no longer come to any firm conclussions, how can a mere mortal like me, with virtually no knowledge on the subject, stand up and say "of course they can feel pain" or decide what the worlds leading experts cant?

[Pussy_Willow 0]

This review examines the neurobehavioral nature of fishes and addresses thequestion of whether fishes are capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

Pain and suffering could be defined as 2 completely different experiences. Maybe thats why there is debate because there isn't a precise definition of pain. I would describe pain as the sensation perceived through the nervous system due to irritating or injurous stimuli. I would describe suffering as the mental/emotional torment resulting from such pain.Proposed experiment:Hypothesis: Fish feel pain.Method: Have 2 electric hotplates covered with bottomless soup pots the base of which entirely comprises of the hotplate. Keep one off as the control and keep one on as the treatment. Put a healthy live fish in each and measure the duration and intensity of the physical response. Use replicates and do this mulitple times with the same fish species.Predicted result: The fish put on the hot hotplate reacted more violently than the control.Predicted discussion: Fish feel pain. They may not feel it exactly like we do but they feel it.

[afishyfish 4]

This review examines the neurobehavioral nature of fishes and addresses thequestion of whether fishes are capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

Pain and suffering could be defined as 2 completely different experiences. Maybe thats why there is debate because there isn't a precise definition of pain. I would describe pain as the sensation perceived through the nervous system due to irritating or injurous stimuli. I would describe suffering as the mental/emotional torment resulting from such pain.Proposed experiment:Hypothesis: Fish feel pain.Method: Have 2 electric hotplates covered with bottomless soup pots the base of which entirely comprises of the hotplate. Keep one off as the control and keep one on as the treatment. Put a healthy live fish in each and measure the duration and intensity of the physical response. Use replicates and do this mulitple times with the same fish species.Predicted result: The fish put on the hot hotplate reacted more violently than the control.Predicted discussion: Fish feel pain. They may not feel it exactly like we do but they feel it.

Sounds good in theory PW, but I cant see that one geting passed by any Ethics Committee !

[Ranger 48]

But it has been proven that fish DO respond to external stimuli, so if the water was heated they most certainly WILL exhibit a response to this whether they feel pain or not, and I feel pretty certain all these doctors would have considered this little experiment, an experiment which has already been seen many many times by people immersing live shellfish (crabs, crayfish, yabbies, etc) into hot water for cooking.http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4723Medical Definition:

Pain: An unpleasant sensation that can range from mild, localized discomfort to agony. Pain has both physical and emotional components. The physical part of pain results from nerve stimulation. Pain may be contained to a discrete area, as in an injury, or it can be more diffuse, as in disorders like fibromyalgia. Pain is mediated by specific nerve fibers that carry the pain impulses to the brain where their conscious appreciation may be modified by many factors. The word "pain" comes from the Latin "poena" meaning a fine, a penalty

Of course the brain must also have the required "structures" to experience the physical ponent. As for the "emotional" ponent, well, maybe we need to determine the physical bit first, before wondering how emotional fish can get.I'm sure we will continue to disagree on this one...........such is life, and we are each entitled to our views.

[Ranger 48]

Sounds good in theory PW' date=' but I cant see that one geting passed by any Ethics Committee ![/quote']You have a point there, but injecting bee venom into their lips got past ok! I've had a bit to do with this stuff, as I studied to become an animal tech, and I've got a little piece of paper that says I know what I'm doing now.. For those who dont know, an animal tech is involved in the day to day care, husbandry, monitoring and sampling (blood, tissue, faeces, urine, etc) of animals used for research and study purposes. An ethics committee uses the rule of 3 "r"s when considering proposals:Relace - Replace animals entirely as test subjects wherever possible.Refine - Refine the experimentation to minimise pain and suffering.Reduce - Reduce the number of animals used in experimentation.It's hard to replace animals when you are studying animal anatomy and physiology.It's also hard to minimise pain in a study of pain.A study can also be prematurely ended at any time should it be found to create undue pain and/or suffering.Of course without these studies we would not have vaccines, surgery, or any advances in medicine. Every single medical procedure ever performed must first be tested on animals prior to humans.....that is the law!We could not eat meat without fear of what dangerous little organism we are also injesting, and we could not handle pets or animals without risk of catching something from them. We would not be able advance our veterinary knowledge or take steps to actually HELP animals either. We couldn't operate on them, vaccinate them, or help rid them of disease. Start thinking about things like swine flu, avian influenza, mad cow disease, foot & mouth, bubonic plague, ebola virus, toxoplasmosis......the list is endless!This is why I could never agree with the ideals of groups such as PETA or animal liberationists.These days 95% of all research on animals is medical based, and 95% of animals used in research are mice and rats (yes, I spent a lot of time cleaning up mouse poo). This is far different to that which groups such as PETA would have you believe, where they will show old war footage of animals with electrodes in their brains, or cosmetics burning their eyes......this type of thing ceased many many years ago, but PETA still insist on bringing out old B&W footage from decades ago to prove their point and show the little suffering animals.Yes, some animals do experience pain during research. Yes, it isn't always nice! Steps are always taken to reduce or remove any unnecessary pain or suffering. The research is always for a worthy cause and animal research has saved countless millions of human lives, along with countless millions of animal lives!It's very difficult to have any animal experimentation approved at all, without a very worthy proposal, and then if we use TB's logic, the desired results and faith we put into the research will then depend on who's funding the work and/or whether these researchers are out of control and love drunk on whoever provides the cash.I am biased! I have studied this stuff, performed this stuff, and I am a firm believer in this stuff! I have faith in the science and the researchers! I still have a love of animals! I am a veterinary nurse, and I make my living caring for animals! I also eat meat and I hunt! I take pride in my ethical treatment of animals! I do not intentionally cause undue suffering to animals! I will not be dictated to or looked down upon by groups such as PETA! I have nothing to apologise for!

[kon 300]

PW

Predicted result: The fish put on the hot hotplate reacted more violently than the control.Predicted discussion: Fish feel pain. They may not feel it exactly like we do but they feel it.

With respect, the question still stands nonetheless - are we talking "pain" in an analogous sense to the way other more neurologically complex life forms (like us?) would feel it, or would the more violent reaction be merely a basic neural response to an adverse stimulus which generates an "instinctive"...for want of a better word...imperative to attempt to remove "oneself" from an unusual "physiological" perceived threat?Simplistically put;Hand - Flame - Ouch - Removeas opposed to Hand - Flame - Unusual - RemoveDo fish "feel"... "pain"? - possibly. Some may (even intuitively) say probably.But then the $64 question is - if so, to what extent and is it felt in the mammalian context such that this could then legitimately generate a discourse on pain=cruelty=ban fishing, etc...?Just a wee bit of scientific he said/she said on the matter to date, `tis all I`m saying...and the anthropomorphist proselytising from certain quarters, based on a firmly held ideological stance in the first instance, is not necessarily "helpful" to the debate.

[afishyfish 4]

injecting bee venom into their lips got past ok!

Such are the machintaions of that area ! :whistle:

and I've got a little piece of paper that says I know what I'm doing now.. an animal tech is involved in the day to day sampling faeces' date=' of animals [/quote']I hope u clean under your fingernails afterwards Ranger

An ethics committee uses the rule of 3 "r"s when considering proposals:Relace - Replace animals entirely as test subjects wherever possible.Refine - Refine the experimentation to minimise pain and suffering.Reduce - Reduce the number of animals used in experimentation.It's hard to replace animals when you are studying animal anatomy and physiology.It's also hard to minimise pain in a study of pain.

Definiteley an awkward catch 22 !, but try and explain that to a gung ho PETA member, and if it gives them a headache, refuse to offer them one of the many painkilling tablets/ drugs around due to, u guessed it, experimentation !

[Tacklebags 404]

Ranger, further to my response below to your other similar post....underneath I will explain again.....

Never said 'ALL' science and never said 'ALL' scientists. Never said science was 'corrupt' just cash dependent and influenced even at peer review level, especially these days. Ultimately we all have an agenda including myself, mine is to decifer the real motivation for the science and whether who funds it determine's it's conclusions. My experience in reading conservation science or marine science more hollistically leads me to believe that few findings are not favoured towards the funders agenda or the scientists ideals. Many today would agree that a lot science has been dumbed down to focus on a larger political hidden promotion rather than research that is truly in the best interests of everyone or living creature on planet Earth. Counting dolphins as science but promoting exclusion of any human contact with their local marine environment within the same report is not science but 'idealism' or 'advocacy' based on a bigger long term goal that is outside of the intent of science IMO. Especially when legislation is brought in to control the uncontrollable based on idealism that has plaqued science lately!Never said 'ALL' scientists are seeking 'conservation funding' either but plenty surrounding 'conservation' science are in it to consolidate their financial backing and will continue to 'cheery pick' data and select tests that have a predetermined result based on an agenda. Plenty of others see it similar as me on here? I will reframe my initial statement to 'large sections' of science have an agenda either based on funding and/or their own personal beliefs.I think kon summed it up better than me in the first instance and I am aware of my mistakes now thanks to yourself and my own thoughts post posting my initial statement in the other thread.Hope this clarify's your concern Ranger for my views on todays science?Science is all about sceptisism is it not? Or at least it used to be now many who challenge it are labelled sceptics? How ironic!Now it's more about the cash than ever IMO.TB

As for painting everyone in a negative light (not corrupt) and/or trying to convince you that these groups/people are, is not my intention. I feel it is important for recreational anglers to understand that there are many factors outside of fishing that are having a deleterous influence on the viability of recreational fishing's longevity in SA and more globally. Banning recreational fishing in any form based on the agendas, crimes and profits of every other sector of society upsets me and I am sure it upsets many others on this forum? On this point I find your stance upsetting as I am only fighting for the advocacy of our increasingly attacked activity? Despite your views on me....it's real and it's happening! I think fish feel pain at a lower level but agreed only with the specific statement I previously extracted from the report as a 'harsh reality'. I felt it was summed up well by 'pussywillow' in her post. Ultimately the view of whether fish feel pain in PETA's eyes are far different from some of the information even posted by yourself.It is how others portray rec fishers and advocate based on rubbish that requires a response from those on here that are being vilified perhaps without their knowledge? I hope that some on here appreciate my contribution thus far?Yes, I am passionate about rec fishing and more volatile than many in my views especially on exclusion. I believe eduction and inclusion to be the key to saving biodiversity not exclusion. As an administrator of this forum Ranger I will take your comments at face value and will perhaps focus on advocating against the ignorance of society regarding recreational fishing elsewhere!TB

[Ranger 48]

OK, so I'll take it from that reply that you ARE just a concerned and interested fisherman with NO political affiliation, NO seat on ANY association, group, body, or business, and NO agenda to push, other than a concerned citizens outrage at what he sees around him.That's all I wanted to know, and I wanted to know for the benefit of all members here......that's my job as an administrator on this forum (I get to look out for everyone, ensure the playing field is level, and the cards aren't stacked).....cant have someone with an obvious political agenda sneaking in here disguised as a fisherman to sway the troops with biased information now can we, or we wouldn't be doing our jobs here.Thanks for clearing that up, as I'm not the only one who was concerned. Sorry if my stance is upsetting.Our personal views on science and research may differ and probably always will! No biggie, no problem with that, we each get the floor to have a say and voice our thoughts!Back to corrupting the children!