jenbizagogo
04-29-2003, 10:56 PM
The Glasgow Herald, UK -
Scientists net evidence that fish feel pain
Findings may influence new legislation
JAMES FREEMAN
A THORNY issue that has divided animal rights activists and anglers for
years may have finally been answered after scientists said they had proof
fish could feel pain.
Researchers at Edinburgh University and the Roslin Institute in Midlothian,
where Dolly the sheep was created, said they had found evidence that fish
had feelings, including stress and pain in the form of "trout trauma".
The study, published today by the Royal Society, used rainbow trout and
found that the fish's head not only had nervous system receptors that
responded to damaging stimuli but that the animal also showed "profound
behavioural and physiological changes comparable to those observed in higher
mammals" when short-acting noxious substances were applied.
Neural activity was recorded in prepared, anaesthetised fish while
mechanical, thermal, and chemical stimuli were applied to the head.
But the scientists said the presence of these receptors was not enough proof
on its own, as the fish's change in behaviour could be a simple mechanical
reflex response.
So the researchers, Dr Lynne Sneddon, Dr Victoria Braithwaite, and Dr
Michael Gentle, also studied the behavioural response to stimuli.
Bee venom or acetic acid was injected in the lips of some fish, while others
were injected with saline solution or merely handled to form control groups.
"Anomalous behaviours were exhibited by trout subjected to bee venom and
acetic acid," said Dr Sneddon, who led the research at the Roslin Institute
and is now working at the University of Liverpool.
"Fish demonstrated 'rocking' motion, strikingly similar to the kind of
motion seen in stressed higher vertebrates like mammals, and the trout
injected with acetic acid were also observed to rub their lips on to the
gravel in their tank and on the tank walls. These do not appear to be reflex
responses."
Causing suffering
She added: "It is nothing like our experience of pain but if it is causing
suffering to animals it is important that we minimise that. My definition is
to say that the animal has the neuro-apparatus to experience pain and its
behaviour responses are impaired during the event and these are not simply
reflexes. That fulfils the criteria for animal pain."
Dr Braithwaite, an Edinburgh University research scientist, who admitted she
ate fish, said: "Given our increasing reliance on aquaculture to produce the
fish we consume it was clear there would be questions raised sooner or later
about what capacity fish have for pain perception.
"We first asked whether they had pain-perceiving pathways, then whether they
reacted to noxious stimuli and whether this resultant behaviour was negative
and abnormal. Our research has shown that you can tick all three boxes."
The angling fraternity had not been in the forefront of her thinking at the
outset, Dr Braithwaite said, but the paper was a starting point for a whole
new debate that would map out the welfare requirements of fish given that
they had a capacity for pain perception.
"I hope this will generate interest from the Scottish Executive, animal
welfare people, the UK government and anglers. We know there are plans to
introduce fish welfare legislation. This gives everyone a chance to get it
right from the start," Dr Braithwaite said.
The findings were welcomed by animal rights organisation Peta (People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals), but they said it was unfortunate that
fish had to suffer to show something that was obvious.
Dawn Carr, director of Peta (Europe), said: "It is certainly unfortunate
that these animals were made to suffer for this study, because we've been
saying for years that of course fish can suffer and feel pain.
"However, although we are not happy that the animals suffered for the study,
we hope that when people see these results, they will think twice about
going angling.
"Marine biologists and common sense tell us that if you trick a small animal
into impaling his or herself in the mouth, that animal is suffering."
The National Angling Alliance called the scientists' conclusions
"surprising".
A spokesman said: "These findings are in direct contrast to the recent work
of Professor James D Rose of the University of Wyoming, who stated in the
Reviews of Fisheries Science that fish do not possess the necessary and
specific regions of the brain to enable them to feel pain or fear."
Professor Rose wrote that reactions to injury were present in all forms of
animal life, but these did not mean that pain was experienced. Pain, he
said, was a psychological experience separated from "behavioural reactions
to injurious stimuli".
The case for
"People tend to think of fishing as a hobby, but it's not, it's a sport,"
said Bruce Sandison.
"With regard to whether fish feel pain, my understanding is that if they do,
it is of the lowest understandable, recognisable level so I don't feel too
bad about that.
"In any case, I go fishing to catch a fish, kill it, cook it, and eat it.
I'm not ashamed of that. People have been doing it for tens of thousands of
years.
"If I wasn't going to eat the fish, I wouldn't go fishing. I have no
interest in catching a fish and returning it to the water. For me it's
important the whole thing is complete.
"There have been several studies over the past 30 years addressing the issue
of whether fish feel pain, but I think it's a question of how you interpret
that.
"The studies I have read lead me to the conclusion that it is more likely
than not that fish do feel pain, but it is at an extraordinarily low level
and does not relate in any way to our understanding of the word.
"Anglers try to pretend in some way that fishing is not a blood sport, but
the bottom line is that it is. I fish, I catch, I kill, I eat, and that is
my whole rationale for going fishing."
Bruce Sandison is a writer, journalist, and angler from Sutherland who wrote
The Angler's Complete Guide and Rivers and Lochs of Scotland.
The case against
"While fishing may seem like fun to some people, it is important for us to
remember that on the other end of the line is a terrified animal struggling
for its life," said Dawn Carr.
"It is unfortunate that the animals used in this report were made to suffer,
but it points to what we have known for years - that fish suffer and feel
pain.
"For a long time now, anglers have been using the argument that fish can't
feel pain in a desperate attempt to justify their pastime, but these animals
are biting on hooks and being pulled out of their natural environments.
"How can that not cause pain?
"Even if the fish are released back into the water after being caught, we
know they are being forced to go through an unnecessarily cruel ordeal.
During that process, they are frightened and in pain.
"We also know that many fish which are thrown back do not survive as a
result of their injuries.
"Fish are not cute and cuddly and do not scream out in pain but they are
capable of fear and suffering. I certainly hope that when people are faced
with this reality, they would choose a different outdoor pursuit."
Dawn Carr is director of Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
Europe, part of the world's largest animal rights group.
Scientists net evidence that fish feel pain
Findings may influence new legislation
JAMES FREEMAN
A THORNY issue that has divided animal rights activists and anglers for
years may have finally been answered after scientists said they had proof
fish could feel pain.
Researchers at Edinburgh University and the Roslin Institute in Midlothian,
where Dolly the sheep was created, said they had found evidence that fish
had feelings, including stress and pain in the form of "trout trauma".
The study, published today by the Royal Society, used rainbow trout and
found that the fish's head not only had nervous system receptors that
responded to damaging stimuli but that the animal also showed "profound
behavioural and physiological changes comparable to those observed in higher
mammals" when short-acting noxious substances were applied.
Neural activity was recorded in prepared, anaesthetised fish while
mechanical, thermal, and chemical stimuli were applied to the head.
But the scientists said the presence of these receptors was not enough proof
on its own, as the fish's change in behaviour could be a simple mechanical
reflex response.
So the researchers, Dr Lynne Sneddon, Dr Victoria Braithwaite, and Dr
Michael Gentle, also studied the behavioural response to stimuli.
Bee venom or acetic acid was injected in the lips of some fish, while others
were injected with saline solution or merely handled to form control groups.
"Anomalous behaviours were exhibited by trout subjected to bee venom and
acetic acid," said Dr Sneddon, who led the research at the Roslin Institute
and is now working at the University of Liverpool.
"Fish demonstrated 'rocking' motion, strikingly similar to the kind of
motion seen in stressed higher vertebrates like mammals, and the trout
injected with acetic acid were also observed to rub their lips on to the
gravel in their tank and on the tank walls. These do not appear to be reflex
responses."
Causing suffering
She added: "It is nothing like our experience of pain but if it is causing
suffering to animals it is important that we minimise that. My definition is
to say that the animal has the neuro-apparatus to experience pain and its
behaviour responses are impaired during the event and these are not simply
reflexes. That fulfils the criteria for animal pain."
Dr Braithwaite, an Edinburgh University research scientist, who admitted she
ate fish, said: "Given our increasing reliance on aquaculture to produce the
fish we consume it was clear there would be questions raised sooner or later
about what capacity fish have for pain perception.
"We first asked whether they had pain-perceiving pathways, then whether they
reacted to noxious stimuli and whether this resultant behaviour was negative
and abnormal. Our research has shown that you can tick all three boxes."
The angling fraternity had not been in the forefront of her thinking at the
outset, Dr Braithwaite said, but the paper was a starting point for a whole
new debate that would map out the welfare requirements of fish given that
they had a capacity for pain perception.
"I hope this will generate interest from the Scottish Executive, animal
welfare people, the UK government and anglers. We know there are plans to
introduce fish welfare legislation. This gives everyone a chance to get it
right from the start," Dr Braithwaite said.
The findings were welcomed by animal rights organisation Peta (People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals), but they said it was unfortunate that
fish had to suffer to show something that was obvious.
Dawn Carr, director of Peta (Europe), said: "It is certainly unfortunate
that these animals were made to suffer for this study, because we've been
saying for years that of course fish can suffer and feel pain.
"However, although we are not happy that the animals suffered for the study,
we hope that when people see these results, they will think twice about
going angling.
"Marine biologists and common sense tell us that if you trick a small animal
into impaling his or herself in the mouth, that animal is suffering."
The National Angling Alliance called the scientists' conclusions
"surprising".
A spokesman said: "These findings are in direct contrast to the recent work
of Professor James D Rose of the University of Wyoming, who stated in the
Reviews of Fisheries Science that fish do not possess the necessary and
specific regions of the brain to enable them to feel pain or fear."
Professor Rose wrote that reactions to injury were present in all forms of
animal life, but these did not mean that pain was experienced. Pain, he
said, was a psychological experience separated from "behavioural reactions
to injurious stimuli".
The case for
"People tend to think of fishing as a hobby, but it's not, it's a sport,"
said Bruce Sandison.
"With regard to whether fish feel pain, my understanding is that if they do,
it is of the lowest understandable, recognisable level so I don't feel too
bad about that.
"In any case, I go fishing to catch a fish, kill it, cook it, and eat it.
I'm not ashamed of that. People have been doing it for tens of thousands of
years.
"If I wasn't going to eat the fish, I wouldn't go fishing. I have no
interest in catching a fish and returning it to the water. For me it's
important the whole thing is complete.
"There have been several studies over the past 30 years addressing the issue
of whether fish feel pain, but I think it's a question of how you interpret
that.
"The studies I have read lead me to the conclusion that it is more likely
than not that fish do feel pain, but it is at an extraordinarily low level
and does not relate in any way to our understanding of the word.
"Anglers try to pretend in some way that fishing is not a blood sport, but
the bottom line is that it is. I fish, I catch, I kill, I eat, and that is
my whole rationale for going fishing."
Bruce Sandison is a writer, journalist, and angler from Sutherland who wrote
The Angler's Complete Guide and Rivers and Lochs of Scotland.
The case against
"While fishing may seem like fun to some people, it is important for us to
remember that on the other end of the line is a terrified animal struggling
for its life," said Dawn Carr.
"It is unfortunate that the animals used in this report were made to suffer,
but it points to what we have known for years - that fish suffer and feel
pain.
"For a long time now, anglers have been using the argument that fish can't
feel pain in a desperate attempt to justify their pastime, but these animals
are biting on hooks and being pulled out of their natural environments.
"How can that not cause pain?
"Even if the fish are released back into the water after being caught, we
know they are being forced to go through an unnecessarily cruel ordeal.
During that process, they are frightened and in pain.
"We also know that many fish which are thrown back do not survive as a
result of their injuries.
"Fish are not cute and cuddly and do not scream out in pain but they are
capable of fear and suffering. I certainly hope that when people are faced
with this reality, they would choose a different outdoor pursuit."
Dawn Carr is director of Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
Europe, part of the world's largest animal rights group.