Anti-fishing...?

[Snake9t9]

They exist...check out this B.S. www.nofishing.net
Next we'll go from gun reg. to pole prepurchase background checks and reg.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Snake9t9 ]

[happybrew]

Jenny pointed out a while back that visiting this site counts as a hit, which they take as support for their cause. Don't visit it!

happybrew

[happybrew]

I'm not an authority on the subject, but it seems to me that experiencing pain requires a level of self-consciousness that fish don't have. It's not merely the firing of neurons. It requires a reflection on one's experience. Can your dog feel pain? I'm sure of it. Do ant's feel pain? No. I don't think fish do either. They act on instinct, without the ability to reason. Heck, in my college physiology class a long time ago, we took frog muscles, disconnected from the frog, and jolted them with electricity to make them twitch, in order to study neurons. Were the neurons firing? Yeah. Was there any experience on the part of the frog? No. Same thing with fish. While they are beautiful creatures, they act on instinct, without any the ability to reflect on their experiences or reason from them. Thus, they don't feel pain. The simple firing of neurons when the fish is hooked cannot be equated in any way with an experience of pain as we would experience it. It's a fight or flight response, that's all. The animal rights activists are anthropomorphizing fish, giving them human attributes that they do not have.

happybrew

[STGRule]

Having worked with sturgeon research for the past 12 years I have to say that fish DO feel pain. We measure and tag 2 to 3 thousand a year. On oversized fish we do surgery to identify gender and determine stage of gonadal development. I almost never had a fish move or flinch when doing the surgery but, we also take a small section of pectoral fin ray for ageing. They do NOT like that. I am guessing that pain receptors are less on the ventral side of the fish as they lay on the bottom most of the time. And that they have many more on the pec fins and face as they have to avoid situations that would be detrimental to them. If you bump it and it hurts, go a different way. Another reason I believe they do is that we also take a blood sample from the fish we do surgery on to help find a way to use blood hormone levels for the sexing and staging as an alternative to the surgery. We started testing the blood for cortisol levels to see how much stress the fish are under. We have used these levels to determine the best gear and handling techniques to keep the fish the least stressed. The theory here is stress is caused by discomfort. Is it actual pain? I don't know. But I think it is. The less developed your brain is the more you would have to rely on your senses to keep you alive. While their nervous system isn't the same as ours, it has to do something to keep the animal alive. Okay, I'll get out of here now. That was at least $2.49 worth of .02 cents [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[happybrew]

Not trying to deny what you've seen, but can you equate what a fish feels with suffering? I wouldn't deny that they have receptors like our pain receptors, but does that experience equate to suffering for a fish?

I quit leaving the heads on trout when I cook them for my kids because they always take the brains out and make disgusting comments about them at the dinner table. They are very small. About half the size of a pea. What would be the evolutionary advantage for a fish to use their limited amount of brain for having experiences akin to what people have?

I don't doubt that they can experience and react to things that might harm them. That's why they fight when hooked. But can we really say that it's the same sort of experience we have? It seems to me that it would be an evolutionary disadvantage for a fish to experience pain as we do, as suffering. Would a salmon really go up the river if it would suffer as a result of all the injuries it might have as it went over rocks and waterfalls? I've seen some pretty beat up fish, and they did it to themselves. That seems to me to be evidence that they don't experience it in the same way that we do.

happybrew

Fish have a pea brain don't they? Capable of only instinctive actions so it stands to reason that they couldn't have much of a pain response could they? I'm no expert on this I'm just speculating.
Mo

[STGRule]

I am not equating pain with "suffering". Pain is pain. How much you can tolerate has more to do with what kind and how much of it you have. That is what I think of as "suffering". That is a human emotion and I don't think fish "suffer". As for the size of the brain vs what it can do, the size is in relation to the body of the animal and only has to be big enough to process electrical impules needed by that animal. A pea brain is all a fish needs. As to spawning, (WARNING, this is only my opinion), The brains of all animals, including us, is made up of mostly fat. As a fish nears it's natal area it has used most, if not all, of it's fat as energy to arrive. This would also effect the brain and it's functions. As brain function falls only the most basics of survival (heart function and such) remain. And in the end even that stops.
Basicaly I believe that fish do feel pain. They have pain and then they don't. "Suffering" isn't likely, but pain is pain.
I choose not to fish catch-and-release because I believe the resource is better served if I just kill my two fish and not have to wonder how many more I killed because the fish was too stressed from hooking it. This obviously doesn't work all the time. I have to release native salmon in the current fishery. But the hooking mortality is built into the quotas to protect native fish.
Please remember this is my choice and is not an opinion of other peoples choices. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Thumper]

STG --- Now you've got me really screwed up. Let's hear more from the fisheries and biological folks who know about this. I know that if I hooked the neighbor's cat and played it until exhaustion and then released it, I'd be in big trouble. But we know that cats feel pain. Am I hurting the native steelies that I release in March???

[STGRule]

Thumper: I wasn't trying to change your mind. It was just my thought process that lead to my choice. You have to make your own choice. There are many people who will disagree with me. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[happybrew]

STGRule: I can respect your opinion. I too, get my fish then get off the river. I think that catch and release has its place, as I do that when fly fishing for native steelhead, but I wouldn't fish bait or trebles for catch and release. I think that you have brought up some important ethical issues. You are right that pain is pain, but is all pain the same, in an ethical sense? As Thumper points out, catch and release for the neighbor's cat is definitely wrong. We can judge from their behavior that cats, dogs, and most other mammals experience pain in the same way we would, in the sense of suffering. You have stated that you don't think that fish feel pain in the sense of suffering. Do you think it is more in an adaptive sense, to trigger behavior geared toward their survival?

When cooking the other day, I cut my finger with a knife. I didn't register "pain" in the sense that one normally would, as the knife was very sharp, but I immediatly had a reflexive action that kept the cut from going deeper. It never really hurt, but the pain receptors in my fingers did fire, and cause a response. Is this how you think fish feel pain?

When I was in college, I worked in a nursing home. Pain management is a very tricky thing. Some patients would complain about the slightest thing as if it were the end of the world. Other patients, with late stage Alzheimers, would have conditions that had to be extremely painful, such as cancer or hip fractures, but wouldn't have much response to it at all. We would treat them, however, for pain, assuming that they were unable to communicate it to others, and we would watch for any sign of discomfort. It's a tricky thing, and sometimes there is an exaggerated response, sometimes there is no response. Mind you, this is to pain in the sense of suffering, which requires a self-conscious mental ability and some measure of reasoning, not merely the firing of neurons.

The question with fish is this: Do we act as if they do suffer, in the absence of evidence that they do, because they are unable to communicate? That seems to be the position of the animal rights activists. Some of them go even farther, and assume, in the absence of evidence, or on scanty and misleading evidence, that because they have a brain wired with pain receptors, that they MUST experience pain in the same way that we do, and therefore fishing causes them suffering and is wrong.

One can, however, observe much of the same behavior in earthworms. They avoid stimuli that would be painful. They don't even have a brain, just a neural ganglia. Yet when you hook a nightcrawler, you get much of the same struggling behavior against the hook that a fish displays, adjusted of course for anatomical difference. Would they then conclude that the worm is suffering? What could possibly be the neurological mechanism for that? I don't think that's possible, nor do I think it's possible for fish. It would serve no evolutionary advantage for the fish, and it would take up too many resources in the fish's brain to make it worthwhile. Quite frankly, I think it would take away from other more beneficial uses of the fish's brain.

Then you get the activists who believe that all life is sacred, therefore, it's wrong to fish. Of course we all believe that life is sacred, but they believe it in a different sense than we would. They put animals on a level equal or similar to that of people, or lesser animals on the same level as a dog. That's not something you can argue for or against, because it approaches the level of a religious belief, formed for reasons of personal psychology. For them, arguing about the neurology of pain in fish would be pointless because it doesn't matter to them. I have met environmentalists like that. I knew one who believed that trees "screamed" as they were being cut down. Science has no place in their mindset, and unfortunately, people like that have hijacked the environmental movement.

I know that you're not like that. I would, however, like to hear more about what you've experienced working with sturgeon, and how they react.

happybrew

[Snake9t9]

Thanks for the info Happybrew.
I did not intend for this to turn into a debate or an argument...I would however, like to point out that justifying fishing by using the sense of pain or feeling of suffering fish may or may not actually justify the view point that fishing is wrong. It really does not matter wheather they suffer, feel pain or just react on instinct. Let me explain... I my view, intelligence, conciousness and physical ability has more to do with this debate than anything. This is the way of the natural food chain and how the world evolved(evolution tends to fall into the beliefs of the liberal, animal rights crowd). The human has the intelligence, conciousness and physical ability to build the tools nessasary to build the tools to fish, hunt, trap farm ect. We are at the top of the food chain even when in the presence of more physically able creatures due to our intelligence. We have the conciousness of a predator in that we are aware of the potential creatures that could be food. And finally, we ENJOY the process of hunting, fishing, ect. Just as a cat does when it plays with a potential prey instead of going right to the task.
What matters is that we ARE an omnivorous creature, with the potential to be a predator, and this IS the way of nature. Our fishing poles and bows and firearms, the tools we use for our sport/predatory behavior are no different than the stick a chimp may use to fish ants out of an ant hill, or the rock a sea otter uses to brake open it's shelfish catch, or the many other tools used by animals to help themselvs in their predation.
Do not be ashamed of your involvement with the circle of life. Be proud that you are...and remember that as a human we are the ONLY predator capable of managing our prey resources.
FISHING AND HUNTING IS NOT A MORAL QUESTION!

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Snake9t9 ]

[happybrew]

Snake9t9: I don't look at this as a debate or an argument, but as a discussion. And an enjoyable one, at that.

We fish for a variety of reasons. I agree that we are at the top of the food chain, and fishing and hunting is perfectly natural. I do however, think that it is a moral question. And I think that the morality of it lies squarely on the side of the fisherman. Ponder this:

Would you shoot your beloved dog for sport? Why not?

Would you waste the fish you catch? If you landed 50 in one day, would you kill them, then dump them on the bank? Why not?

Would you use dynamite for sport fishing? I think that if I were starving, dynamite would be an acceptable option for fishing, but not on an everyday basis for sport. Do you agree?

These are all ethical questions about our sport. I think that whether or not fish suffer, and in what way is also an ethical question about our sport. But like many ethical questions, people can be mislead by bad arguments that, at face value, appear to have merit, but upon closer examination are just pure nonsense. The PETA folks have done just that. They take the fact that fish have a neural system wired to sense "pain", and equate that with the suffering of fish. The two are not equal, though. It's just pure nonsense. It is an ethical question, but when you examine it, you can see that the mere asking of the question involves suppositions that are clearly misleading and misguided. Is it wrong? Heck no! It's one of the most enjoyable activities we can engage in. It brings us to appreciate the great outdoors. It puts food on our tables. It is our RIGHT. In fact, the PETA people stand opposed to human freedom and progress. You are absolutely right that we are omnivorous creatures, doing what is completely natural to us. And you are right in that we have the intelligence to manage our prey resources. That makes us the best predators out there!

I was just trying to show how the animal rights people are misguided, not trying to give any credibility to them. Thumper had a question about fish feeling pain, which is the basis of the PETA argument. You are right that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because fish are not the equivalent of people.

happybrew

[Thumper]

One thing puzzles me. The latest STS has an article from a guy with pretty good credentials who flatly says that fish don't feel pain, while PETA claims to have testimony from similarly authoritative sources that maintain precisely the opposite. So who's right. Do fish feel pain? If they do, I guess I'd be less interested in targeting native steelies for CNR. Anybody got the heavy evidence.

[Snake9t9]

I am just a little leary about debates like this on the web as without a persons expresions ect. misunderstandings can come easy.
I wll not disagree that how one goes about fishing or hunting could be unethical, but the act in and of itself should not be a moral issue. Heres why, peoples ideals and acceptance of others morals change, thus the "PC" environment we live in now. Many "moral" issues that were once accepted as everyday givens in this country (won't go into detail here as they are off topic) are now taboo subjects and some have evolved 180 deg into hate crime law. To many however they are still of moral issue. My point is that if fishing / hunting in and of itself is a moral issue it is not a RIGHT and could be taken away. The way we conuct ourselvs while fishing or hunting or the methods used are of an ethical issue.
Sport fishers and hunters need to stand together on these issues. If one falls the other is close behind, and this is why I do not think wheather a fish feel pain or not matters. I know for a FACT that a Deer an Elk, a bear or any big game animal for that matter feels pain and CAN suffer if I make a mistake while in the field. I have heard the doe bleat after being heart shot and falling to the ground, and know a good bowhunter who had witnessed a bull attempt to pull an arrow out of it's side by biting at it after being mortally wounded. Pain reactions without a doubt in my mind. But, the fact that they feel pain does not change the fact in my mind that hunting and fishing methods can be ethical or unethical but fishing or hunting is not a moral choice. Just MHO. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[happybrew]

You bring up some very good points. I think I'm starting to agree with you on that. That's the whole point behind discussions like this, learning new things and points of view.

happybrew

[bajaspecial]

Great discussion!

I think next time I go fishing I'll put a percocet on my hook.
[img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

(sorry, just had to break up the monotony)

[SlabQuest]

Even if fish can "feel" pain, I doubt that there would be much involved in being caught with hook and line. Are there nerves in their boney mouths? Usually they are quickly bonked or released. The occasional foul hooking could potentially produce pain (hooked in the vent - ouch!) but preferable to being eaten alive by a seal.

[STGRule]

Happybrew: Re cutting your finger. I guess that is the kind of pain I mean. Although if it hadn't been a sharp knife the pain would have been different as you would have damaged more pain receptors.
Because you stopped right away your stress response was minimum. Had the experience lasted more than that instant your stress level would have been elevated. I am talking about your bodies physiological reaction to the stimulus, not your emotional response. I believe that fish do not feel pain the same way we do, nor do they "suffer". I believe that the physiological reactions (elevated stress hormones) can and does damage the fish. If it is a short fight, with an easy release, of an otherwise healthy individual, the damage would be minimal. But anything that interfers with the animals ability to pursue prey or flee predators bothers me (my response only). The attempt to flee a hook expends a great deal of caloric energy that would need to be replaced quickly to maintain the fish's health. This is easier for resident populations of fish and more difficult or impossible for anadromous species. I personaly have no problem with catch and release if the fish is landed quickly, released carefully, and fished from a healthy population. That way if the animal is lost, the population as a whole will not be damaged. I had not intended to get into the catch and release debate. I was trying to explain why I believe fish do feel pain. I hope everyone understands that this opinion is a personal one and is in no means a judgement of anybody elses.
(It's nice to be able to discuss without debate) [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Pilar]

The pain issue is but one part of this thing. All summer we caught and released Coho in the ocean. I'm guessing here but about 1/2 of them were injured and floated away or bled pretty bad despite careful handling. I'm not anti C & R but I hate the fact that some of the fish die and become crab bait.

Why fish and target C & R when there is the issue of mortality? Pain is one thing but death is a little more permanent.

Why not try to avoid fishing for something you do not intend to eat?

Just a thought.

[Silent Lucidity]

It wasn't too long ago that a similar debate was common amongst the medical community regarding whether human newborns felt pain. It was widely considered that they didn't, so when surgeries as harsh as open-heart surgery were performed they would get NO anesthesia. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Fish feel pain. All animals do.

Pilar, a reminder for you about the C&R mortality rates. Fishery bios have done extensive tests on this. Former top ODFW fish biologist and activist Jim Martin posted on the old ifish DB that the overall mortality rate on C&R'd salmon/steelhead was less than 10%; closer to 7% in extensive studies; regardless of any conjecture you hear. ...

As for the pain issue; it's debatable how much pain perception tiny brained fish feel - likely some to a degree. But I will make a contention that very little, if any at all, during a fight on hook and line. Why? Because their instinctual run from danger is an overiding total occupation of the very limited brain capacity. Even in human beings, with all that big grey matter, when they are fighting for their lives in the mouths of grizzly bears that are tearing their flesh and crunching their bones, the majority of survivors report they didn't feel any pain from that - because it's overidden by total survival mental occupation. Got to be the same with fish, only they have a fraction of the capacity of humans to feel pain, even during non-distractive moments. Given that, I will continue to barbless C&R steelie nates and carefully release them. And I won't lose any sleep over them having felt a bit of pain during the 'match'. ...

Another C&R factor to consider is that salmon released are going to spawn and then die a slow starvation death. Released steelhead that spawn will go out in a weaken state and most wind up being eaten alive by seals and sea lions; sometimes by killer whales and other predators. That's why only about 5% make it back to sapwn a second time. While most hatchery salmon/steelhead are kept as is the desire of ODFW/WDFW, those that do get caught and released wind up banging around against cement walls i hatchery ponds, tossed around live, and then later bonked for the eggs/milt. Let's face it, fish have a tough life - regardless! They are chased around their entire lives by various forms of beings trying to eat them - both in fresh water and during their ocean stay. So PETA types need to know all of this and lighten up on fish bonking and C&R sport fishing! It's essentially painless, and less than what mother nature deals them.

RT

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: RT ]

[Pilar]

A few nights ago an episode of 'Oregon Field Guide' was aired on PBS. One of the topics was about studies done on fish netted in the ocean. The purpose of the study was to improve drag net design to promote survival of non targeted fish. Tank tests were done with fish and predators (Ling cod). One of the interesting things they showed was that although the Sablefish survived the net they were stunned for a period of time after release. This made them easy pickings for Ling cod. The unmolested fish easily avoided the predator but the netted ones were snapped up like dog treats. Blood work done on the fish was used to detect stress levels. These stress levels are then used to quantify the effect of the net gear on the non targeted fish.

On the river bank this is a different situation obviously but similar in some respects. The C & R fish are stressed by capture. Does this effect them by making them vulnerable to predation while they walk it off? Does the broken slime coating promote fungus infection? Does the fish survive to spawn?

I realize that C & R opens the rivers and the ocean to sport anglers. We all have an interest in making it work. But I believe that the pain issue is very much secondary to the survival of the handled fish.

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Pilar ]

[boater]

pilar, if you dont like the fact that wild coho must be released in the ocean, why do you fish it, just curious to why someone does somthing they have not been forced to do that they dont like to do ? there are other places to fish that you can keep anything you catch. just my 2 cent question of the day.

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: boater ]

[Snake9t9]

A good subject of debate is always healthy, if for nothing else than to bring to light others view points on issues.
As far as the C and R question goes, if a person is concerned about the survival of released fish why not just police yourself by counting any fish landed toward your daily limit weather retained or not. I noticed a few years ago that the rules for stream trout fishing with bait were changed so that any trout caught on bait must be counted toward your limit even if released. I am not suggesting that this law be expanded, but this type of idea could be self implemented for any fish caught and released.

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Snake9t9 ]

[Thumper]

Snake......Your posts especially have given me new insight on this subject. Great input from everybody. I feel better now about C&R, and the neighbor's cat is again safe.

[Baldpate Basher]

This is a good discussion. Everyone has come with openminds but me. I still don't care if they feel pain. Pain is one of the most useful of all our senses. It gives the most important information to the recipient. (YOU ARE BEING HURT) It is the very essence of survival. Anyone who doesn't want there to be any pain in the world is being childish. Pain is life, life is pain. Welcome to reality.
All of you have been engaged in a very interesting conversation and I'm glad to see it. I have enjoyed reading following along. And I commend each and every one of you for not getting angered or upset while exchanging ideas of very different points of view.
Oh by the way, bajaspecial, I could really use a percocet right now. I just stepped on a hook. He he he! Just kidding. I don't really want to slicate drugs on the board! HA ha ha!

[Pilar]

It's easy Boater. If you start catching wild fish in the Ocean pull up your gear and move. Moving this way got us out of the wild fish every time. All told we caught less than 10 finned Coho this summer. 2 or 3 deeply hooked fish died for sure and several others were injured.

Does anyone know how the fish mix in the ocean? Do the wild ones hang in schools and the plants in separate schools?

The thing I hate is that we would have to do as you suggest to completely stop killing wild fish. Not fish in the Ocean. That sacrifice would be difficult to swallow while non selective netting is allowed to continue. There is a zero survival rate for those wild fish.

Maybe the thing to do is change season, bag limit and other rules to allow retention of all fish. That way we are not doing any wishful thinking about survival rates of the ones that get released.

A civil discussion is enjoyable. We all get our say and no one is slinging font. Thanks for sharing. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[Buddy Page]

I would think that fish Do feel pain. If you have a pea sized brain there is very little room left for anything but the most basic of survival influences. Pain, pleasure, satisfaction (food and sex), fear, mating, travel and mobility, etc. They may not be able to reflect very deeply on the concept of pain, but they have nerves and nerves are for sensation, ie, pain or pleasure.

I would think that all complex organisms feel pain. That would mean ants, worms, etc. Just pinch a worm in half and tell me that is not a reaction to pain. Pain let's you know you are in physical danger and I'm sure all multi-celled organisms with nerves feel pain. They may not reflect on what's happening to them but they react strongly and instinctively.

Do I care that they feel pain? No I don't. I'm a predator and this is planet Eartth, not Xanadu where PETA gets *some* of its ideas. If I don't inflict pain on fish, then bears, birds, rocks and other fish certainly will. As mentioned in an earlier post, pain is simply part of life.

If they didn't feel pain and fear, fish simply wouldn't fight so hard.

[happybrew]

Buddy Page: the issue still stands, though, whether it is what you or I could call pain. How is it experienced? An earthworm or an ant still doesn't have the neural capacity to feel it in the same way that we do. So for the PETA people to use that as an argument is misleading. I do agree with you that it shouldn't matter.

happybrew

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

Salmon are hunted creatures in the ocean and in the rivers, and even when they make it passed the predators to spawn THEY STILL DIE. [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Salmon get surprised; people get surprised in allies, etc. all the time too. Pain is not a factor at all. Even in humans, the instinct to survive exceeds all other priorities at that time. Same with fish and same with all animals.

If someone tied a line and hook to a tow truck and hooked me with it....especially surprised me, my survival instinct will supercede those pain receptors.

Let's say the tow truck driver releases said human, Now if I was going to die 3 weeks later because of cancer and the driver kicked me in the nuts; sure I might hurt for a bit, but it's nothing I wouldn't get over...especially with death knocking on my door.

Pain reminds all living things that they are alive. cruelty is different.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Why not try to avoid fishing for something you do not intend to eat?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now let me leave you with this thought, why drive around in your truck if you aren't going to a particular destination? You increase your chances of causing an accident.

I particularly do not eat that much fish, and fishing is cheaper than most drugs these days. [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Pilar]

Ok sure, I get in my truck all the time at $1.50 a gallon and just drive around.

Q: Why do men chase women they have no intention of marrying?

A: For the same reason dogs chase cars they have no intention of driving.

If the pain thing bothers you then eat the fish you catch and bonk em as soon as they hit the bank.

[garyk]

Snake9t9 --

Thanks for bringing up ethics & behavior, as this is what influences the majority of folks who don't care about the cruelty-to-fish argument.

I am forever amazed at what a bunch of slobs so many fisherman are. That you can tell the popular bank holes by their ghetto-in-the-woods appearance.

That fishers can carry bait containers, food bags, beverage containers in full -- but after draining them, somehow lack the strength to carry them out empty.

Face it, so many bank fishing areas, whether on the coast or on the Columbia look like dumps.

Add to this snagging, foul behavior, and so on and it just doesn't give fisherman a good public image.

If you're concerned about the future of fishing and public opinion, I wouldn't worry so much about PETA as the guy fishing the bank by you who leaves his beer cans, tangle of mono, unburied s*** and toilet paper, and other trash around for all to see.

Whew, with that rant done, it reminds me I've still got the sack of garbage we carried out of the Cedar Creek reach of the Sandy yesterday to dispose of.

"Pack it in, pack it out -- every last bit"

[Fishful Thinkin']

Now that was an interesting twist. garyk has put the trueth to light here. Everyone knows that these looney tunes in PETA will only catch the ears of other looney tunes. But WE can really screw things up for ourselves, other fishers and our children by trashing the beuty of our landscape.
I do believe, however, that on ifish we are preaching to the choir. Not to say this isn't the forum to bring this subject up in. But rather that it should be discussed on another thread.
So garyk, do us a favor and do start another thread? And maybe we can collectively come up with some real solutions to this very real problem.
I'll be looking forward to it.

[Buddy Page]

Happybrew,

I'll have to defer to scientists on whether ants and worms *know* they are feeling pain or simply react to it. If they have nerves though, they feel pain. My opinion is that fish feel pain and have more capacity to know they are feeling pain than a worm but not as much capacity to know and reflect on it as people or other mammals do.

Current research on bird intelligience shows that certain birds (parrots, crows, raven's, etc.) are much more aware and intelligent than was previously thought possible, even with such small brains. So I'm inclined to think that previous research on other animals, like fish, was inaccurate too. Since I don't have the test data in hand all I can offer are my opinions.

It's my *opinion* that researchers routinely under estimate the awareness and ability to perceive pain of their test subjects. On the other hand, the PETA people routinely overestimate it and mis-characterize it. I think that PETA represents a bunch of frustrated vegetarians who live in a fantasy world and who'll say anything to make the lives of meat eaters, hunters and fishers more difficult. I could care less what they think about the fishing question though since it's unlikely to ever affect my fishing opportunities.