IFish.net banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,569 Posts
OK ... they're injecting bee venom into trout lips, and fishing is cruel?

:shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,270 Posts
Now this really burns my cookies.

I just bought a months supply of bee venom and Acetic acid to use with my new Gami hollow tip injections hooks I just ordered.

:hoboy:

They did not mention whether or not the fish reacted to the injection needle alone with or without an injectable.

I wont discount the test, but I find the result inapplicable to fishing.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,270 Posts
The PETA think tank is about a shallow as a childs wading pool. These extremists will bend any scientific result to suit thier needs.

:hoboy:

[ 04-30-2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Fast Water ]
 

·
Qualified Sturgeon Hugger
Joined
·
38,162 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
As Fastwater included,
We as anglers need to quit using the hollow core pressure release Gami's, Owners, VMC's, Mustads and more.
Just when I get a good technique figured out, some scientists comes along with yet another waste of money and time report.


Lets see...
Inject poison into bloodstream... :hoboy:
:sick:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,251 Posts
You guy's just don't get it. You WANT the fish to feel pain.

Let me explain. If you catch a fish, and he feels no pain, you get a really lousy fighting fish. :depressed: If you catch a fish, and he feels lots of pain :shocked: , then you get a really good fighting fish that you hoot and holler over, and tell all of your friends about how he just took off and lept out of the water several times! :dance: :dance:

Now, let's review. No pain = lousy fish fight :depressed: . Lots of pain = fantastic fish fight :grin: .

What do you want? :shrug:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,867 Posts
ChinookSlayer,
I believe your analogy misses the point to the original post. The pain issue will be looked at by peta members and others that the statistics can back up there woes that sportfishing is harmful to all species of fish and should be STOPPED. :wink:

[ 04-30-2003, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Fshklr ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,569 Posts
Every fish is free to NOT bite.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,811 Posts
A quote from the article:
"We would encourage anglers to lay down their rods."
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The only time i'll lay down my rod is to help my buddy who's got a fish on next to me!! :cheers:

-jokester
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Um, I got a paper cut today at work, and I felt pain. Does that mean that it is cruel and unjust punishment for me to spend my weekdays at work? Maybe we should redesign paper not to be so thin? Anyone a lawer, I have rights!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,373 Posts
From what I read that really didn't prove anything. So if you go by the standards of that study then bee posion and acid bothers them but hooks don't, Many of us here has caught the same stupid fish a couple of times in a short time span. Its nonsense, pure and simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
i once shot a squirrel, and it cried, i once shot a deer, and it too cried, never in my entire life have i heard a fish cry-- and for the love of god, don't these people have other things to be doing than injecting bee venom into a fish's lips? why not see if a fish can lose weight by performing lypo suction, or give them bigger breasts while there at it--- may give new meaning for a sucker fish--
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
670 Posts
I once read that on the Madison River in Montana. The trout are caught and release seven times a year on average. Must not hurt too much for them to keep grabbing flies. However, on the other hand. I have gotten out of bed in the morning with a hangover. Hasn't stop me either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
657 Posts
Hope this helps you guys out at all. This kind of rebutes the article. I have fished the UK, and still have friends/ghillies I know there. I go to a few of their UK fishing BB's. Here's a post from off one of them.

Hello all,
I'm the fishing journalist who broke the original story that fish don't feel pain. It was done by Professor Rose of the University of Wyoming.
I wrote it for Trout and Salmon and it was then followed up, as you know, by other print media.
Having been contacted by everyone at the Beeb from the Today programme downwards (!) I sent the Sneddon report to Professor Rose.

This is his reply: Graham,

As you might have guessed, I've been contacted by several writers about the Sneddon paper already. I've copied, for your information, my reply to a writer for Nature.


The Royal Society paper by Sneddon, et al. does not actually deal with pain. It deals only with nociception. I have already addressed the kinds of conceptual confusions that undermine the paper by Sneddon et al. in my 2002 Reviews in Fisheries Science Paper. They did not cite this paper and apparently haven't read it.

The flaws in their argument include the following. Their definitions of pain and nociception are misleading. Pain, as defined by investigators who study it (e.g. the International Association for the Study of Pain) is purely a conscious experience, with a sensory and emotional component. The detection, processing and transmission of information related to injury is nociception, unconscious and not pain. Contrary to the assertions of Sneddon, et al. behaviors more complex than reflexes are are frequently purely nociceptive as well. For example, humans with extensive damage or dysfunction of the neocortex in the cerebral hemispheres can still make facial displays, vocalizations, and show struggling and avoidance reactions in response to nociceptive stimuli, but they are unconscious and unable to experience pain. By the definition of pain used by Sneddon et al. it would be concluded that these unconscious humans are feeling pain rather than making purely nociceptive responses, which is clearly erroneous. Secondly, a sustained change in behaavioral activity in response to a sustained nociceptive stimulus (like the bee venom or acid injection in the jaw), shows nothing more that that behavior can be persistently changed if a nociceptive stumulus is sustained. In light of the probable intensity and sustained nature of this noxious stimulus, it is quite likely that a physiological and/or endocrine stress response was elicited in the trout to a much greater degree than procedues to which control fish were exposed. A physiological response of this type is known to alter the ongoing behavior and physiological function of trout and is perfectly understandable, but it is not evidence of a pain experience. I'm quite surprised that the authors of this paper didn't thoroughly consider the confounding implications of the likelihood of a physiological and/or endocrine stress response.

In order to show that a fish experiences pain it is necessary to show that a fish has consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no pain. Nothing in the information presented in this paper necessitates predication of consciousness for its explanation. Furthermore, from the extensive knowledge that exists on the neural basis of consciousness, there is no basis for assuming that a fish might have such a capacity. Only anthropomorphic speculation would lead one to conclude that the trout in this study are experiencing pain. Complex behaviors are known to occur without conscious mediation, even in humans, and the fact that there are nociceptive reactions of trout to sustained, noxioius stimuli in no way justifies a conclusion that these fish have a capacity for the conscious experience of pain.

Regards,

Jim Rose

James D. Rose, Ph.D.
Department of Zoology and Physiology
University of Wyoming
Laramie, WY 82071
USA
Phone: 307-766-6719
Fax: 307-766-5625
e-mail: [email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
This is from Rick Reily, author of "The Life of Reily," which appears weekly on the last page of Sports Illustrated. He is one of my personal favorite writers of all time, and this comes from one of my personal favorite peices of his entitled Scales of Injustice
PETA plans to put up billboards across the U.S. and in Canada that show a Labrador retriever with a hook in his bloody lip. IF YOU WOULDN'T DO IT TO A DOG, the signs say, WHY DO IT TO A FISH?

And, of course, the answer is: Because fish do not bring me my slippers.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">
"Why do we throw a Frisbee to some animals and a barbed hook to others?" PETA asks on its website.

And, of course, the answer is: Because fish really suck at catching Frisbees.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Everybody needs to read this article, as it is at least as worth while to read as the "latest research," this my friends, is a funny funny man.
Tight Lines
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,270 Posts
Steelheader69,

Thanks for passing along the letter. Good stuff there.

:cheers:
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top