When a fish is caught...

Geoff wrote:
When a fish is caught...
To try to defend themselves from critcism, anglers often say that most
fish caught are put back in the water rather than being killed. This
overlooks the fact that the process of catching and removing a fish
from the water causes a great deal of suffering.

Hooking.
The fish is hooked through its lips which like the rest of its body
contain lots of nerve endings, meaning that it feels pain when hooked.


TOTAL BULL ****, there is no indication of ANY pain, the fish responds
by pulling against the hook,, if there was pain, it would not do this!
If I put a hook in "your" mouth, or any mammal's mouth (which can feel
pain) it would not increase the pressure on that hook, as it would
increase the pain. A fish responds differently to a hook than any animal
that can feel pain, This is total BULL **** "PETA" propaganda

Wait I forgot,, your a veg'ee , your brain can not process such facts
due to the lack of "animal" protein in your diet. believe what you want
to, your mentally handicapped .

--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com

"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
Geoff wrote:
When a fish is caught...
To try to defend themselves from critcism, anglers often say that most
fish caught are put back in the water rather than being killed. This
overlooks the fact that the process of catching and removing a fish
from the water causes a great deal of suffering.

Hooking.
The fish is hooked through its lips which like the rest of its body
contain lots of nerve endings, meaning that it feels pain when hooked.


TOTAL BULL ****, there is no indication of ANY pain, the fish responds
by pulling against the hook,, if there was pain, it would not do this!
If I put a hook in "your" mouth, or any mammal's mouth (which can feel
pain) it would not increase the pressure on that hook, as it would
increase the pain. A fish responds differently to a hook than any animal
that can feel pain, This is total BULL **** "PETA" propaganda

You know all about BULL****, don't ya. When you accidentally impale
your finger on a hook, do you leave it in because it hurts to extract it, eh?
The fish is struggling to extricate itself from the source of the pain, but
you've sneakily put a barb on it which makes it difficult, and not leaving
the animal alone in it's now miserable state, you keep on reeling it towards
you -- so the fish is also trying to get away from whatever's attached to
the other end of the noxious device. Pain or life/freedom.. what choice?

'That Fish You Caught Was in Pain

Research challenges the myth among anglers that fish can't feel pain
from barbed hooks.

By Victoria Braithwaite
VICTORIA BRAITHWAITE, a behavioral biologist at Edinburgh
University, is on sabbatical at the Institute for Advanced Study in Berlin.

October 8, 2006

EVERY YEAR, sportsmen around the world drag millions of fish to
shore on barbed hooks. It's something people have always done, and
with little enough conscience. Fish are . well, fish. They're not dogs,
who yelp when you accidentally step on their feet. Fish don't cry out or
look sad or respond in a particularly recognizable way. So we feel free
to treat them in a way that we would not treat mammals or even birds.

But is there really any biological justification for exempting fish from
the standards nowadays accorded to so-called higher animals? Do we
really know whether fish feel pain or whether they suffer - or whether,
in fact, our gut sense that they are dumb, unfeeling animals is accurate?

Determining whether any type of animal really suffers is difficult. A
good starting place might be to consider how people feel pain. When a
sharp object pierces the human body, specialized nerve endings called
nociceptors alert us to the damage. Incredibly, no one ever seems to have
asked before whether fish have nociceptors around their mouths. My
colleagues and I in Edinburgh, Scotland, recently looked in trout and
found that they do. If you look at thin sections of the trigeminal nerve, the
main nerve for the face for all vertebrates, fish have the same two types
of nociceptors that we do - A-delta and C fibers. So they do have the
necessary sensory wiring to detect pain.

And the wiring works. We stimulated the nociceptors by injecting diluted
vinegar or bee venom just under the skin of the trout. If you've ever felt
the nip of vinegar on an open cut or the sting of a bee, you will recognize
these feelings as painful. Well, fish find these naturally irritating chemicals
unpleasant too. Their gills beat faster, and they rub the affected area on
the walls of their tank, lose interest in food and have problems making
decisions.

When I have a headache, I reach for the aspirin. What happens if we give
the fish painkillers after injecting the noxious substances? Remarkably,
they begin to behave normally again. So their adverse behavior is
induced by the experience of pain.

But just because fish are affected by pain, does that mean they actually
feel it? To answer that, we need to probe deeper into their brains
(and our own) to understand what it means to feel pain.

To determine what fish go through mentally when they experience painful
stimuli, we also need to determine whether they have a capacity to feel
emotion and to suffer.

This is a much harder problem. It goes to the very heart of one of the
biggest unresolved issues in biology: Do nonhuman animals have
emotions and feelings? Are nonhuman animals conscious?

Scientists and philosophers have long debated consciousness and what
it is and whether it is exclusively human. There are multiple definitions
and, frankly, we haven't really come to grips with what it means to be
conscious ourselves. Are we conscious because we are capable of
attributing mental states to others, or perhaps because we have a
qualitative awareness of feelings, whether positive or negative? And if we
can't define our own consciousness, can we expect to detect it in fish?

Perhaps not, but we can look for behaviors and abilities that we believe
contribute to human consciousness - for example, complex cognitive
abilities and specialized brain regions that process emotion and memory.

It turns out that the stereotype of fish as slow, dim-witted creatures is
wrong; many fish are remarkably clever. For example, they can learn
geometrical relationships and landmarks - and then use these to
generate a mental map to plan escape routes if a predator shows up.

And their brains are not as different from ours as we once thought.
Although less anatomically complex than our own brain, the function of
two of their forebrain areas is very similar to the mammalian amygdala
and hippocampus - areas associated with emotion, learning and memory.
If these regions are damaged in fish, their learning and emotional capacities
are impaired; they can no longer find their way through mazes, and they
lose their sense of fear.

None of this tells us that fish are conscious, but it does demonstrate them
to be cognitively competent: They are more than simple automata.

So do we have to change the way we treat fish? Some still argue that fish
brains are so less well developed than those of birds and mammals that it
isn't possible for fish to suffer. In my view, that case is not proven.

Moreover, we actually have as much evidence that fish can suffer as we do
that chickens can. I think, therefore, that we should adopt a precautionary
ethical approach and assume that in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
fish suffer.

....'
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5224931.story

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:19:50 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
Geoff wrote:
When a fish is caught...
To try to defend themselves from critcism, anglers often say that most
fish caught are put back in the water rather than being killed. This
overlooks the fact that the process of catching and removing a fish
from the water causes a great deal of suffering.

Hooking.
The fish is hooked through its lips which like the rest of its body
contain lots of nerve endings, meaning that it feels pain when hooked.


TOTAL BULL ****, there is no indication of ANY pain, the fish responds
by pulling against the hook,, if there was pain, it would not do this!
If I put a hook in "your" mouth, or any mammal's mouth (which can feel
pain) it would not increase the pressure on that hook, as it would
increase the pain. A fish responds differently to a hook than any animal
that can feel pain, This is total BULL **** "PETA" propaganda

You know all about BULL****, don't ya. When you accidentally impale
your finger on a hook, do you leave it in because it hurts to extract it, eh?
The fish is struggling to extricate itself from the source of the pain, but
you've sneakily put a barb on it which makes it difficult, and not leaving
the animal alone in it's now miserable state, you keep on reeling it towards
you -- so the fish is also trying to get away from whatever's attached to
the other end of the noxious device. Pain or life/freedom.. what choice?

'That Fish You Caught Was in Pain

Research challenges the myth among anglers that fish can't feel pain
from barbed hooks.

By Victoria Braithwaite
VICTORIA BRAITHWAITE, a behavioral biologist at Edinburgh
University, is on sabbatical at the Institute for Advanced Study in Berlin.

October 8, 2006
.. . .

Moreover, we actually have as much evidence that fish can suffer as we do
that chickens can. I think, therefore, that we should adopt a precautionary
ethical approach and assume that in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
fish suffer.

...'
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,5224931.story

Suffering is easy. Fish can see. They can hear. They can smell. They can
taste. The idea that they have those four senses but can't feel is too stupid
for me. The fact that they behave exactly like they can feel, combined with
the fact that we have no reason to believe they can't, makes it even more
stupid. The extent to which they have feeling in their *lips* almost certainly
varies.