"george" wrote in message
news:%uEvd.498511$wV.91467@attbi_s54...
snip
It is an anatomical certainty that fish do not have the pain receptors
that
humans have, and so are not capable of feeling pain the way humans do.
I:m not
suggesting that you pull a healthy fish, who might, admittedly, feel
something
vagely resembling pain, if put to the test. My argument is that if a fish
is in
so dire a shape that it has to be "put down", then certainly that fish is
unlikely to feel much, if any pain at all, no matter how one decides to
end it's
life.


You keep making the comparison of fish to humans. Nobody but you is
suggesting fish are on par with humans from a nervous system standpoint.
That does not change the fact that they may and probably do feel pain. That
does not change the fact that anything we can do as fish owners to minimize
this suffering is a good idea.

Using your own faulted logic, and the story of your mother ailing from old
age. Would you use a slow method of euthanasia on a loved one, simply
because they are "in so dire shape...that it is unlikely to feel much"?

BV.

"Eric Schreiber" eric at ericschreiber dot com wrote in message
...
george wrote:

fish simply haven't got the biology for feeling the kind
of pain that we experience.

While that is certainly a possibility, it hasn't been conclusively
shown as yet. And even if the suffering a fish experiences if of a
different order, that hardly justifies extending that suffering any
longer than necessary.

Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors, and do not
have the peripheral or central nervous system to experience what we would
experience as pain. They exhibit fright/flight reactions, as most all higher
organisms do. If a fish is in such dire straights that it has to be "taken
down", the chances that it will "suffer" by removing it from water and allowing
it to die are highly unlikely. And again, your concept of "suffering" is highly
anthropomorhic.

perhaps the question to be asked here is why it was allowed
to get in the such bad shape in the first place.

This looks like a distraction tactic, as it isn't particularly
relevant. Fish get injured, diseased, or grow old, just like any animal.

Sure they do. If you raise fish, you are going to experience dead fish. I've
stated as much already. My point is that most fish diseases (other than toxic
shock or poisoning) do not result in a fish dying or being in dire straights
over night. There are symptoms. Swim bladder disease has specific symptoms that
are easily recognizable in the early stages, as is the case for many fish
diseases. The point here is that if a fish is not behaving normally, then the
time to act is when that behavior is first noticed, not when it is too late to
do anything about it. Then the argument over how to put the fish down becomes
moot.

I have another question for you. How do you think most pet shops deal with dying
fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable treatements? Ask you pet shop
owner what he does. I think you will be surprised at the answer, if he/she will
even give it to you.

most of it's systems have already shut down, and so it likely
will feel very little, if anything at all by allowing it to
suffocate.

Personally, I'm not willing to take such a cavalier position based on
your idea of what is 'likely'.

Again, that certainly is your choice. You do what you have to do.

I find it to be much preferable to smashing it or cutting
it's head off, as some have suggested.

Why? Are you squeamish?


Me? You've got to be kidding. I dissected an Orangutan in Primatology class,
and studied autopsy cases in Forensic Anthropology class in college. And I've
taken Human anatomy and comparative vertebrate anatomy. I just don't like
making unnecessary messes and then have to clean them up. Call me lazy, if you
like.

Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or
allowing a near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours?

This comparison is highly disingenuous given your repeated comments
about anthropomorphizing.


Not at all. It has to do with the concept of "suffering", and how one defines
it. I am under no illusion that a fish experiences pain at any level comparible
to what a dying person experiences, and so I have no problem at all with ending
the life of a near-death fish in the way I described.

"Eric Schreiber" eric at ericschreiber dot com wrote in message
...
george wrote:

fish simply haven't got the biology for feeling the kind
of pain that we experience.

While that is certainly a possibility, it hasn't been conclusively
shown as yet. And even if the suffering a fish experiences if of a
different order, that hardly justifies extending that suffering any
longer than necessary.

Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors, and do not
have the peripheral or central nervous system to experience what we would
experience as pain. They exhibit fright/flight reactions, as most all higher
organisms do. If a fish is in such dire straights that it has to be "taken
down", the chances that it will "suffer" by removing it from water and allowing
it to die are highly unlikely. And again, your concept of "suffering" is highly
anthropomorhic.

perhaps the question to be asked here is why it was allowed
to get in the such bad shape in the first place.

This looks like a distraction tactic, as it isn't particularly
relevant. Fish get injured, diseased, or grow old, just like any animal.

Sure they do. If you raise fish, you are going to experience dead fish. I've
stated as much already. My point is that most fish diseases (other than toxic
shock or poisoning) do not result in a fish dying or being in dire straights
over night. There are symptoms. Swim bladder disease has specific symptoms that
are easily recognizable in the early stages, as is the case for many fish
diseases. The point here is that if a fish is not behaving normally, then the
time to act is when that behavior is first noticed, not when it is too late to
do anything about it. Then the argument over how to put the fish down becomes
moot.

I have another question for you. How do you think most pet shops deal with dying
fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable treatements? Ask you pet shop
owner what he does. I think you will be surprised at the answer, if he/she will
even give it to you.

most of it's systems have already shut down, and so it likely
will feel very little, if anything at all by allowing it to
suffocate.

Personally, I'm not willing to take such a cavalier position based on
your idea of what is 'likely'.

Again, that certainly is your choice. You do what you have to do.

I find it to be much preferable to smashing it or cutting
it's head off, as some have suggested.

Why? Are you squeamish?


Me? You've got to be kidding. I dissected an Orangutan in Primatology class,
and studied autopsy cases in Forensic Anthropology class in college. And I've
taken Human anatomy and comparative vertebrate anatomy. I just don't like
making unnecessary messes and then have to clean them up. Call me lazy, if you
like.

Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or
allowing a near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours?

This comparison is highly disingenuous given your repeated comments
about anthropomorphizing.


Not at all. It has to do with the concept of "suffering", and how one defines
it. I am under no illusion that a fish experiences pain at any level comparible
to what a dying person experiences, and so I have no problem at all with ending
the life of a near-death fish in the way I described.

"george" wrote in message
news:OCEvd.498533$wV.326174@attbi_s54...
snip
Wow. I think you need to take a deep breath and calm down. First of all,
where
did I say that fish are akin to humans? Where did I say that only humans
can
suffer pain? The fact that YOU assume that fish "suffer" as humans do is
the
reason why I used the term anthropomorphic. The dog analogy is a
non-sequitur
since dogs have vastly more complex nervous systems than fish, and in
fact, have
nervous systems that in many ways are comparable to humans. They
certainly DO
feel pain the way we do, as anyone who has ever cared for an injured dog
can
attest to. I don't know why you persist in this line of reasoning, when
my only
point is that a near-death fish is highly unlikely to experience much, if
any
pain, and so to suggest that pulling the fish out of water and allowing it
to
die is somehow inhumane is simply ludicrous.

I am quite calm, so need to calm further.

It is you that has repeatedly stated in this thread that "fish are not as
complex as humans", and "fish don't feel like humans do". You are the one
anthropomorphizing this conversation. Nobody else is making this comparison.

My analogy using the dog was simply intended to point out the error in your
logic. A less advanced creature does not by virtue of being less advanced
deserve less respect, or lack of compassion. Human, Dog, fish, etc.

The original thread was simply about minimizing the suffering of an ailing
fish. You contend that fish are so less advanced then us, that simply
tossing it on the ground is adequate. I contend that any living being should
be treated as important and as a pond owner I take that philosphy to a
degree whereby I do what I can to minize the suffering of every living
creature around me.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as we clearly have different
philosophies on the importance of lesser species.

BV.

P.S. I don't believe you can treate anything but humans, humanely.

Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the
only things you own.
The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how a
living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
Kirsten
"george" wrote in message
news:LWEvd.569192$D%.88482@attbi_s51...

"Eric Schreiber" eric at ericschreiber dot com wrote in message
...
george wrote:

fish simply haven't got the biology for feeling the kind
of pain that we experience.

While that is certainly a possibility, it hasn't been conclusively
shown as yet. And even if the suffering a fish experiences if of a
different order, that hardly justifies extending that suffering any
longer than necessary.

Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors, and
do not have the peripheral or central nervous system to experience what we
would experience as pain. They exhibit fright/flight reactions, as most
all higher organisms do. If a fish is in such dire straights that it has
to be "taken down", the chances that it will "suffer" by removing it from
water and allowing it to die are highly unlikely. And again, your concept
of "suffering" is highly anthropomorhic.

perhaps the question to be asked here is why it was allowed
to get in the such bad shape in the first place.

This looks like a distraction tactic, as it isn't particularly
relevant. Fish get injured, diseased, or grow old, just like any animal.

Sure they do. If you raise fish, you are going to experience dead fish.
I've stated as much already. My point is that most fish diseases (other
than toxic shock or poisoning) do not result in a fish dying or being in
dire straights over night. There are symptoms. Swim bladder disease has
specific symptoms that are easily recognizable in the early stages, as is
the case for many fish diseases. The point here is that if a fish is not
behaving normally, then the time to act is when that behavior is first
noticed, not when it is too late to do anything about it. Then the
argument over how to put the fish down becomes moot.

I have another question for you. How do you think most pet shops deal with
dying fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable treatements? Ask
you pet shop owner what he does. I think you will be surprised at the
answer, if he/she will even give it to you.

most of it's systems have already shut down, and so it likely
will feel very little, if anything at all by allowing it to
suffocate.

Personally, I'm not willing to take such a cavalier position based on
your idea of what is 'likely'.

Again, that certainly is your choice. You do what you have to do.

I find it to be much preferable to smashing it or cutting
it's head off, as some have suggested.

Why? Are you squeamish?


Me? You've got to be kidding. I dissected an Orangutan in Primatology
class, and studied autopsy cases in Forensic Anthropology class in
college. And I've taken Human anatomy and comparative vertebrate anatomy.
I just don't like making unnecessary messes and then have to clean them
up. Call me lazy, if you like.

Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or
allowing a near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours?

This comparison is highly disingenuous given your repeated comments
about anthropomorphizing.


Not at all. It has to do with the concept of "suffering", and how one
defines it. I am under no illusion that a fish experiences pain at any
level comparible to what a dying person experiences, and so I have no
problem at all with ending the life of a near-death fish in the way I
described.

Research funding is hard to come by, generally reserved for subjects
which have some more or less direct benefit for humans. The study of
mercury in fish food has a much better chance of being supported than
the sensitivities of goldfish in an artificial environment.

We regularly read in the newspapers about some startling ability of
animals, fish, and birds: dog detects kidney disease in owner, cat finds
home 300 miles away , ape uses variety of tools, one specie nurses
another. We have known for a long time that animals surpass humans in
many special ways: hearing, speed, navigation, loyalty, among others.
Those of us who have pets have experienced little surprises regularly:
my fish know I'm the one with food and not the other guy; my dog knew
the leash was meaningful only in my hand; my hunter cat would not harm a
mouse in our house. That one fish hiding behind the rock knows he's the
one my net is after while the others just go their merry way!

My point is we do not know how the fish feels out of water, lying on the
counter, moving frantically and gasping. We're not going to find out in
school an no one will likely receive funding to research it. But we do
know about our own nervous systems and our ability to project our
feelings, to feel especially kindly toward those who are smaller than
us, to think logically about their well-being, and to treat all living
creatures with care. Some of can't do this, not think clearly or act
kindly. To suggest that what is big feels more than what is small, that
the human animal feels more pain than other animals, that all creatures,
being of less value than one's mother, need therefore receive no
consideration, diminishes the person.


Ruth Kazez

Research funding is hard to come by, generally reserved for subjects
which have some more or less direct benefit for humans. The study of
mercury in fish food has a much better chance of being supported than
the sensitivities of goldfish in an artificial environment.

We regularly read in the newspapers about some startling ability of
animals, fish, and birds: dog detects kidney disease in owner, cat finds
home 300 miles away , ape uses variety of tools, one specie nurses
another. We have known for a long time that animals surpass humans in
many special ways: hearing, speed, navigation, loyalty, among others.
Those of us who have pets have experienced little surprises regularly:
my fish know I'm the one with food and not the other guy; my dog knew
the leash was meaningful only in my hand; my hunter cat would not harm a
mouse in our house. That one fish hiding behind the rock knows he's the
one my net is after while the others just go their merry way!

My point is we do not know how the fish feels out of water, lying on the
counter, moving frantically and gasping. We're not going to find out in
school an no one will likely receive funding to research it. But we do
know about our own nervous systems and our ability to project our
feelings, to feel especially kindly toward those who are smaller than
us, to think logically about their well-being, and to treat all living
creatures with care. Some of can't do this, not think clearly or act
kindly. To suggest that what is big feels more than what is small, that
the human animal feels more pain than other animals, that all creatures,
being of less value than one's mother, need therefore receive no
consideration, diminishes the person.


Ruth Kazez

george wrote:

Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors,
and do not have the peripheral or central nervous system to
experience what we would experience as pain.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with work done at the Roslin Institute in
Scotland last year that demonstrated fish have a neurological response
that is remarkably similar to the pain response in humans.


If a fish
is in such dire straights that it has to be "taken down", the chances
that it will "suffer" by removing it from water and allowing it to
die are highly unlikely.

So you keep repeating. As I've already noted, repeating it over and
over will not magically transform opinion into fact.


This looks like a distraction tactic
If you raise fish, you are going to experience dead fish.

[paragraph snipped]

As I expected, it was a distrction tactic, as it attempts to turn the
debate away from the subject by getting involved in casting blame.


How do you think most pet shops deal
with dying fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable
treatements? Ask you pet shop owner what he does. I think you will
be surprised at the answer, if he/she will even give it to you.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. How pet stores deal with their fish isn't
relevant, and certainly doesn't qualify as an authoritative approach.
History is replete with examples of 'most people' or 'authorities'
acting stupidly.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

george wrote:

Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors,
and do not have the peripheral or central nervous system to
experience what we would experience as pain.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with work done at the Roslin Institute in
Scotland last year that demonstrated fish have a neurological response
that is remarkably similar to the pain response in humans.


If a fish
is in such dire straights that it has to be "taken down", the chances
that it will "suffer" by removing it from water and allowing it to
die are highly unlikely.

So you keep repeating. As I've already noted, repeating it over and
over will not magically transform opinion into fact.


This looks like a distraction tactic
If you raise fish, you are going to experience dead fish.

[paragraph snipped]

As I expected, it was a distrction tactic, as it attempts to turn the
debate away from the subject by getting involved in casting blame.


How do you think most pet shops deal
with dying fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable
treatements? Ask you pet shop owner what he does. I think you will
be surprised at the answer, if he/she will even give it to you.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. How pet stores deal with their fish isn't
relevant, and certainly doesn't qualify as an authoritative approach.
History is replete with examples of 'most people' or 'authorities'
acting stupidly.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

"rtk" wrote in message
...
snip
My point is we do not know how the fish feels out of water, lying on the
counter, moving frantically and gasping. We're not going to find out in
school an no one will likely receive funding to research it. But we do
know about our own nervous systems and our ability to project our
feelings, to feel especially kindly toward those who are smaller than
us, to think logically about their well-being, and to treat all living
creatures with care. Some of can't do this, not think clearly or act
kindly. To suggest that what is big feels more than what is small, that
the human animal feels more pain than other animals, that all creatures,
being of less value than one's mother, need therefore receive no
consideration, diminishes the person.


Ruth Kazez

This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say. Thanks Ruth.

BV.

"rtk" wrote in message
...
snip
My point is we do not know how the fish feels out of water, lying on the
counter, moving frantically and gasping. We're not going to find out in
school an no one will likely receive funding to research it. But we do
know about our own nervous systems and our ability to project our
feelings, to feel especially kindly toward those who are smaller than
us, to think logically about their well-being, and to treat all living
creatures with care. Some of can't do this, not think clearly or act
kindly. To suggest that what is big feels more than what is small, that
the human animal feels more pain than other animals, that all creatures,
being of less value than one's mother, need therefore receive no
consideration, diminishes the person.


Ruth Kazez

This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say. Thanks Ruth.

BV.

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:%uEvd.498511$wV.91467@attbi_s54...
snip
It is an anatomical certainty that fish do not have the pain receptors
that
humans have, and so are not capable of feeling pain the way humans do.
I:m not
suggesting that you pull a healthy fish, who might, admittedly, feel
something
vagely resembling pain, if put to the test. My argument is that if a fish
is in
so dire a shape that it has to be "put down", then certainly that fish is
unlikely to feel much, if any pain at all, no matter how one decides to
end it's
life.


You keep making the comparison of fish to humans. Nobody but you is
suggesting fish are on par with humans from a nervous system standpoint.
That does not change the fact that they may and probably do feel pain. That
does not change the fact that anything we can do as fish owners to minimize
this suffering is a good idea.

Using your own faulted logic, and the story of your mother ailing from old
age. Would you use a slow method of euthanasia on a loved one, simply
because they are "in so dire shape...that it is unlikely to feel much"?

BV.


I certainly would not put her in a bag and smash her with a hammer. How's that
for an answer?

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:%uEvd.498511$wV.91467@attbi_s54...
snip
It is an anatomical certainty that fish do not have the pain receptors
that
humans have, and so are not capable of feeling pain the way humans do.
I:m not
suggesting that you pull a healthy fish, who might, admittedly, feel
something
vagely resembling pain, if put to the test. My argument is that if a fish
is in
so dire a shape that it has to be "put down", then certainly that fish is
unlikely to feel much, if any pain at all, no matter how one decides to
end it's
life.


You keep making the comparison of fish to humans. Nobody but you is
suggesting fish are on par with humans from a nervous system standpoint.
That does not change the fact that they may and probably do feel pain. That
does not change the fact that anything we can do as fish owners to minimize
this suffering is a good idea.

Using your own faulted logic, and the story of your mother ailing from old
age. Would you use a slow method of euthanasia on a loved one, simply
because they are "in so dire shape...that it is unlikely to feel much"?

BV.


I certainly would not put her in a bag and smash her with a hammer. How's that
for an answer?

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:OCEvd.498533$wV.326174@attbi_s54...
snip
Wow. I think you need to take a deep breath and calm down. First of all,
where
did I say that fish are akin to humans? Where did I say that only humans
can
suffer pain? The fact that YOU assume that fish "suffer" as humans do is
the
reason why I used the term anthropomorphic. The dog analogy is a
non-sequitur
since dogs have vastly more complex nervous systems than fish, and in
fact, have
nervous systems that in many ways are comparable to humans. They
certainly DO
feel pain the way we do, as anyone who has ever cared for an injured dog
can
attest to. I don't know why you persist in this line of reasoning, when
my only
point is that a near-death fish is highly unlikely to experience much, if
any
pain, and so to suggest that pulling the fish out of water and allowing it
to
die is somehow inhumane is simply ludicrous.

I am quite calm, so need to calm further.

It is you that has repeatedly stated in this thread that "fish are not as
complex as humans", and "fish don't feel like humans do". You are the one
anthropomorphizing this conversation. Nobody else is making this comparison.

That is not anthropomorphizing. Do you even understand the meaning of the word?

anthropomorphize - to attribute human form or personality to things not human.

Your assumption that fish "suffer" is an anthropomorphization.

My analogy using the dog was simply intended to point out the error in your
logic. A less advanced creature does not by virtue of being less advanced
deserve less respect, or lack of compassion. Human, Dog, fish, etc.

I never said anything about not respecting other living creatures. That you
would think that I would do otherwise is disrespectful of me.

The original thread was simply about minimizing the suffering of an ailing
fish. You contend that fish are so less advanced then us, that simply
tossing it on the ground is adequate. I contend that any living being should
be treated as important and as a pond owner I take that philosphy to a
degree whereby I do what I can to minize the suffering of every living
creature around me.

I take it then, that you've never been fishing, or when you do, you have someone
else bait the hook. Am I close?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as we clearly have different
philosophies on the importance of lesser species.

BV.

P.S. I don't believe you can treate anything but humans, humanely.


Whatever that means.

"kc" wrote in message
...
Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the only
things you own.
The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how a
living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
Kirsten

I am a scientist, girlfriend. But don't take my word for it. If you can set
aside your emotional reaction to the conversation for a moment, try to read
this, and then tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm

Do Fish Feel Pain?

By Dr. James D. Rose, University of Wyoming Do fish, like humans, experience
pain and suffering? People hold very differing beliefs about this question. Some
would believe that if fish react to stimuli that would cause a person to feel
pain that the fish must also be feeling pain. Others assume that fish are too
different from humans for the matter to be of concern. Many people don't know
quite what to think about the issue. Neuroscience research has clarified the
neurological and psychological processes that cause the experience of pain, so
we can address this question from a large base of factual information.

PAIN IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE THAT IS SEPARATE FROM BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS TO
INJURIOUS STIMULI

It has become very clear that pain is a psychological experience with both a
perceptual aspect and an emotional aspect. The perceptual aspect tells us that
we have been injured, like the first sensation when you hit your thumb with a
hammer. The emotional aspect is separate as in the suffering that follows after
we are first aware of hitting our thumb. But, injurious stimuli do not always
lead to the experience of pain. Think of a trip to the dentist. When a dentist
injects a local anesthetic into your jaw to block nerve conduction, some of your
teeth and a part of your mouth feel numb. When a tooth is then drilled, the
sensory nerve cells in the tooth that would normally trigger pain are still
excited, but the nerve block prevents activity in these receptors from being
sent to the brain, so pain is not felt. In addition, a person's behavioral
reaction to pain is separate from pain experience. We see this separation when a
person endures pain without showing any discomfort. On the other hand, people
sometimes react behaviorally to injury without any feeling any experience of
pain or suffering. This kind of separation between behavioral and psychological
responses to injury results from certain forms of damage of the brain or spinal
cord. Because the experience of pain is separate from the behavioral response to
injury, the term nociception is used to refer to detection of injury by the
nervous system (which may or may not lead to pain). Injurious stimuli that
usually lead to pain experience are called nociceptive stimuli. The term pain
should be used only to refer to the unpleasant psychological experience that can
result from a nociceptive stimulus.

REACTIONS TO INJURY ARE PRESENT IN ALL FORMS OF ANIMAL LIFE BUT THESE REACTIONS
DO NOT MEAN THAT PAIN IS EXPERIENCED-IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A NOCICEPTIVE
STIMULUS TO BE CONSCIOUSLY EXEPERIENCED FOR A BEHAVIORAL REACTION TO OCCUR

In humans, reactions to nociceptive stimuli are usually associated with
feelings of pain. Consequently, humans often assume that reactions by animals to
nociceptive stimuli mean that these animals experience similar pain. In reality,
reactions to nociceptive stimuli are protective responses that can occur in
forms of life that are incapable of perceiving pain. The ability to detect and
react to nociceptive stimuli is a widespread characteristic of animal life.
Single-celled creatures such as an ameba will move away from irritating chemical
or mechanical stimuli. These reactions are automatic and because the ameba doesn't
have a nervous system, it has no ability to actually sense the stimulus that
causes its reaction or to feel pain. There are many other invertebrate organisms
(animals without backbones) that also react to nociceptive stimuli, but with
somewhat more complex patterns of escape than an ameba. For example, starfish
have a primitive nervous system that interconnects sensory receptors detecting
injurious stimuli with muscle cells that cause movements, enabling the starfish
to slowly move away from a nociceptive stimulus. The starfish's nervous system
has only a small number of nerve cells. It has no brain, so like the ameba, its
reactions are not very precise or complex and it can't experience, in the way of
humans, the stimuli that trigger its reactions. Thus, protective reactions don't
require very complex nervous systems and can occur in animals incapable of
perceiving, that is being aware of, the stimuli that cause such reactions.

IN VERTEBRATES, REACTIONS TO INJURIOUS STIMULI ARE CONTROLLED BY THE SPINAL CORD
AND BRAINSTEM

Vertebrates generally have more complex nervous systems than invertebrates and
vertebrates have a clearly developed brain. This brain receives information from
the spinal cord about nociceptive stimuli that contact the body surface. Working
together with the spinal cord, the brain generates rapid, coordinated responses
that cause the organism to escape these stimuli. These automatically generated
responses include withdrawal of the stimulated body part, struggling, locomotion
and in some animals, vocalizations. All of these responses are generated by the
lower levels of the nervous system, including the brainstem and spinal cord.

HUMAN EXISTENCE IS CEREBRALLY-DOMINATED- A FISH'S EXISTENCE IS BRAINSTEM
DOMINATED

Human existence is dominated by functions of the massively developed cerebral
hemispheres. Fishes have only primitive cerebral hemispheres and their existence
is dominated by brainstem functions. The brains of vertebrate animals differ
greatly in structural and functional complexity. Cold-blooded animals, such as
fish, frogs, salamanders, lizards and snakes, have simpler brains than
warm-blooded vertebrates, the birds and mammals. Fish have the simplest types
of brains of any vertebrates, while humans, have the most complex brains of any
species. All mammals have enlarged cerebral hemispheres that are mainly an outer
layer of neocortex. Conscious awareness of sensations, emotions and pain in
humans depend on our massively-developed neocortex and other specialized brain
regions in the cerebral hemispheres. If the cerebral hemispheres of a human are
destroyed, a comatose, vegetative state results. Fish, in contrast, have very
small cerebral hemispheres that lack neocortex. If the cerebral hemispheres of a
fish are destroyed, the fish's behavior is quite normal, because the simple
behaviors of which a fish is capable (including all of its reactions to
nociceptive stimuli) depend mainly on the brainstem and spinal cord. Thus, a
human's existence is dominated by the cerebral hemispheres, but a fish is a
brainstem-dominated organism.
The capacity to perceive and be aware of sensory stimuli, rather than just react
to such stimuli requires a complex brain. In humans, the cerebral hemispheres,
especially the neocortex, is the functional system that allows us to be aware of
sensory stimuli. If the cortex of the human brain is damaged or made
dysfunctional, we lose our awareness of sensations. For example, damage of the
visual part of the cortex causes blindness, even though vision-related sensory
activity is still occurring in subcortical parts of the brain. If the neocortex
is widely damaged we lose our capacity to be aware of our existence in general.
This loss of awareness occurs in spite of the fact that the levels of our
nervous system below the cerebral hemispheres, the brainstem and spinal cord,
can still be functioning and processing signals from sensory stimuli, including
injurious stimuli. In a fish, "seeing" is performed by the brainstem and occurs
automatically without awareness. Consequently, a fish's visual behavior is quite
normal if the small cerebral hemispheres are removed, but a human is blind if
the visual cortex region of the cerebral hemispheres is destroyed. This is
because our visual behavior depends greatly on conscious awareness of visual
sensations.
In spite of our unawareness of brainstem functions, the brainstem and spinal
cord contain programs that control our more automatic behavioral functions.
Smiling and laughter, vocalizations, keeping our balance, breathing, swallowing
and sleeping are all processes that are generated by these lower, brainstem and
spinal cord programs.

FISH DO NOT HAVE THE BRAIN DEVELOPMENT THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
EXPERIENCE OF PAIN OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF AWARENESS

The experience of pain depends on functions of our complex, enlarged cerebral
hemispheres. The unpleasant emotional aspect of pain is generated by specific
regions of the human cerebral hemispheres, especially the frontal lobes. The
functional activity of these frontal lobe regions is closely tied to the
emotional aspect of pain in humans and damage of these brain regions in people
eliminates the unpleasantness of pain. These regions do not exist in a fish
brain. Therefore, a fish doesn't have the neurological capacity to experience
the unpleasant psychological aspect of pain. This point is especially important,
because some opponents of fishing have argued that fish are capable of feeling
pain because some of the lower, subcortical nervous system pathways important
for nociception are present in fish. Obviously this argument has no validity
because without the special frontal lobe regions that are essential for pain
experiences, lower pathways alone can't produce this experience. The rapid,
well-coordinated escape responses of a fish to nociceptive stimuli are generated
automatically at brainstem and spinal cord levels but, if a fish's brainstem and
spinal cord work like a humans (and it is very likely that they do) there is no
awareness of neural activity occurring at these levels.
It might be argued that fish have the capacity to generate the psychological
experience of pain by a different process than that occurring in the frontal
lobes of the human brain, but such an argument is insupportable. The capacity to
experience pain, as we know it, has required the massive expansion of our
cerebral hemispheres, thus allocating large numbers of brain cells to the task
of conscious experience, including the emotional reaction of pain. The small,
relatively simple fish brain is fully devoted to regulating just the functions
of which a fish is capable. A fish brain is simple and efficient, and capable of
only a limited number of operations, much like a 1949 Volkswagen automobile. By
comparison, the human brain is built on the same basic plan as that of a fish,
but with massive expansions and additional capacities. The human brain is more
like a modern luxury car with all-wheel drive, climate control, emission
controls, electronic fuel injection, anti-theft devices and computerized systems
monitoring. These refinements and additional functions couldn't exist without
massive additional hardware. The massive additional neurological hardware of the
human cerebral hemispheres makes possible the psychological dimension of our
existence, including pain experience.
There are also huge differences between mammals in the degree of complexity of
cerebral hemisphere development, especially within the frontal lobes. The brains
of predatory mammals are typically larger and more complex than brains of their
prey. For example, the brains of sheep and deer have a tiny fraction of the
frontal lobe mass that is present in humans, making it probable that the kinds
of psychological experience of these animals, including pain, is quite different
from human experience.

THE REACTIONS OF FISH TO NOCICEPTIVE STIMULI ARE SIMILAR TO THEIR REACTIONS TO
PREDATORS AND OTHER NON-NOCICEPTIVE STIMULI

When a fish is hooked by an angler, it typically responds with rapid swimming
behavior that appears to be a flight response. Human observers sometimes
interpret this flight response to be a reaction to pain, as if the fish was
capable of the same kind of pain experience as a human. From the previous
explanation, it should be clear that fish behavior is a result of brainstem and
spinal patterns of activity that are automatically elicited by the stimulation
of being hooked, but that fish don't have the brain systems necessary to
experience pain. It is very important to note that the flight responses of a
hooked fish are essentially no different from responses of a fish being pursued
by a visible predator or a fish that has been startled by a vibration in the
water. These visual and vibratory stimuli do not activate nociceptive types of
sensory neurons so the flight responses can't be due to activation of
pain-triggering neural systems. Instead, these flight responses of fish are a
general reaction to many types of potentially threatening stimuli and can't be
taken to represent a response to pain. Also, these flight responses are unlikely
to reflect fear because the brain regions known to be responsible for the
experience of fear, which include some of the same regions necessary for the
emotional aspect of pain, are not present in a fish brain. Instead, these
responses are simply protective reactions to a wide range of stimuli associated
with predators or other threats, to which a fish automatically and rapidly
responds.
Although fish don't have the capacity to experience human-like pain or
suffering, their reactions to nociceptive stimuli or capture are still important
because these reactions include the secretion of stress hormones. These stress
hormones can have undesirable health effects on fish if they are secreted in
large amounts over a long period of time. So, it's important when practicing
catch-and-release fishing to observe the usually recommended procedures of
landing a fish before it is exhausted and returning it to the water quickly.
The facts about the neurological processes that generate pain make it highly
unlikely that fish experience the emotional distress and suffering of pain.
Thus, the struggles of a fish don't signify suffering when the fish is seized in
the talons of an osprey, when it is devoured while still alive by a Kodiak bear,
or when it is caught by an angler.

P.S. - Or when a dying fish is put out of it's misery by taking it out of the
water.