I leave this thread for a couple of days and come back to a load of bickering between people who have the same agenda:

Animal Welfare.

And I can't really understand why everything has become so heated. Sure I don't hold much hope for Yabby who raison d'etre is to diss everything - especially if they're female. But the rest of you - FOR SHAME!

Now to leave the past where it belongs, I shall move on with some interesting words for the inimical Dr Karl Kruszelnicki on a topic we have thus far omitted.

FISH (sorry about capitals but I shall never reach the heights of the CAPITALS KING Boaz David).

Karl states:

"In a series of studies, British scientists studied 20 rainbow trout fish. They looked for pain receptors, exposed the fish to heat, injected their lips with various chemicals, and recorded brain activity while this was all going on. They were able to show four results, which when you put them all together, do suggest that fish feel pain.

In general, you would think that it would be essential for an animal to be able to feel pain. The memory of the unpleasant sensation would make them keep away from immediate sources of injury. In the long run, this would help them live longer.

The first thing that the scientists showed in their study of the 20 volunteer trout, was that they each had each had some 58 specialised receptors on their head. Some of these receptors responded to just one stimulus, while others responded to a bunch of stimuli.

In humans, receptors that pick up heat and mechanical pressure are identified as being pain receptors. So in the rainbow trout, 22 of the 58 receptors could be counted as pain receptors.

continued..

contd.

In fact, under the microscope, these receptors look virtually identical to the corresponding human receptors. They also had very similar mechanical and thermal thresholds. These fish receptors send signals to the fish brain via nerves.

So the rainbow trout have the complete "neuro-apparatus" and wiring needed to experience pain.

Second, the scientists gave the fish various nasty stimuli to their lips - and of course, they had a control set of fish that they did not give nasty stimuli to. The fish having a bad time increased their heart rate by up to 30%. They also massively increased the rate at which they beat their gills. However, these reactions could be a simple reflex. It doesn't have to mean that their brains felt pain.

Third, the scientists saw that many of the fish had abnormal reactions, after they had been injured.

Some of the fish took on a "rocking" behaviour, which people who have been through a close encounter with death will often do. (If you look closely at TV footage of the survivors of train accidents, earthquakes, etc, you will see some of them with their arms clasped to their chest, rocking back and forth.) Some of the fish refused to feed for a long time after the injury. Other fish rubbed their lips in the gravel of their tank, something they would normally never do.

continued....

contd.

So, the fish had post-traumatic stress reactions. Some of these were almost identical to human post-traumatic stress reactions (eg., rocking, not eating). Some reactions were the fish equivalent (eg, rubbing lips in gravel is their equivalent of us using our hands to rub our sore lips.)

The final test also suggested that trout can feel pain.

Dr. Sneddon first injected various nasty chemicals into the lips of rainbow trout. As expected, they showed various kinds of abnormal behaviour and distress.

Then she gave them a pain killer, morphine. The fish behaviour returned to normal.

So to sum up, these rainbow trout had all the necessary receptors and wiring to react to nasty stimuli. When hit with a nasty stimulus, they did what we would do - pulled away, and then later showed abnormal behaviour. And finally, when given a pain killer, their abnormal behaviour went away.

Putting the evidence together, it seems fairly likely that fish (at least, rainbow trout) do feel pain.

In our world, about the only creatures that do not kill other creatures to get their raw materials and energy are the plants. Plants get their raw materials from the air and the ground, and their energy from sunlight. The rest of us have to eat other creatures, which involves the death of that creature, either plant or animal.

We do have to eat, but we don't have to cause pain.

So what can you do next time you catch fish? Take some ice and icy water with you, and plunge the freshly-caught fish into the icy water. As the fish cools, its metabolism will slow down, and it will go (painlessly, we think) into hibernation and then anaesthesia. Then place it gently on the ice, but out of the water. It will suffocate to death, but while being anaethetised.

So just because fish are cold-blooded animals, doesn't mean that we have to be cold-blooded killers..."

I believe that Dr Karls concluding words are entirely relevant to our discussion here.

I beg everyone to focus on our goal; humane farming and slaughtering of animals.

Thank you.

Scout, "So what can you do next time you catch fish? Take some ice and icy water with you, and plunge the freshly-caught fish into the icy water. As the fish cools, its metabolism will slow down, and it will go (painlessly, we think) into hibernation and then anaesthesia."

Makes for better tasting fish as well, less time stressed leaves the meat in better condition. A chilled fish does not start to decompose as quickly as one at air temperature. Lots of good reasons for it.

The other part of fishing that we will eventually have to come to grips with is the push for catch and release and possibly a consideration of the best way of managing fish stocks (the combination of bag and size limits) seems to create a catch 22 which increases the proportion of fish caught and not eaten. How many undersized fish die after being released? I wonder if bag limits should be based on KG's of cleaned fish or some other criteria rather than just size and numbers.

If fish do feel real pain then how can we justify catch and release where pain is caused to fish just for the pleasure of catching them.

R0bert

"I don't hold much hope for Yabby who raison d'etre is to diss everything"

Actually quite wrong Scout. I am simply against emotional hyperbole
to promote peoples agendas. I am for uptodate and accurate
information and then using reasoned thinking to come to conclusions
about that information.

Debate about the live trade is full of emotional hyperbole.
If you really want to inform yourself, here is a link to
Australian Live Export Standards, introduced in 2005 and constantly
being upgraded. They are now considered some of the best in the
world. Many countries export live animals, for various reasons,
including breeding. The way things are going, Australia is setting
the standards for the rest of the world to follow, as was shown
in a report released in March.

http://www.daff.gov.au/livestockexportstandards

Oh R0bert

A sane response just when I really really needed one. I was having a case of maybe-I-am-just-barking-mad today - ever have days like those?

What you say about chilling the fish first not only being more humane but that the fish make better eating is a good point. Seems to go along with a general theme of treating animals well, feeding them natural (as opposed to chemicals & antibiotics) food and ensuring their lives are as enhanced and humane as possible results in food that is both tasty and good for us.

I know I'm not going to be a vegetarian any time soon, however I don't believe in exploiting anyone or anything and have often wondered too about the chance for survival of fish that are dropped back into the ocean after being sorted out.

Brings the question:

What happens to the fish the John West rejects? Or Rex Hunt for that matter. If Rex ever kissed me I think I'd have a lot of major health issues and not just physical ones either ;-)

With fish stocks running low due to overfishing (the techniques used also must cause suffering) maybe we can bring some humanity into the fish trade as well. Nothing like a crisis to sort out our priorities.

BTW - R0bert - Could you please email me? I wish to clarify my misunderstanding without using the forum. I'm not really interested in joining the 'dissing men' thread.

>
>
>
>

Yabby:

Statements like "emotionally engulfed housewives" constant references to "uteris" and "knickers" are deliberate terms aimed at the female posters to this thread and are indicative that you have no respect for the many views being proffered here. It is one thing to disagree, it is quite another to indulge in sexist comments because you disagree. If you wish to be taken seriously then you need to take other people seriously as well.