Can Fish Feel?

[WAG741L]

More the question is, how do you know you're not the only human capable of thinking? How do you know that your thoughts are indeed private? How do you know that everyone around you aren't capable of communicating telepathicly? Answer- you don't. Not unless they told you, in which case, they could be lying. Or indeed, robots. So I think it's a bit stupid to be saying 'Fish/reptiles/anything other than humans lack thinking skills/emotion/whatever' when, really, you have no idea even if humans do.

Isn't that the basis of existentalism? You don't know that you are not the ONLY being, imagining the existence of everything else - in other words, you personally just made it all up - you imagined people, dogs, cars, trees, even fish, and the whole universe is just a figment of your imagination. Nothing else exists in the void, just you and your vivid imagination ...

Anyway, would it not be kinder just to assume that fish can feel pain, and treat them accordingly, with care and respect? Then you can't go wrong!

 

[OohFeeshy]

Isn't that the basis of existentalism?

Dunno . But it sounds like it's handy in an arguement

 

[ncjharris]

This is turning into a "3am-just-got-in-and-very-soon-will-have-the-munchies-man" type conversation!

 

[OohFeeshy]

No! I already had the muchies. Got me some cous-cous

 

[andywg]

From memory, the legal arguement (certianly in this country) is whether the life form is sentinent, and that is described as one with a backbone.
Hence the reason the feeding of live food is illeagal.

That's actually wrong. There have been a number of threads on this and in one the RSPCA was asked to comment and agreed with the below.

The feeding of live food is perfectly acceptable so long as the food is not put into unnecessary cruelty. The definition of unnecessary is yet to be fully clarified, but a fish (or any other animal) that is swallowed whole is very unlikely to be considered cruelly treated in the eyes of the law, especially when feeding to predatory animals.

 

[ncjharris]

Yes, actually from quickly reading a few articles;

The RSPCA will recommend someone for prosecution if they feed a live animal to another as in their eyes it constitutes 'Animal Cruelty'. From a quick précis of other forums, it seems that where this has happened the RSPCA has appointed as an expert witness a vet or similar to cite that the animal would have experienced pain and hence cruelty. In the absence of anyone proving this evidence is flawed this has resulted in convictions.

Looking at the defra website, the protection of animal acts means it is illegal to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal by either commission or omission.
Other websites say that cases involving feeding animals other animals have returned a conviction as the prosecution was able to prove this constituted animals fighting.

So while there appears to be nothing in statute for it, there appears to be some basis in previous cases. However, as you said, cruelty isn't particularly well defined.

Finally, most of the above was garnered from reptile sites, which apparently experience a lot of grief from animal rights people due to feeding snakes mice and the like.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Yeah, I do think most of the legislation regards reptiles/feeding live rodents, as we all know that the RSPCA doesn't give a jot about fish welfare.

 

[rdd1952]

Anyone that has ever fished and caught a fish that swallowed the hook or got it caught in another area other than the mouth would probably say that fish feel pain. I don't have scientific proof by any means but have seen and felt fish tense, tighten or twitch when I tried to remove a hook that was deep in their mouth/throat, their eye or gills or even just in the lip. They tense up just about like I do when the dentist starts the drill and I see smoke coming from my mouth. I don't think it's fear although we all know that fish feel fear. It has to be the fact that they are feeling something. Maybe it isn't the same as we feel ain. Maybe their threshold for pain is much higher than ours but I definitely believe they feel pain of some sort.

 

[andywg]

Yes, actually from quickly reading a few articles;

The RSPCA will recommend someone for prosecution if they feed a live animal to another as in their eyes it constitutes 'Animal Cruelty'. From a quick précis of other forums, it seems that where this has happened the RSPCA has appointed as an expert witness a vet or similar to cite that the animal would have experienced pain and hence cruelty. In the absence of anyone proving this evidence is flawed this has resulted in convictions.

Looking at the defra website, the protection of animal acts means it is illegal to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal by either commission or omission.
Other websites say that cases involving feeding animals other animals have returned a conviction as the prosecution was able to prove this constituted animals fighting.

So while there appears to be nothing in statute for it, there appears to be some basis in previous cases. However, as you said, cruelty isn't particularly well defined.

Finally, most of the above was garnered from reptile sites, which apparently experience a lot of grief from animal rights people due to feeding snakes mice and the like.

Rather than gaining information on legal aspects from hobby sites and what you think should happen, you should get some straight facts. There can't be "previous cases" if there is no statute to bring the case under.

From an earlier thread, the RSPCA was asked directly about it by a member and had this to say:

feeding live fish to other fish

Enquiry:
Hi I am a member of a fish keeping forum. A question has arisen as to whether it is legal in the UK to feed live fish to other fish. I have searched all over for a definitive answer but can't find one. Do you know whether its legal or not, or the act that may deal with this.

Response:
Thank you for your enquiry. We are not aware of there being any legal constraints on feeding fish to other live fish or any animal. There is also no legislation that specifically allows the use of certain fish to feed certain other fish. However, there is clear evidence that fish are sentient, so such action could potentially be an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 if a vet agreed that unnecessary suffering had been caused by such actions. The difficulty would therefore arise when trying to prove suffering had intentionally been caused. For example, piranhas (depending on the species) will scavenge fish scales off live fish, take dead or meat sinking through the water or if hungry enough could attack live fish. However, piranhas do not require the offering of live fish in captivity to trigger feeding, as feeding can also be triggered by dead meat/fish being dropped into their water tank. Another issue that could have an impact on the welfare of the piranha's and the fish being added for food, is the taking of fish from one water environment to then release straight into water of a different water environment. It is widely recognised that such practice can shock the fish and could even be fatal. I hope this information is helpful for you and thank you again for contacting us. Kind regards RSPCA Enquiries Service


Feeding live fish to other fish
Subject:Feeding live fish to other fish
Ref no.:1106212733628
Recd.:21/01/2005
Status.:responded

And to further prove the point, below is an extract where someone on the same thread (same page in fact) quoted the parliamentary committe debating the new Animal Welfare Bill (due to come in before too long IIRC (the bold in both is my formating and I have broken up Mr Newman's reply to make for easy reading):

Q162 Chairman: I think we have the message that there are two different perspectives on this and we will reflect carefully on them. I want to move on to the question of the feeding of live prey to some of these exotic species because Clause 2 of the Bill deals with matters connected with fighting and the herpetologists' evidence talks about some of the behavioural patterns that may require animals to be put together, different species, for various reasons, and I wonder if you would care to comment on whether there is a conflict between the "natural" way these animals exist and feed and the terms in Clause 2 of this Bill.

Mr Newman: The issue we have is on the welfare Clause, Clause 3(4)©, the need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns. That is really where part of this is coming from. The feeding of live prey to reptiles is extremely rare. Ten years ago it used to be common practice.

In many parts of the world, Europe, Holland, France and Germany, it is still the most common way of feeding. We do not enter into that practice here. 99.8 per cent of what we feed will be pre killed, frozen rodents. On occasion, particularly if we are bringing in new species of snakes or whatever, you may have a specimen which is a reluctant feeder and in those circumstances it may be appropriate to feed a live vertebrate to that animal under controlled conditions. Currently under the 1911 Act it is not illegal to feed a live vertebrate to another unless you cause it unnecessary suffering, so that would have to be the result of a court case and the judge would have to make a decision.

Those of us who have been involved with reptiles will argue that a mouse that is being produced for food really has no cognizance of what is going on and exhibits no fear. Whilst we absolutely do not want to encourage live feeding, we think we need some clarity as to whether that is going to be made illegal under this clause of fighting. Our concerns are, because of Clause 3(iv)©, the need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, that snakes in the wild feed on life prey, there are no carrion feeding snakes, so that would mean we are not going to be able to feed them frozen food; we are going to have to feed them live mice, and equally we would be opposed to having to introduce that.

Again, we see the "unnecessary suffering" brought up. This would need to be decided by a judge. The very fact that they do not give mention to any cases means the chances are that this has never even been tested in a court of law. Otherwise, they would give the case and the judge's opinion of what actually is unnecessary suffering (the lovely way that case law makes up for vague statute).

Does anyone know how many people have even been tried, let alone prosecuted under the relevant statute? I bet it's next to, if not exactly, none. Why? Because any solicitor or barrister worth tuppence ha'penny could argue that there was not unnecessary suffering beyond all reasonable doubt.

Bottom line: if you really want to, you can easily feed live fish as feeders. I'd only worry if you are using full grown black pacu as feeders for small red bellies.

Andy

 

[onemisterchristian]

Wow, this topic really took off. I just threw it out there expecting a few people to say something like of course they feel pain and then give some mildly definitive example of why. But, it seems most of you feel pretty strongly about this. As for the verdict, has one really been reached?

Fish feel pain? Yes, is this agreeable by all?
Fish experince the pain? I can't really decide
Fish experience emotion? maybe?

Anyways, I'll go, i'm tired from gambling at the casino all night.

 

[Genesis]

hmm, i wonder if fin-nips hurt....

 

[Fella]

[quote name=''genesis' post='1022629' date='Jan 4 2006, 07:27 AM']
hmm, i wonder if fin-nips hurt....
[/quote]


Well, yeah.

 

[Genesis]

no, depends if their sensory organs extend to their fins

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

[quote name='Fella' post='1022709' date='Jan 4 2006, 10:53 AM']
[quote name=''genesis' post='1022629' date='Jan 4 2006, 07:27 AM']
hmm, i wonder if fin-nips hurt....
[/quote]


Well, yeah.
[/quote]

I know it does in guppys, i had a female guppy a long time ago who had a serious case of finrot- it came down to trimming the finrot affected areas off with some scissors or letting her die, as no meds were responding to her condition and her health was rapidly deteriotating, water quality was excellant and she was getting a good diet and wasn't been picked on etc.
I caught her and quickly clipped off the affected areas of her tail, each time she flinched- if she didn't have pain receptors/sensory organs in her tail, she wouldn't have flinched, but she did so i gathered she does. Anyhoo, she survived and recovered, but i wouldn't advise other people to do what i did as it really was a last ditch attempt to save her and it was quite difficult to do and both stressful for the fish and me.

 

[andywg]

But were they pain receptors, or merely touch receptors? I don't know the answer to that one. But if it was merely touch and they don't like being touched then they may not feel the pain there.