Do Fish Feel Pain? The science behind whether Fish Feel Pain
-Editor's Weekly Ramblings 24
Friday 5th September 2003
Do Fish Feel Pain?
"The gull turned its head in rapid, almost robotic movements, as if to verify it was alone, and then it hopped down to where the clam it had dropped lay open on the smooth, hard-packed sand. The clam cracked open like an egg and Jack saw raw meat inside, still twitching, or perhaps that was his imagination. Don't want to see this. But before he could turn away, the gull's yellow, hooked beak was pulling at the meat, stretching it like a rubber band, and he felt his stomach knot into a slick fist. In his mind he could hear that stretched tissue screaming - nothing coherent, only stupid flesh crying out in pain." - The Talisman - Stephen King and Peter Straub
Pain is not a respecter of intelligence. We tend to assume that the stupidest individual we know is capable of feeling as much pain as we do. We don't tend to say:
"Well, Bob is pretty dumb you know. Are we really sure that he felt pain when that truck hit him? Ok. I know he flew 25 feet in the air, let out a blood curdling scream and then thrashed about for ten minutes. But was that just a motor response? Was he really feeling it?"
We just don't. Bob may be dumb, but pain he most certainly did feel. And yet change it around to say:
"Well fish are pretty dumb you know. Are we really sure that fish felt pain when we hauled it 25 feet in the air with a metal hook in its mouth, juggled it, patted ourselves on the back for a bit, took a picture, then weighed it while all the while it is gasping for air (I did throw it back after all!)" And we aren't so sure.
Fish aren't cuddly. They don't wag their fins at you when you enter the room. They seem distant, aloof, independent, rather like cats really, only without the mitigating fur that is amusing to stroke. Tell me, if you stuck a hook through your cats mouth, dunked him in water and stood and watched while he floundered desperately for air. Would you suspect that might be a painful experience?
![]() U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Joys of Angling |
Is that same experience painful for a fish though? That is the first question. There is actually rather a lot of science to back up the fact that fish do feel pain. Recent research published in April 2003 by The Royal Society investigated the sensory system of trout through their responses to injections of bee venom and acetic acid around their mouths. In effect the research was trying to find out whether fish possessed the same kind of pain receptors that have already been identified in amphibians, birds and mammals including humans. And secondly, whether the response to the pain producer (i.e. the bee sting etc) was not just a reflex response which might be akin for example to pressing the belly of a talking barbie doll; but rather an actual adverse reaction to the pain stimulus.




Pat Tran
Posted by: AzNDuDe - 2009-05-20 - 09:32 GMT
Yum, yum. trout tastes good fried. Agree?
Posted by: guest - 2009-03-24 - 11:39 GMT
It is so great to know that there are human beings in this world with feelings.
Posted by: Paulina - 2009-02-17 - 12:16 GMT
So trout react to bee venom and acid by not wanting to eat while dealing with a bee venom and acid by rubbing mouths against rocks, carp still think they are hooked for a bit after release, and that trout and carp have 58 pain receptors.
Posted by: guest - 2009-02-05 - 15:57 GMT
Eating meat is a choice, just like believing in God is and of course neither is right or wrong. However, what I strongly believe is wrong is the torture of animals. Life for animals bred and reared in modern meat factories is pure horror and torture (google this up a bit). One puts an animal through life-long torture just to tingle the tastebuds a bit- that is something I can do without.
And again if I can live healthily without harming other life, why should I eat meat?
Posted by: guest - 2008-12-15 - 12:12 GMT
I am a person who fishes on a regular basis. I eat most of what I catch, the ones that are small get set free. Fishing is no different than deer hunting. People bait deer and use dogs to hunt deer. I honestly think that people have too much time on their hands and have nothing better to do other than figure this stuff out. I am not concerned about whether they have feelings of pain, I want to eat. It is my choice to eat meat. I am sure a lot of the people complaining eat beef, you think the cow had a chance? America is going through a trying time with the economy, and the only thing on their mind is whether or not fish feel pain. I plan to keep fishing for fun and food.
Posted by: guest - 2008-12-11 - 15:40 GMT
I have fished a few times in my life, I actually went yesterday. I WILL NEVER GO AGAIN! ITS A BLOODSPORT! On thinking about what I was actually doing yesterday I came to the conclusion that it is a cruel sport and I was glad when I didn't catch anything. I believe fishing should be banned and would support any campaign to get fishing banned. Alan Murph
Posted by: guest - 2008-11-22 - 16:38 GMT
I feel sorry for fish because they are not treated and respected like other domestic animals =[
Posted by: guest - 2008-11-17 - 11:15 GMT
I agree with the below. Anything that can feel pain needs to be treated with relative sensitivity.
Posted by: guest - 2008-10-19 - 15:53 GMT
I do believe fish have feelings. My daddy and me are going trout fishing and I insist on putting it back, but dad says "who cares it can't feel anything... it's a fish". He says just like the song by Nirvana and it says in it, it's OK to kill fish because they have no feelings That's sooo sad. I will still put it back
Posted by: ang - 2008-10-19 - 15:51 GMT
Becoming a vegetarian was a moral decision for me. I am an avid animal rights activist who is against animal cruelty in all ways. People had been telling me that fish cannot feel pain, but this article (and the many others I read) proves them wrong. I can agree that animals were put on this Earth to be used as a food source for natives. However I know that they were not put on this Earth to be treated as horribly as they are. Fish are no exception.
Posted by: guest - 2008-08-15 - 18:34 GMT
All in all it boils down to PETA which stands for People Eating Tasty Animals
Posted by: TubeN2 - 2008-08-12 - 11:28 GMT
Eat meat you need the protein - you're looking pretty ill there, buddy. You think natives of this land were involved in animal cruelty think again, guys. I live in rural Alaska - no supermarkets, no restaurants. If I didn't kill animals to live I'd be dead. Peta
Posted by: guest - 2008-07-28 - 11:50 GMT
Human animals do not NEED to eat other animals in order to live a healthy life. Come on people, stop using all these lame excuses like it's our nature, it's tradition, it's part of evolution, we are on top of the food chain, animals taste nice and whatever other bullshit you hang on to. Move on, evolve, become vegan! Stop animal abuse and cruelty, save the environment, save yourself. Stop being so selfish.
Posted by: guest - 2008-05-02 - 17:21 GMT
First, this article is not well written (it even implies that fish are mammals) and seems to reword the findings of studies to make them sound much more conclusive than they are.
Regarding the comments below, the fatty acids in fish can be obtained from flax or hemp seed in better balances (without the risk of metal poisoning). As for meat: meat eaters get about twice as much protein as they need, and this contributes to health problems (kidney stones, high cholesterol/blood pressure & heart disease, some forms of cancer). True carnivores have to kill to eat.
Humans are biological omnivores who can live entirely off of plants - millions do it. So it's not 'nature' and it's not necessary.
And microbes are irrelevent. There's a huge difference between intentional, avoidable killing (including meat, which is easy to live without) and killing that can't be avoided. With current methods of agriculture, even eating grains kills many animals. Unconsciously we can't help but kill microbes, and if we injure ourselves we're killing our own cells.
The thing to consider is whether there's any good at all in us eating animals. It's consistently being seen that poorer health, animal suffering and environmental degradation are what we get out of it. As long as people want fish (& other animal products), they'll keep filling that demand however they can.
Posted by: hexalm - 2008-04-22 - 16:04 GMT
I think your article would be much more agreeable and respectable if you did not use "facts" from environmentalist groups such as PETA or RSPCA. Many of these "facts" you listed were written in such a completely biased manner that real scientific findings are completely obscured. As a fish biologist I have read many of these scientific articles and based on the cumulative findings of the scientific community, there is still no verdict. A scientific article would never be published if made conclusions only listing one reference. This is because there are so many factors to biological research that all factors can never be accounted for. If ten other researchers replicated this study, perhaps only 3 of them would find results co-currant with current results. What would you report then? Would it be logical to say that that only 1 person out of 11 reached the correct conclusion? Reputable writing must take into account the cumulation of all findings in order to weed out anomalies.
Posted by: KimberlyT - 2008-04-11 - 09:57 GMT
if fish do feel pain then yes fishing is cruelty to animals and thats wrong
but meat is an important part of my diet. Yeah. OK. killing animals is cruel but kill them the in the most humane way possible.
You have to way everything up into proportion. I agree with the whole free range and organic thing its great but we need to kill to eat just like a shark needs to kill to eat - its nature think about it!
Posted by: sshepherd666 - 2008-03-28 - 16:04 GMT
Let me state my biases up front: I am a clinical & research psychologist, and a former vegetarian, who is now a pescetarian. I recently started eating fish because of the essential fatty acids unique to fish that cannot be obtained from other dietary sources.
Ok, now let me be blunt. Killing animals is inevitable - even for the most humane animal-rights advocates among us. As the Dalai Lama notes, we kill countless microbes when we cook our vegetables and wash our hands with anti-bacterial soap. The flip side is, we will all incur illness, pain and death (at least most of us will) as a result of the microbes living in our bodies. When we die of "natural causes," guess what, it is a slew of microscopic animals that eventually finishes us off, and most often, it is not painless.
Perhaps instead of debating whether or not we should kill animals (or fish) for food, or whether fish feel pain, we should examine whether the animals we eat get to live their lives with the freedom and dignity that we humans do. Though I now eat fish, I only eat wild-caught fish that are caught by methods that do not damage the ecosystems (see the Monterey Bay website for more details). Until the day they are caught, these fish get to live their lives with the analogous freedom and dignity that I live (until the day that a microscopic animal finally does me in). However, there are dairy cows who are penned up and exploited that never get to live a life of similar freedom and dignity. Though these animals aren't killed (immediately) for their product, have they ever fully lived? Does it matter that these dairy cows do not feel pain? Do the microbes we kill when we wash our hands or boil our vegetables feel pain? Is it possible to live an existence without causing pain to animals? If not, where do we go from here?
- John G. Cottone, Ph.D.
Author, "Reflections: From Man to God and Back"
Posted by: JGC1 - 2007-03-22 - 21:23 GMT


Please copy the 5 symbols from this security code image into the box below to submit comment.








