By Ian Scott

It looks like the debate on fish pain and sentience is coming to Ontario. And if you care about angling and Catch & Release, you'll want to seriously consider attending this event - but doing some research ahead of time to prepare yourself. With thanks to Ian James, I became aware of the "Are Fish Sentient?" Symposium, to be held at the University of Guelph on July 14th, 2006 at 2 P.M. After going through the press release and reading about the two speakers who will be present, one has to wonder if this is simply a "stacked" event in order to convince people that fish can feel pain. What could the consequences be of such a belief among a strong minority of people? I'll tell you what - it could mean the gradual end of angling in Ontario, and over the long term, perhaps throughout Canada and North America. The press release indicates that "At 2 p.m., philosophy professor Gary Varner of Texas A&M University will discuss "Something Fishy? Animal Consciousness and Arguments by Analogy." Who is Gary Varner? According to his website, he shares "some sympathies with the animal rights movement, but if you read some of my publications you'll find that I'm not a wacko." Well, being a philosopher, it would be helpful if Varner defined his terms and explained to us his meaning of the word "wacko." I also have some issues with someone like Varner being featured as a speaker at a "Are fish sentient?" symposium, which I'll get to in a moment. The second speaker will be "Victoria Braithwaite, a behavioural biologist from Edinburgh University, will speak on "Can Fish Perceive Pain? And Do They Have the Capacity to Suffer?" according to the Press Release. It should be noted that Dr. Braithwaite was one of the authors of the infamous "Sneddon Study," published in Proceedings of the Royal Society, 2003 by Sneddon, Braithwaite and Gentle (abstract of study here). You starting to see the problem here with this "symposium" yet? First, we've got a philosopher - not a scientist - discussing the question of animal consciousness . Second, "argument by analogy" is not a rational way of determining truth about reality. Analogies are not arguments, but are analogies. Analogies are used to try to explain a truth, but it is irrational for anyone to accept an analogy as evidence of truth or fact. Analogies may be useful to explain a truth or known fact, but to suggest one can "argue" by analogy is irrational. It maybe useful in philosophy, but has no use in true science as far as I'm concerned. I have no objection to Dr. Braithwaite speaking at this symposium - in fact, I'm looking forward to hearing her. Now, the press release states that following the above talks, there will be an "informal debate." So, where are the people that will refute a philosopher's analogies and a Doctor's study, which has been shown to have been bad science in the first place? Furthermore, what is expected to be accomplished by a "debate," anyhow? After I discovered that this event was being scheduled, I immediately contacted Dr. James Rose, who has written an excellent critique of the original "Sneddon Study" that Dr. Braithwaite was involved in. Dr. Rose agrees that "debates" are silly as far as trying to determine the truth about whether fish feel pain. Only investigative science can ever determine this - and even then, one must have some sort of definition of what "pain" is, exactly. Dr. Rose advised me that he had been notified of this upcoming symposium, however the notice was "cryptic" and he was not able to tell whether he was actually being officially invited or not to participate. He is still awaiting a response but "doubts whether he would even attend" as he "does not see the usefulness of this sort of debate." He stated, "Debates don't solve scientific questions." What many people do not seem to realize is that "pain" is just as much a result of psychology as it has to do with any evidence of nociception. As someone who worked for 20 years in Law Enforcement, I think I have some understanding of the concept of pain. As someone who suffered from Rheumatoid Arthritis for four years when I was a child, I can speak on the subject of pain. What I can not speak on, nor do I think can anyone at this point in time, speak to a similar psychology of pain that humans experience, in fish and reptiles. I also know that with human pain, pain may be inflicted which causes compliance. I have, on many many occassions, inflicted pain on a human being in order to obtain compliance from that person. And believe me, degrees of force have nothing to do with degrees of pain. I can use very little force and in many instances, inflict what a human might describe as "intense pain." They have no choice but to comply with my wishes in order to stop the pain. Fish do NOT act this way at all, therefore in my humble opinion, the "experience" of pain in a fish is in no way the same as in the way a human experiences pain. Humans who assert "pain" in fish are confusing and projecting their own phsychology and experience with their assertion. Asserting "feeling of pain" is an absurd assertion in this regard. I know what pain "is," but only I can know whatever pain I am feeling. Those who suggest "I can feel your pain" are perhaps being empathetic, but it is IMPOSSIBLE scientifically and in reality for someone to "feel MY pain." I believe that it is vital that as many anglers or those interested in angling, attend this event at the University of Guelph next week. Get educated. Find out what some are trying to assert. It will also be helpful to brush up on some logic. Recognize the assertion of premises that may not be correct. Or premises that are being asserted based on irrational thought. Dr. Rose has kindly provided me with his critique of the original "Sneddon Study," and has given me permission to publish it on my website. Read it. Also be aware that according to Dr. Rose, no one has come forth with any substantive rebuttal to Dr. Rose's critique, however one group did have a rebuttal published in a Journal which in Rose's opinion misrepresented what Rose wrote. Furthermore, the editors of the Journal in which this rebuttal was published would not publish Dr. Rose's response - which is a strange and curious fact as the common and accepted practice would be to publish a response from an author who is being criticized. Dr. Rose's critique may be read here and is also available in a PDF format. I also have another interesting article which I published on my website in 2003, by Alexander Schwab, author of Hook, Line & Thinker, which dealt with the "Sneddon Study," and Dr. Rose's response to it. Read it here. For those who wish to become more educated about the "Animal Welfare" and "Animal Rights" movement in general, Dr. Rose highly recommends Schwab's Hook, Line & Thinker as well as With Respect For Nature: Living As Part Of The Natural World (Suny Series in Environmental Philosophy and Ethics) by Claude Evans. I have copies of Schwab's book for sale, as I personally purchased many copies directly from the publisher and was the first to bring this book to North America. I had thought there would be enough people interested in knowing more about this - but to date, I have sold one book. Perhaps if that is any indication of the interest anglers have in the animal right's movements, then maybe we are eventually doomed to their illogical, irrational advertising and the "creep" of their agenda. I will have more information as it comes available as well as comments from others about this subject and the upcoming symposium in particular. Details on the symposium: University of Guelph July 14 at 2 p.m. Room 141 of the Animal Sciences and Nutrition Building. The event is free and open to the public.

Previous Features

From The Bench: The Muncher is a favorite of Ian James for carp, smallies, more.    Tie This!

The Doc's Rx: Thoughts of a Chicken Rancher. Doc tells it like it is.    The Doc's Rx