PlanetCatfish.com

The answer is yes, and no.

From much of the losses among my catfishes, I have been very interested to know if fish really do feel pain and discomfort. I've been studying and learning much from scientific research that has been conducted on this controversial topic. Of course, to my surprise, Wikipedia's article has confirmed much of what I've studied; particularly in the neuroanatomy of fish:

In the bodies most living creatures, nerves and their receptors are present and send electrical signals to the brain. There is one specific type of fibre known as a "C-type" trauma receptor: this is the fibre responsible for incurring the "excruciating pain" that can present itself in humans. The typical human cutaneous (skin) nerve is comprised of 83% C-type fibres; we all know how much it hurts to get a cut, even in some of the least-sensitive areas of the body (e.g., the shin). Whereas in the Rainbow Trout, a typical nerve has only 5% C-type trauma receptors; sharks and rays (if not all cartilaginous fishes) have been found not to have any of these fibres whatsoever: thus, these fishes are incapable of experiencing cognitive pain. Since bony fishes are only slightly more advanced/evolved than cartilaginous fishes, it's only logical that they naturally wouldn't feel much pain at all.

Now, what about the topic of angling? What does all the thrashing and fighting of the hooked fish mean? It turns out that nearly all of this is simply reflexive responses. These involuntary spasms are no doubt discomforting to any fish, and this is how fish learn to avoid situations involving negative stimuli often caused by the angler's hook. Now, we naturally see this and transfer human-like characteristics onto the struggling fish: we assume it is thrashing in terrible pain. "Suffering" requires the state of consciousness; since it is unlikely that fish have a similar level of consciousness as humans, thankfully in this instance, they do not suffer much: of course, the definitely-uncomfortable spasms provide reason enough to help fish learn not to bother with hooks as much.

So in reality, fish do not feel much pain at all.
However, witnessing the reactions of fish in distress does cause us pain!
Knowing the reality of things plays a small part in helping me to endure those sad moments of losing a fish (they feel almost like members of the family to me). I hope others will learn all this, too.

Here's the link to the Wikipedia article, Pain in Fish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_fish#cite_note-32

Reading your whole posting, I can not agree with

Since bony fishes are only slightly more advanced/evolved than cartilaginous fishes

When amphibians evolved out of some kind of fish, fish did not stop evolving. Indeed, most of the groupes of fishes we are keeping had not evolved by that time.

Catfish did exist - but not all families. Loricarids, Callichtids, Doradids, Woodcat for instance are - correct me if I'm wrong - evolved much later. Just as Cichlids tooth carps ...

but, basically, what is the difference between pain and discomfort? You went into one kind of pain nerve and claim bony fish don't have much of it. Not much is not similar as none at all.

But people have more kinds op pain

If I put, say, my Opsodoras stubeli into a tank, and I don't see them for a month, and than see them daily - that has to do with getting used to the environment. Stress, that is.

But some people insist on seeing animals, and especially fish, as 'living machines'. Without feelings, without any emotions - more existing than living.

Those people will jump to any conclusion allowing them to torment animals. Well, I can only disagree with them

From a completely non science view my answer would be yes fish feel pain.

Think of how fish act when in pain from poor water or disease they don't carry on as if nothing has happened they change.

Or if you have more aggressive fish think how one backs down when it gets hurt.

Bas Pels wrote:Not much is not similar as none at all.

I completely agree. That's especially my point: the great majority of fishes do feel actual pain. Fish are not humans, and obviously aren't endowed with the same levels of both consciousness and emotions; it is absolutely true that fish have consciousness and, in my belief, emotions. One must put it all in perspective, though: the relative complexities/advancements of the brain between humans and fishes is indescribably vast, but that doesn't mean that fish don't experience discomforts, pains, or possibly emotions. I like to think of "discomfort" as distinct from "pain" in the sense that I equate "pain" with "sharp", and "discomfort" with "dull". However, discomfort and pain are both unpleasant sensations, and are thus the same. How we experience such sensations is on a much grander scale than it's equivalent relativity in fish (i.e., from a scientific standpoint, if a human brain and nervous system's complexity was brought down far enough, it would eventually be as "simple" as a fish's). It's been proven though, that fish generally have an extremely low percentage of C-type trauma receptors. All creatures' brains have similar aspects, but the areas of the brain in all animals are developed at certain levels, or in many instances, some don't even have certain parts.

This topic's scientific standpoint is also similar to a religious standpoint, but I'll simply say that mankind is the literal offspring of God, and He created bodies for all the spirits of man, animals, and plants; He gave the animals, plants, and earth for the use of mankind: this doesn't mean that we have a right to be cruel or wasteful, but we are to be good stewards over all He's given us.

I too, wholeheartedly oppose the abuse of any living thing. I am just very glad to know that my aquatic friends don't experience as much pain as I do.

You are very right! Animals need to be treated respectfully and do experience, in different degrees, pain and discomfort, or just pain, if you will.

FerocactusLatispinus wrote:This topic's scientific standpoint is also similar to a religious standpoint, but I'll simply say that mankind is the literal offspring of God, and He created bodies for all the spirits of man, animals, and plants; He gave the animals, plants, and earth for the use of mankind: this doesn't mean that we have a right to be cruel or wasteful, but we are to be good stewards over all He's given us.

With all respect, but is this a statement made by yourself and is it meant to be taken seriously?

Hmm. I'm pretty sure checking out the Book of Genesis will explain this, that's if you believe the Holy Bible to be the word of God so long as it's translated correctly. First couple chapters should clear any doubts as to whether or not these are my own words here. I'm grateful you are mindful enough to comment on this subject, though; honestly, I am. I'm not being sarcastic, despite my signature down there!

As to this being taken seriously, that's the choice of the individual. I hope many believe these things, but I don't expect so: if one really wants to know the truth of anything, and if one believes in modern revelation, prayer is essential. Yep, you guessed it, I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (widely known as the "Mormons").

AlthoughI started being happy FerocactusLatispinus did agree with me, the part Mark cited was the part I did not enjoy reading.

Firstly, because where FerocactusLatispinus takes that book seriously I don't. Obviously he (or she?) is free to do so, but it looks like he assumes I do the same - almost implying I feel as he does.

But secondly, where religion is involved, it is very hard to have a discussion. Religious feeling are easily hurt and many people have other beliefs. Further, if people of religion A agree on a certain subject, and I am of another religion, the whole discussion is not that important to me - because it is based on sources I might not value.

Therefore - I would like to see further arguments, but not based on religion.

I'm not reading all the discussion above now but there's some scientific writing on this topic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123719.htm

Paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 0/abstract

I am sorry Bas Pels, Marc van Ark, JamesFish, and anyone else reading, if I made things sound implied on you, as this is definitely not what I intended or do intend. I don't intend to say that other people are completely wrong with their various religious affiliations. I, and my religion, believe every church or religion has part of the whole gospel, and that we accept what they have that is correct, and offer to add more of what we have: the fully restored gospel of Christ. That and more are all explained on http://www.lds.org if any are interested, but I wanted to point out that I am not accusing anyone: I am saying that it's each individual's choice whether or not to accept anything at all.

I only intended to point out that there is more than just the scientific perspective in this "fish feel pain" discussion, that's all.

Yes, I am all for studying and discussing the physical traits of fish, and that mainly what I want to cite.

I am sorry if I provided occasion for offense. I don't want others to have hurt feelings or become enemies, quite the opposite.

Thank you.

Please let's keep this site about catfish and keep the religion out of it completely.

syno321 wrote:Please let's keep this site about catfish and keep the religion out of it completely.

Thank you!!!!!

My observations of Trout caught on artificial flies have led me to conclude that their fight/flight response dominates over pain as I have several times caught the same fish a second time within an hour after I released them. I mostly practice catch and release angling.
The majority of the hooks sizes I use are very small. I mostly use hook sizes #18 to #14. The larger a hook's size number, the smaller the hook's size.
I always use barbless hooks so the hooks are more like needles. Barbless hooks cause very little tissue damage.
Fish are not exactly what I would describe as intelligent animals.
I don't know much about the density and quantity of pain receptors a fish may have but I am certain that they lack very much processing power.

FerocactusLatispinus wrote:I am sorry if I provided occasion for offence.

Afaic, you didn't.
But - like politics - religion should stay out of a catfish forum.
Good thing everyone remained polite!
Now let's return to where Apistomaster left the subject.

i also agree that in a non scientific result, I believe fish feel pain. Just remove a hook from a fish when you go fishing and it will wiggle more etc. Thus I think they feel pain. cheers jk

Okay. I have made my point, I feel, in both areas.

Thanks.

bigbird wrote:i also agree that in a non scientific result, I believe fish feel pain. Just remove a hook from a fish when you go fishing and it will wiggle more etc. Thus I think they feel pain. cheers jk

Tonic immobility by physical inversion of fish is involuntary. It's as if the fish are hypnotized.
This phenomenon is also in common with amphibians and reptiles.
Provided one handles such a fish properly, it shows no sign of any pain, flight or fright response, FWIW.
Inverting a landed fish ASAP will give you complete control with a minimum of effort to the benefit of the fish.
They relax so much that all damage due to handling can be avoided. This technique works with catfish and other aquarium fish caught with a net. One does have to exercise a more delicate touch with these smaller fish.
I use this technique while hooked game fish remains in the water to avoid unnecessary rough handling which may result in minor skin abrasions to internal organ damage in the worst cases.

apistomaster wrote:Provided one handles such a fish properly, it shows no sign of any pain, flight or fright response, FWIW.

My little Bristlenose Pleco will inadvertantly put himself into tonic immobility. I have noticed that when I come right by the tank too quickly, and Scooter can see me, he immediately starts breathing in double-time and changes his body color pattern to its white-streaked form; this is also true even if I try to carefully/quietly open the canopy of the aquarium, as he is terribly scared of that sound of glass-on-plastic, and he'll actually break tonic immobility and dart off.

I was wondering if his increase in respiration is a sign of stress or panic to my arrival (at least, that's what it looks like to me)?

I think what you observed was a panic response. Tonic immobility doesn't happen when the animal has complete control over it's own actions.
Tonic immobility is induced when a fish, amphibian or reptile is held against it's will, upsidedown, belly side up.

Yeah, Scooter will commonly lie on his back on the sand, after he clings under the driftwood for some time. He'll lie there for an extremely long time; longer than I have patience to observe. I've seen him right himself when another fish actually bumps into him in this state; usually, he will lie there breathing slowly for what I suppose are hours, since I have once seen him lying in the exact same position in the tank after two or three hours have gone by without my being there. I've been told that this self-induced situation is pretty common among Bristlenoses, and occurs in the Loricariids in general.

Is there possibly a threshold at which point panic overrides a fish's inverted, immobile state? If not, I will at least know that my Bristlenose loves sleeping like a human!

Fish in no pain with go into tonic immobility but only in artificial conditions such as handling in hatcheries, Salmonids as one example.
The behavior of your Pleco doesn't sound like the same thing to me because the fish had freedom of action and choice.

I don't know... I would think that if a fish is inverted by any means, even its own, that it would trigger the paralytic state.

On the flip side, if a fish can only be put into this state by physically inverting it against its will, theoretically it could mean that the fish is just traumatized by a human's (or whatever creature is responsible here) interaction and becomes incapable of adjusting its perception to offset its inverted state (for reference, Upside-Down Catfish are capable of doing this).

The state of being "inverted" is from the fish's perspective, of course. The following is of course only theoretical, as the Upside-Down Catfish may or may not be capable of becoming tonically immobile (many fish are incapable of entering this paralytic state): for example, we could see a Synodontis nigriventris swimming, from our perspective, upside-down; while from its perspective, it's not inverted. We could grab the fish and invert it so to us it is swimming like any other fish; the catfish, being terrified, wouldn't be able to change in time its perception of its now inverted state: it would then be in tonic immobility while right-side-up. This is a tricky one , since this species can change its perspective at will, while almost all other fish can't. Thus, if my Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus were to be inverted, forcibly or not, it might still enter tonic immobility. We don't see Bristlenose Plecos swimming around upside-down in our aquariums, so we know they are incapable of changing their perspective discussed here.

I believe that if a fish incapable of changing its perspective is inverted, forcibly or not, it may enter the state of tonic immobility (so long as it's susceptible to this state of temporary paralysis). Now, if one believes that a fish's traumatic experience by direct human interaction causes this state of paralysis, how is it that even after a fish is left undisturbed, while in this immobile state, it doesn't recover more quickly? Surely, different fish in this situation would have different lengths of time needed to recover; since various genera and species of sharks all take about 15 minutes to recover, mustn't this mean that human-intervention plays little (enough to invert the fish) or no role in the recovery from, and induction of, tonic immobility?

Phew! I suppose this could be considered a detailed explanation of my views on the subject of "tonic immobility".