Opinions, musings, ideas, pearls of wisdom
"The Best Science" by Robert Behnke
Excerpted from Trout, Spring 2004, Submitted by Dougald Scott
"The Best Science" by Robert Behnke
Excerpted from Trout, Spring 2004, Submitted by Dougald Scott
Laws and policies concerning such matters as listing of endangered species and controlling air and water pollution are supposed to be based on the best scientific evidence. This might be true in an ideal world, but rarely happens in the real world. In the real world, the best science may be ignored or called into question because of politics or ideology. This can be observed in the current debate over pollution laws and their enforcement. A consensus of the best scientific evidence unanimously agrees that the burning of fossil fuels is the major source of global warming. The strategy of the interest groups opposed to implementing expensive pollution controls on power plants or mandates for cleaner engines and better gas mileage for vehicles is to raise doubt by claiming that further research is necessary.
On a smaller scale, an understanding of how a self-interested point of view can override the best science can be applied to angling controversies. For instance, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) vigorously campaigns against angling (and all use or consumption of animals). PETA claims that angling is cruel and barbaric because fish feel pain. Their line of reasoning is that fish and humans are both vertebrate animals, humans feel pain, therefore fish must feel pain. This is a classic example of deductive reasoning; extrapolating from the general to the specific. For example, both humans and fish have the same general type of respiration in that both take in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide. More specifically, in regards to respiration in air and water, without mechanical devices, we wouldn't last very long trying to breathe underwater.
PETA also uses the "scientists say" strategyÑan effort to lend credibility to their position by quoting a supposed expert on a subject. Last year PETA widely publicized a report reputedly offering "scientific proof" that fish experience pain. Researchers associated with the University of Edinburgh and the Roslin Institute ran an experiment with rainbow trout. Test groups were injected in their "lips" (external surface of jaws) with either bee venom or acetic acid. Control groups were either "handled" or injected with a harmless saline solution. The test rainbows showed abnormal behavior, respiration rates increased and other indicators of stress were observed. The control groups, including the trout injected with saline solution, showed normal behavior. The control fish resumed feeding sooner than the test fish. From all of this, it was concluded that fish experience pain because injections of bee venom or acetic acid produced abnormal behavior.
PETA ran a propaganda blitz for the news media trumpeting the "scientific proof" that fish experience pain and verifying their tenet that angling is cruel and barbaricÑespecially catch-and-release angling, which repeatedly subjects a fish to great pain. The story was widely covered in the media, but some authors overlooked or ignored the test trout that were injected with saline solution and behaved normally, showing no indication of pain or abnormal stress after being returned to their tank. Poking a hypodermic syringe (with saline solution) into the flesh around the mouth is similar to hook penetration. Thus, an obvious conclusion would be that hooking a fish doesn't cause pain unless the hook is somehow made into a hypodermic syringe injecting a noxious substance such as bee venom or acetic acid.
I would also question the validity of associating abnormal behavior with pain. If a noxious substance is introduced into a medium with amoebae, abnormal behavior can be observed as the amoebae frantically move to escape the perceived threat. Are the amoebae experiencing true pain? Attributing abnormal behavior to pain is another example of the "scientists say" strategy. Who are these scientists who say abnormal behavior must mean the fish are in pain? Are they qualified to make conclusions on the matter? Do they have the proper sort of scientific credentials?
In my column in the Summer 1999 TROUT, I cited personal experience, common to many fly fishers, of hooking a trout, having it swim around a sunken limb and breaking my tippet. About 10 minutes later this same trout was caught by a companion, using the same fly pattern (an elk hair caddis). My fly and tippet were still carried by the trout when it couldn't resist gulping in another fake caddis. A logical conclusion is that this trout could not have suffered pain or significant trauma from being hooked the first time or it wouldn't have been fooled again so soon. Catch-and-release regulations, recycling fish again and again, would not work if each catching caused great pain and trauma. I defined my comments as "strong circumstantial evidence" that fish do not feel pain.
What's important here is that I am not expert on this question. Such expertise is found in the realm of those who specialize in comparative neurophysiology of the vertebrate brain. Dr. James Rose of the University of Wyoming has the credentials to be an expert witness on the question of pain reception in fishes. His recent paper, "The neurobehavioral nature of fishes and the question of awareness and pain," was published in Reviews in Fisheries Science, 2002, volume 10, number 1. Dr. Rose's conclusion is that fish have no awareness of pain because the fish brain lacks a neocortex that is responsible for pain awareness in higher vertebrate animals. A behavioral response to noxious stimuli is separate from the psychological experience of pain.
Many people will still question the morality of angling-humans obtaining pleasure from catching and releasing a less intelligent animal. The argument is that the fish feel something that makes them struggle when being caught and this makes angling morally wrong. Certainly, such people are entitled to their opinion; but, to at least be credible, they should no longer characterize angling as cruel and barbaric because of pain inflicted. Yes, fish "feel something" in their instinctive behavior to escape a threat, but it's not pain, according to the most qualified scientists.
When an issue generates intense controversy, polarization and strong emotion, it can be difficult to determine who has the most scientifically credible, unbiased reasoning on their side. This is true for all issues, from the consequences of global climate change to the question of whether fish feel pain. Scientists are not equal in regards to their qualifications and areas of expertise, and the influences of self-interest are pervasive. To lead the way on responsible fisheries policy, anglers must remain vigilant about questioning all the information they receive before making a decision.