Skip to comments.
Anglers carp at 'fish pain' theory
CNN ^
| 4/30/3
Posted on 05/02/2003 3:11:04 PM PDT by Carpet Kitten
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:02:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
EDINBURGH, Scotland -- Anglers and animal rights activists were further apart than ever on Wednesday after scientists said they had proved for the first time that fish feel pain.
The study on rainbow trout by scientists in Scotland found evidence, researchers said, that fish have feelings, including stress and pain.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: agony; cruel; ithurts; mytong; ouch; peta; slowdead; thechildren; thepain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Be sure to FReep the poll: "Would you stop eating fish if you knew they could feel pain."
To: Carpet Kitten
Somebody tell Clinton there's a whole new bunch of pain for him to feel.
2
posted on
05/02/2003 3:13:28 PM PDT
by
Argus
To: Carpet Kitten
"fish have feelings, including stress and pain. "As well as nostalgia, shame and ennui.
3
posted on
05/02/2003 3:16:03 PM PDT
by
billorites
(freepo ergo sum)
To: Carpet Kitten
Sooooo - the "experts" deliberately set up torturous experiments on the fish, subjecting them to venomous stings just so they could prove the fish feel pain? How kind. So what did they do afterwards to help the fish they tortured? Oh silly me, they don't really care, they just giggled and filled in the reports while the fish flopped around in pain, their job done.
Fishing feeds someone. The pain, when done properly, should be minimal and brief. These stupid PETArds did this, knowing that the fish would be hurt - FOR NO REASON other than to prove a point. Who is more moral - the fisherman who feeds his family, or the PETArd who hurts a fish for fun?
4
posted on
05/02/2003 3:20:02 PM PDT
by
dandelion
To: dandelion
Stop right there. Think of the inhumanity of being ripped from your home having your skin removed, and being boiled alive? Will nobody come to the opressed potatos of this world?
To: Carpet Kitten
potatos also have their eyes poked out
6
posted on
05/02/2003 3:38:04 PM PDT
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
To: Carpet Kitten
Be sure to FReep the poll: "Would you stop eating fish if you knew they could feel pain." I don't have to worry about that because all the fish I eat are already dead.
7
posted on
05/02/2003 3:40:22 PM PDT
by
SamAdams76
(California wine beats French wine in blind taste tests. Boycott French wine.)
To: Carpet Kitten
8
posted on
05/02/2003 3:52:05 PM PDT
by
SamAdams76
(California wine beats French wine in blind taste tests. Boycott French wine.)
To: Carpet Kitten
Fish don't have brains and don't feel pain. Many years ago while fishing I wondered how often you would catch the same fish over and over again if you threw it back in the lake after catching one. I found out when a largemouth bass swallowed the hook to deep for me to remove the hook without killing the fish. So I left the hook in the fishes throat so it would rust and come out in 2-3 weeks as I had read. I then threw the fish back in the lake.
Five minutes later I caught the same fish again with the hook still stuck in its' throat. That provided me with the proof that fish don't feel pain. If fish did feel pain, I'm sure it wouldn't have wanted to eat again so soon. I soon discovered that fish were either very stupid or without brains. I recaught the same fish a total of five times within an hour in the same location on the same type rubber worm that evening. I then decided it was time to move to another place on the lake.
Make your own conclusion from this fishing incident. I learned quite a bit from it myself. I welcome any other fishing incidents that back up my proof, no tall tales please.
9
posted on
05/02/2003 4:35:55 PM PDT
by
herkbird
To: joesnuffy; Carpet Kitten
The eyes - NOT THE EYES!!! Oh the humanity... to support our "Potatoes are People Too" (POPT) position, I submit the following quote from our expert,
Lewis Grizzard:
"Don't bend over in the garden, Granny - don't you know them 'taters got eyes?"
To: dandelion
Er, that would be "PAPT" (Potatoes Are People Too), not "POPT". POPT is for "People Ogling People's Tushies". Common mistake...
To: Carpet Kitten
Created: Wed Apr 30 04:15:20 EST 2003
Would you stop eating fish if you knew they felt pain?
Yes 14% 3778 votes
No 86% 22607 votes
Total: 26385 votes
This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein.
Related:
Anglers carp at 'fish pain' theory
To: Carpet Kitten
clinton comments - "for god sakes condemn their actions"
To: Carpet Kitten
Think of the inhumanity of being ripped from your home having your skin removed, and being boiled alive? Oh those poor lobsters, I always said baking them would be more humane.
To: Carpet Kitten
>>scientists said they had proved for the first time that fish feel pain. <<
Abalone! The don't eel nothin'.
15
posted on
05/02/2003 7:35:09 PM PDT
by
Jeff Chandler
(This tagline has been banned.)
To: Carpet Kitten
I don't support cannibalism, however, I feel like I might before butcering some liber.... well never mind, I just keep that thought to myself.
16
posted on
05/02/2003 7:37:50 PM PDT
by
Porterville
(Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
To: dandelion
Although I agree that PETA activists are not above tormenting animals to prove their point (I believe they've infiltrated slaughterhouses as employees, then filmed themselves hurting animals to show how cruel slaughterhouses are), this study was done at the Edinburgh University, not by PETA.
Of course, just because there is a reaction to a stimulous, doesn't mean there's pain.
17
posted on
05/02/2003 9:18:30 PM PDT
by
exDemMom
(W in '04)
To: herkbird
Personally, I would have removed that fish from the gene pool, as its stupidity was obviously a detriment to the survival of the species.
It deserved the fate of stupid fish: being pan-fried, with herbs and butter.
18
posted on
05/02/2003 9:22:01 PM PDT
by
exDemMom
(W in '04)
To: Porterville; All
We of the State of California cordially invite you to butcher all the libe**ls you desire. Kindly start with the ones here in Hell, aka Los Angeles. Tell me when and I'll join you, just bought a bright and shining new meat cleaver. Just don't expect us to eat em afterward.
dog (proud member of the Order Carnivora)
To: exDemMom
To remove that fish from the gene pool by cooking it in herbs and butter would have been illegal. The lake had a very strange slot limit on what size Largemouth Bass you could keep. The size of this fish was not legal to keep.
Not having a liberal interpretation on what the law really meant like the Klintoon's, I followed the letter of the law and threw it back. I never really liked this law in the cases where the fish was surely going to die, you still had to return the fish back into the lake instead of taking it home for dinner.
I imagine too many people would keep illegal fish and then try to use a Klintoon type excuse that the fish were going to die anyway. If you give some people an inch their always going to take the silverware, oop's, I meant a mile.
A dead fish floating on the surface of a lake , Foster's one from knowing the real truth.
20
posted on
05/03/2003 3:18:14 PM PDT
by
herkbird
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson