Abstract
There have been a number of scientific studies on the question of whether fish feel pain. Some have suggested that some fish indeed do feel pain and that this has significant welfare implications (2003). Others have argued that fish do not have the brain development necessary to feel pain. In terms of number of animals killed, the slaughter of sea animals for human consumption significantly exceeds that of any land animals that we use for food, and sea animal slaughter practices frequently lack any basic welfare protections. If fish can be shown to feel pain—or more importantly, if humans can agree that fish feel pain—then this would place a significant question mark over many contemporary fishing practices. This article substitutes the question 'Do Fish Feel Pain?' with an alternative: 'Do Fish Resist?' It explores the conceptual problems of understanding fish resistance, and the politics of epistemology that surrounds and seeks to develop a conceptual framework for understanding fish resistance to human capture by exploring the development of fishing technologies - the hook, the net and contemporary aquaculture.
Highlights
We know that the global use of sea animals for food is set to increase
In 2010 the UK-‐based organisation, Fishcount.org.uk, released a pioneering report which attempted to estimate the number of wild sea animals killed each year as part of commercial fishing
Data has been available from national and international organisations on commercial fishing quantities; most of these previous measures, such as those maintained by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, refer to sea animals produced for food by weight rather than number, veiling from public perception the actual number of sea animals which are used by humans.[2]
Summary
In 2010 the UK-‐based organisation, Fishcount.org.uk, released a pioneering report which attempted to estimate the number of wild sea animals killed each year as part of commercial fishing. One view might be that there is no ‘scientific evidence’ to suggest that fish, as intentional agents, work against human domination; that is, fish lack the reasoning (or other agential) capacity to choose to resist or subordinate human domination, and any visible evidence of what might look like resistance (for example, fish struggling at the end of a fishing line) reflects ‘instinctive’ rather than ‘rational’ behaviour (this is, as I discussed above, a version of Descartes’ animals-‐as-‐automatons view) It is certainly beyond the scope of this article to advance an empirically grounded argument for fish agency in relation to resistance based upon observational or similar studies, and, as discussed above, the epistemological problem of framing and conceptualising fish resistance might prevent the possibility of ‘proving’ (through observational studies or otherwise) that fish ‘resist’ in this way. Though, it tells us something about the investment recreational fishing has in fish resistance, since this practice is only deemed productively pleasurable (for the fisherperson) if the fish remains bound to the line until the fisherperson releases it, even if this process of struggle and resistance leads to the unplanned death of the fish itself
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
