Fish Intelligence, Sentience and Ethics

Fish are one of the most highly utilised vertebrate taxa by humans; they are harvested from wild stocks as part of global fishing industries, grown under intensive aquaculture conditions, are the most common pet and are widely used for scientific research. But fish are seldom afforded the same level of compassion or welfare as warm-blooded vertebrates. Part of the problem is the large gap between people’s perception of fish intelligence and the scientific reality. This is an important issue because public perception guides government policy. The perception of an animal’s intelligence often drives our decision whether or not to include them in our moral circle. From a welfare perspective, most researchers would suggest that if an animal is sentient, then it can most likely suffer and should therefore be offered some form of formal protection. There has been a debate about fish welfare for decades which centres on the question of whether they are sentient or conscious. The implications for affording the same level of protection to fish as other vertebrates are great, not least because of fishing-related industries. Here, I review the current state of knowledge of fish cognition starting with their sensory perception and moving on to cognition. The review reveals that fish perception and cognitive abilities often match or exceed other vertebrates. A review of the evidence for pain perception strongly suggests that fish experience pain in a manner similar to the rest of the vertebrates. Although scientists cannot provide a definitive answer on the level of consciousness for any nonhuman vertebrate, the extensive evidence of fish behavioural and cognitive sophistication and pain perception suggests that best practice would be to lend fish the same level of protection as any other vertebrate

Socializing makes thick-skinned individuals: on the density of epidermal alarm substance cells in cyprinid fish, the crucian carp (Carassius carassius)

Published version of an article in the journal: Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology. Also available on SpringerLink: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00359-010-0550-4In cyprinid fish, density of epidermal club cells (i.e. alarm substance cells) has been found to vary between lakes with different predator fauna. Because predators can be labelled with chemical cues from prey, we questioned if club cell density could be controlled indirectly by predators releasing prey cues. In particular, we suspected a possible feedback mechanism between chemical alarm signals and their cellular source. We raised crucian carp singly and in groups of four. For both rearing types, fish were exposed to skin extracts of either conspecifics or brown trout (without club cells), and provided either low or high food rations. Independent of rearing type, condition factor and club cell density increased with food ration size, but no change was found in club cell density following exposure to conspecific alarm signals. However, the density of club cells was found significantly higher for fish raised in groups than for fish raised alone. We conclude that an increased condition factor results in more club cells, but crucian carp may also possess an awareness of conspecific presence, given by higher club cell densities when raised in groups. This increase in club cell density may be induced by unknown chemical factors released by conspecifics