Exploring the limits to our understanding of whether fish feel pain

 In the United Kingdom, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (HMSO, 1986) regulates experimental work on vertebrate animals. The European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes (Council of Europe, 1986) covers the same ground. Both the British law and the EU Convention use a closely similar set of criteria to judge the status of a scientific procedure. The British law states that “a regulated procedure on a protected animal under the 1986 Act is one that may have the effect of causing that animal pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.” The same words are used in the EU Convention to define a procedure as being regulated. Recently in the UK the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 (HMSO, 2022) takes the topic even further in that it is “an Act to make provision for an Animal Sentience Committee with functions relating to the effect of government policy on the welfare of animals as sentient beings.” It goes on to say that “in this Act ‘animal’” means (a) any vertebrate other than Homo sapiens, (b) any cephalopod mollusc and (c) any decapod crustacean. </p

An individual based model of female brown crab movements in the western English channel: modelling migration behaviour

An individual based model (IBM) of the female brown crab Cancer pagurus population exploited off South Devon, UK is described. Size dependent movement rules are ascribed to individuals based on previous observations of predominantly westward migration down the English Channel. Two additional versions of the movement rules explored whether the empirically derived rule was necessary to model the temporal and spatial distribution of crabs. Local crab movement was dependent on substrate type and water depth. Females prefer a soft substrate in which they can bury when temperatures are low or they have eggs to incubate. Crabs have size dependent depth preferences with larger crabs preferring greater depths. Two recruitment functions are used which relate the number of incoming crabs to the sea surface temperature five years earlier. Model outputs were tested against 10 years of logbook data from three crab fishers and against data from a year-long sampling programme on eight of the vessels exploiting the area. The model reproduces the long-term pattern which is mostly temperature driven. Spatial variation in catch is captured effectively by the model with more crabs being caught in the east of the area than the west and more caught offshore than inshore. The significance of the results is discussed in relation to the crab life cycle, management of the fishery and the potential effects of increasing temperatures

Niche segregation in two closely related species of stickleback along a physiological axis: Explaining multidecadal changes in fish distribution from iron-induced respiratory impairment

Contains fulltext : 103562.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)8 p

Seasonal variations in time and space utilization by radio-tagged yellow eels Anguilla anguilla (L.) in a small stream

Seven yellow eels (572–643 mm, 318–592 g) Anguilla anguilla (L.) were tagged with surgically implanted radio transmitters (activity circuit, 1.6–1.7 g) and tracked in the Awirs stream, a small (width <5 m, depth from 0.1 to 1.2 m), densely populated (ca. 250 kg of eel ha−1) tributary of the Belgian River Meuse. The eels were positioned daily from late April to mid-August, and their diel activity was studied during twenty four 24-h cycles. During day-time, the eels were resting in rootwads or in crevices inside stone walls or in crevices in between rocks. They became more active in the late afternoon but generally did not leave their residence before sunset, except under overcast weather. Activity peaked during the first part of the night then progressively vanished, and always ended before sunrise. The area exploited during night-time never extended over more than 40 m2, except when the eel changed its residence. The intensity and timing of nocturnal activity and the extent of the daily activity area were dependent on water temperature (respectively P<0.0001, P<0.05 and P<0.0005), with eels showing little or no activity when the diurnal temperature did not exceed 13 _C. Eels showed higher agitation under full moon and maintained their activity later in the night (P<0.05). The eels showed restricted mobility, and occupied small stream areas (from 0.01 to 0.10 ha) in a non sequential mode, except for two fish which were displaced to the River Meuse by a spate in early June and were never recovered. The length and frequency of net daily journeys were higher (P = 0.005) at water temperatures above 16 _C in late May and June, which also corresponded to the period of immigration of eels from the River Meuse. This study thus shows that large yellow eels may adopt a highly sedentary lifestyle in a continental, fast flowing and densely populated environment, even at periods of the year when these stages usually show upstream migrations

Reasons to Be Skeptical about Sentience and Pain in Fishes and Aquatic Invertebrates

The welfare of fishes and aquatic invertebrates is important, and several jurisdictions have included these taxa under welfare regulation in recent years. Regulation of welfare requires use of scientifically validated welfare criteria. This is why applying Mertonian skepticism toward claims for sentience and pain in fishes and aquatic invertebrates is scientifically sound and prudent, particularly when those claims are used to justify legislation regulating the welfare of these taxa. Enacting welfare legislation for these taxa without strong scientific evidence is a societal and political choice that risks creating scientific and interpretational problems as well as major policy challenges, including the potential to generate significant unintended consequences. In contrast, a more rigorous science-based approach to the welfare of aquatic organisms that is based on verified, validated and measurable endpoints is more likely to result in “win-win” scenarios that minimize the risk of unintended negative impacts for all stakeholders, including fish and aquatic invertebrates. The authors identify as supporters of animal welfare, and emphasize that this issue is not about choosing between welfare and no welfare for fish and aquatic invertebrates, but rather to ensure that important decisions about their welfare are based on scientifically robust evidence. These ten reasons are delivered in the spirit of organized skepticism to orient legislators, decision makers and the scientific community, and alert them to the need to maintain a high scientific evidential bar for any operational welfare indicators used for aquatic animals, particularly those mandated by legislation. Moving forward, maintaining the highest scientific standards is vitally important, in order to protect not only aquatic animal welfare, but also global food security and the welfare of humans.</p