• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Are barbel a sentient species?

Lawrence Breakspear

Lawrence Breakspear

Senior Member
So all animals with a backbone are to be recognised by the UK as being sentient, this could be passed over as an unusual word that we have rarely or never used, but if you are an angler, a fishery owner, its extremely important and has possible, significant ramifications for our future,
"the times they are a changing..." that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that it’s a EU directive that’s been adopted late, it was supposed to be adopted last year or slightly longer back.

It did raise an eyebrow when I heard it, as to ascribe sentience based on vertebrate or invertebrate is illogical. I can think of a sentient Invert in about two seconds flat.

I’d be interested what the intent of this law is, what science it’s based on and even a legal definition on sentience, it’s a slippery kipper.

The ramifications for this are far wider than fishing and there’s a long list of questions about the law before that’s even relevant.
 
I cant see it affecting angling in my lifetime. Too many people fish (voting block), its worth a significant amount to the economy, thus creating jobs and the NHS are now encouraging people to go fishing to de stress. Oh and as a general group, I believe the Angling Trust represents us well and has the governments ear.

As for keep bringing Carrie Symonds into it, I believe its all bollocks. When the Daily Mail and its pro Grouse Shooting owners, found out that she was mates with Chris Packham, they saw their arse and started printing twisted shite about her.....

Of course we need to watch our corner, just personally, I cant see anything coming of it to the detriment of angling?
 
Neil Blood said:
I cant see it affecting angling in my lifetime. Too many people fish (voting block), its worth a significant amount to the economy, thus creating jobs and the NHS are now encouraging people to go fishing to de stress. Oh and as a general group, I believe the Angling Trust represents us well and has the governments ear.

As for keep bringing Carrie Symonds into it, I believe its all bollocks. When the Daily Mail and its pro Grouse Shooting owners, found out that she was mates with Chris Packham, they saw their arse and started printing twisted shite about her.....

Of course we need to watch our corner, just personally, I cant see anything coming of it to the detriment of angling?
Click to expand...
Its always been seen that fish dont feel pain in the normal sense of things, this law and the setting up of a committee to enforce it and specifically to deal with this and other other related subjects will see it differently I fear, it will basically say that fish and other creatures with a backbone will now have the right to feelings, emotions and pain, I am sure the RSPCA and other anti groups will have a lot to say, especially when creatures are used being for pleasure and put in "pain"...I think it could be a bad thing for angling, if you read the wording there little ambiguity or wiggle room...but questions need to be asked
 
Anglers really need not get their knickers in a twist over this!

I've not read any media coverage on this but I suspect the usual suspects will be full of their usual sensationalist guff and deliberate misinterpretation in an attempt to sell papers and get website clicks.

The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill has been introduced to enable tougher fines and sentencing for cruelty towards farmed animals and pets and to remove some of the previous faults and inconsistencies with sentencing powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is is basically this piece of legislation but with powers for tougher sentencing. An example of the inconsistent sentencing powers of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 would be that a person could go to prison for 3 years if their dog injured a guide dog but only six months for beating their dog to death.

Animal 'sentience' - this is really nothing new as ‘animal’ is defined in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to include all (non-human) vertebrates and may be extended by regulation to include invertebrates on the basis of scientific evidence that “animals of the kind concerned are capable of experiencing pain or suffering”. While the legislation did not specifically mention the word ‘sentient’, the explanatory notes contained within Section 1 states that the Act applies to vertebrate animals as they are “currently the only demonstrably sentient animals”.

As far as I can see no changes have been made to Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which for the purposes of the Act an animal is a “protected animal” if:

(a) it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,
(b) it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or
(c) it is not living in a wild state.
 
Joe Winstanley said:
Anglers really need not get their knickers in a twist over this!

I've not read any media coverage on this but I suspect the usual suspects will be full of their usual sensationalist guff and deliberate misinterpretation in an attempt to sell papers and get website clicks.

The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill has been introduced to enable tougher fines and sentencing for cruelty towards farmed animals and pets and to remove some of the previous faults and inconsistencies with sentencing powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is is basically this piece of legislation but with powers for tougher sentencing. An example of the inconsistent sentencing powers of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 would be that a person could go to prison for 3 years if their dog injured a guide dog but only six months for beating their dog to death.

Animal 'sentience' - this is really nothing new as ‘animal’ is defined in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to include all (non-human) vertebrates and may be extended by regulation to include invertebrates on the basis of scientific evidence that “animals of the kind concerned are capable of experiencing pain or suffering”. While the legislation did not specifically mention the word ‘sentient’, the explanatory notes contained within Section 1 states that the Act applies to vertebrate animals as they are “currently the only demonstrably sentient animals”.

As far as I can see no changes have been made to Section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which for the purposes of the Act an animal is a “protected animal” if:

(a) it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,
(b) it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or
(c) it is not living in a wild state.
Click to expand...
Joe, no knickers are twisted here, its just a discussion piece, and worthy of discussion I think, but as anglers we would see it differently, however others will see it through different eyes... but I take your point.
 
It's a toughy this one, I'm not sure I buy the 'fish don't feel pain' line, and it is in effect a cruel and unnecessary pastime. You could argue it borders on sadistic as we gain enjoyment from it!
I'm sure I'd get over it if it was eventually banned, plenty of other things to keep me occupied, and successive generations probably won't bat an eyelid as I don't think it's any kind of instinct to fish.
Bit like eating meat I suppose, probably be looked back on in years to come in disbelief.
Think we're ok for a good while yet though.
 
Done to death over the years and we're still fishing.
Our biggest problem is not being united as an angling community, game fishers & coarse fishermen/women have separate interests.
Government make too much money out of our 'laughable' licence fees, so cannot see anything happening.
Plus all this rubbish is usually drummed up by people that (a) have nothing better to write about in the media, (b) have absolutely no idea of what angling really represents to the folks that enjoy just being out and about, and is born out of complete ignorance.
 
One thing politicians don't do is shit in their own nests and you can bet your last penny that there's quite a few of them pay a pretty penny for exclusive Salmon and Trout beats in and around the UK.

To give these reports any reaction at all is to give them credence and attention. I ignore it all, it's not going to happen.
 
I don't believe fish experience pain as we know it, not with a non-circulatory system and not in their mouths. I think there is always a tendency to anthropomorphise animal behaviour and reactions, even fish.

I'm always surprised by the way many fish damage themselves, often fairly brutally, when spawning. Cuts and scars that make a hook hold seem trivial. Yet they repeat this every year, occasionally more than once.
 
After a couple of Google searches, could only find figures from 2015 that in the UK angling was the uk most popular pastime / hobby and had a worth of about £3bn plus with the potential job losses it would cause if it got banned I think its a safe bet that it's safe. Seeing that the sport/hobby/pastime has only grown since then you would have to be a complete idiot to ban it. Well anything is possible with politicians 🤣
 
Definitely Mike,
You would have to stun and then humanely dispatch each one individually. How much will your cod and chips be then ?
 
A reply from the Angling Trust on this very matter that a fellow angler received today :

"The Angling Trust has worked hard to maintain strong cross-party support for angling in Parliament and we are working with ministers on promoting all the benefits that angling has to offer. We will be looking closely at any new legislation that affects angling and will lobby at the highest level to protect fishing." Thanks”

Very interesting...
 
I do way too much driving and it gives me some time to over think lots of things. Having had that with this I’ve come to the conclusion it’s a bit of a pandering or rather placebo. It’s of little to no actual meaning. The new components I’m broadly in support of and the rest is pretty bland.
 
Just a point about the aforementioned RSPCA in all this - it should be noted they LONG distanced themselves from outright anti sentiment MANY years ago (if memory serves back when I was fishing in the 90s) and have been "okay" with "responsible" angling ever since. In fact I believe they even publicly confirmed that a few years ago when the last piece of animal welfare regs came into play. The only relating thing they're vocally against these days is fishing litter and illegally taking fish, which all of us responsible anglers are in complete agreement with anyway.

More generally, I can't see any of this ever being applied to angling - given the very specific things that are mentioned in the article (and all others I've read), angling is completely conspicuous by its absence. And, apart from anything else, so many MPs of all colours partake in fishing and/or hunting, only the most offensive and illegal aspects of both will be of interest in these regs.

EDIT - all of that being said, that's nevertheless a good response from the AT. That Jamie Cook seems to be a great bunch of lads with head firmly on shoulders.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top