Humane?

[Nikki Casali]

Is it considered humane to take a sick fish and flush it straight down
the toilet/WC/loo? Out of sight, out of mind?

This is the advice a friend has been given by the owner of a LFS.

My usual way is to place 10 drops of clove oil for each litre of
aquarium water inside a bucket. The fish is then quickly anesthetised
and in an unconscious state dies within 15 minutes. A fish veterinarian
recommended this to me a few years ago.

Nikki

[RedForeman ©®]

|| Is it considered humane to take a sick fish and flush it straight
|| down the toilet/WC/loo? Out of sight, out of mind?

no...it's not humane... although it's done thousands of times a day
probably....

|| This is the advice a friend has been given by the owner of a LFS.
||
|| My usual way is to place 10 drops of clove oil for each litre of
|| aquarium water inside a bucket. The fish is then quickly anesthetised
|| and in an unconscious state dies within 15 minutes. A fish
|| veterinarian recommended this to me a few years ago.
||
|| Nikki

This is the preferred way...

--
| RedForeman ©® fabricator and creator of the ratbike streetfighter!!!
| ==========================
| 2003 TRX450ES
| 1992 TRX-350 XX (For Sale)
| '98 Tacoma Ext Cab 4X4 Lifted....
| ==========================
| ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸¸,ø¤° `°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
| ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸. ><((((º> ·´¯`·. , .·´¯`·.. ><((((º>
| for any questions you may have....
| www.gmail.com

[Danya]

"RedForeman ©®" > wrote in message >...
> || My usual way is to place 10 drops of clove oil for each litre of
> || aquarium water inside a bucket. The fish is then quickly anesthetised
> || and in an unconscious state dies within 15 minutes. A fish
> || veterinarian recommended this to me a few years ago.
> ||
> || Nikki
>
> This is the preferred way...

i read, i think in one of my books, that you should cut their spinal
cord to "euthanize" the fish. i had to do this to one of my fish and
the first try was unsuccessful and i felt bad! so i'm glad to hear
there's a painless way to go about it.

[Eric Schreiber]

Nikki Casali wrote:

> My usual way is to place 10 drops of clove oil for each litre of
> aquarium water inside a bucket.

My usual way is to crush the fish with my fist or a rock. Since my goal
is to minimize the suffering of the fish (not the owner), I choose this
approach because it's instant.

Obviously, it might not work as well on larger fish, and squeamish
people won't be too keen on it. I've always subscribed to the " 'twere
best done quickly" school of thought.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Nikki Casali]

Eric Schreiber wrote:
> Nikki Casali wrote:
>
>
>>My usual way is to place 10 drops of clove oil for each litre of
>>aquarium water inside a bucket.
>
>
> My usual way is to crush the fish with my fist or a rock. Since my goal
> is to minimize the suffering of the fish (not the owner), I choose this
> approach because it's instant.
>

> Obviously, it might not work as well on larger fish, and squeamish
> people won't be too keen on it. I've always subscribed to the " 'twere
> best done quickly" school of thought.
>
>

Just be sure you've got a tight grip, otherwise the fish may slip out
like a bar a soap and fire across the room, lol.

Nikki

[Eric Schreiber]

Nikki Casali wrote:

> Just be sure you've got a tight grip, otherwise the fish may slip out
> like a bar a soap and fire across the room, lol.

A real possibiliy, especially when you're trying to work as quickly as
possible to minimize the suffering. I use a paper towel - drop the fish
on, fold the paper over, whack. It's as quick and painless as I can
make it.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[SDB]

From what I understand, it's never a good idea to flush a live fish since
there is a chance that it will live and colonize whatever river/lake it ends
up in. This can unbalance the ecosystem.

"Nikki Casali" > wrote in message
...
> Is it considered humane to take a sick fish and flush it straight down
> the toilet/WC/loo? Out of sight, out of mind?
>
> This is the advice a friend has been given by the owner of a LFS.
>
> My usual way is to place 10 drops of clove oil for each litre of
> aquarium water inside a bucket. The fish is then quickly anesthetised
> and in an unconscious state dies within 15 minutes. A fish veterinarian
> recommended this to me a few years ago.
>
> Nikki
>

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Humane?
>From: "SDB"
>Date: 9/15/2004 9:49 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>From what I understand, it's never a good idea to flush a live fish since
>there is a chance that it will live and colonize whatever river/lake it ends
>up in. This can unbalance the ecosystem.

From what I've been told by people that work at the public works...even dead
fish shouldn't be flushed, as it can introduce non native diseases and or
parasites into local waters.
Kind of scary if you think about it what we flush getting out of the pipes down
the line, but it's not a perfect system.
I don't know all the exacts and how's of it, but from what I've been told by
the folks who work in the industry, it can and does happen.

[Victor Martinez]

SDB wrote:
> From what I understand, it's never a good idea to flush a live fish since
> there is a chance that it will live and colonize whatever river/lake it ends
> up in. This can unbalance the ecosystem.

It is *very* unlikely that any fish would survive a trip through the
water treatment plant.

--
Victor Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[Nikki Casali]

Interesting. I bury all my fish that die in my garden. They get the same
respect as humans. Yes, I'm also mad as a hatter.

If you live in a high rise apartment block, then I suppose the only way
to safely get rid of your dead fish pets is to throw them in the trash can?

Nikki

TYNK 7 wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Humane?
>>From: "SDB"
>>Date: 9/15/2004 9:49 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>From what I understand, it's never a good idea to flush a live fish since
>
>>there is a chance that it will live and colonize whatever river/lake it ends
>>up in. This can unbalance the ecosystem.
>
>
> From what I've been told by people that work at the public works...even dead
> fish shouldn't be flushed, as it can introduce non native diseases and or
> parasites into local waters.
> Kind of scary if you think about it what we flush getting out of the pipes down
> the line, but it's not a perfect system.
> I don't know all the exacts and how's of it, but from what I've been told by
> the folks who work in the industry, it can and does happen.
>

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Eric Schreiber wrote:
>
> Nikki Casali wrote:
>
> > Just be sure you've got a tight grip, otherwise the fish may slip out
> > like a bar a soap and fire across the room, lol.
>
> A real possibiliy, especially when you're trying to work as quickly as
> possible to minimize the suffering. I use a paper towel - drop the fish
> on, fold the paper over, whack. It's as quick and painless as I can
> make it.
>
> --
> Eric Schreiber
> www.ericschreiber.com

Why not put the fish in a net and slampdunk it into a wall or a hard floor
bit messy but improves your tennis skills!

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Nikki Casali wrote:
>
> Interesting. I bury all my fish that die in my garden. They get the same
> respect as humans. Yes, I'm also mad as a hatter.
>
> If you live in a high rise apartment block, then I suppose the only way
> to safely get rid of your dead fish pets is to throw them in the trash can?

I do the same Nikki.

I've heard of some people throwing their dead dogs into the trash - thats
appauling
in my opinion!

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Victor Martinez wrote:
>
> SDB wrote:
> > From what I understand, it's never a good idea to flush a live fish since
> > there is a chance that it will live and colonize whatever river/lake it ends
> > up in. This can unbalance the ecosystem.
>
> It is *very* unlikely that any fish would survive a trip through the
> water treatment plant.
>

Victor, it is also unlikely that fish will live long out of water ,but some do.
Miracles do happen!

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Humane?
>From: Nikki Casali
>Date: 9/16/2004 7:52 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Interesting. I bury all my fish that die in my garden. They get the same
>respect as humans. Yes, I'm also mad as a hatter.
>
>If you live in a high rise apartment block, then I suppose the only way
>to safely get rid of your dead fish pets is to throw them in the trash can?
>
>Nikki
>

Yep.
I have a lovely flower garden where I burry mine. However, during the wimter
months any dead do get wrapped in plastic wrap and put into the garbage.
Some may think it's disrespectful to the dead, but that is the better choice
when you cannot burry them.
Some folks I know that are in apartments burry them in their potted plants.
Helps the plant out, but I can't see doing that with a fish of good size.
Can you imagine an Oscar or Pacu in a potted plant??? = O

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Humane?
>From: Victor Martinez
>Date: 9/16/2004 7:39 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>SDB wrote:
>> From what I understand, it's never a good idea to flush a live fish since
>> there is a chance that it will live and colonize whatever river/lake it
>ends
>> up in. This can unbalance the ecosystem.
>
>It is *very* unlikely that any fish would survive a trip through the
>water treatment plant.

It's the plant....it's the way down to the plant that is the problem.
On a fish message board I visit, there was a public works guy who has seen,
with his own eyes, fish still alive, and suffering in the sewers. These were
fish that were flushed still alive.
People think once they flush it away, it's dead. Not always the case.

[Eric Schreiber]

Geezer From The Freezer wrote:

> Why not put the fish in a net and slampdunk it into a wall or a hard
> floor bit messy but improves your tennis skills!

Two words: "Splatter Zone"

:)


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Jim85CJ]

Bass-o-matic

Eric Schreiber wrote:

> Geezer From The Freezer wrote:
>
>
>>Why not put the fish in a net and slampdunk it into a wall or a hard
>>floor bit messy but improves your tennis skills!
>
>
> Two words: "Splatter Zone"
>
> :)
>
>

[Victor Martinez]

TYNK 7 wrote:
> People think once they flush it away, it's dead. Not always the case.

Oh, I agree! It's incredibly cruel to flush a live fish. However, my
point was in response to the person who said that flushing live fish was
a bad idea because it was like releasing them into local waterways. Not
bloody likely...

--
Victor Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[Dick]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:25:32 -0500, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
ericschreiber dot com> wrote:

>Geezer From The Freezer wrote:
>
>> Why not put the fish in a net and slampdunk it into a wall or a hard
>> floor bit messy but improves your tennis skills!
>
>Two words: "Splatter Zone"
>
>:)

Adult fish I slam against the inside of the toilet bowl. Messy, but
the bowl is easy to clean. I had 20 fry and knew I couldn't use the
slam dunk with them, so I flushed. I hope their demise was quick. It
is hard enough to kill them without thinking of their death happening
painfully. I wondered if letting them suffocate in the trash would be
quicker, but chose the sewer system.

dick

[Dick]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:59:56 +0100, Geezer From The Freezer
> wrote:

>
>
>Nikki Casali wrote:
>>
>> Interesting. I bury all my fish that die in my garden. They get the same
>> respect as humans. Yes, I'm also mad as a hatter.
>>
>> If you live in a high rise apartment block, then I suppose the only way
>> to safely get rid of your dead fish pets is to throw them in the trash can?
>
>I do the same Nikki.
>
>I've heard of some people throwing their dead dogs into the trash - thats
>appauling
>in my opinion!

I have a 13 year old dog and worry about what I will do with her
carcass. I have never had a dog die naturally, at home. The vet was
usually involved. I did have a Greyhound that diet chasing an
antelope. I was lucky (?) enough to find him within minutes of his
dying. I took his carcass to my vet, but I know the vet had a pit he
put dead animals in. No honor in that. I have considered digging a
grave in my back yard, but I wonder how future residents would feel
about buying a graveyard? I also wonder if my other dog would dig up
the carcass?

Sorry to be off topic, but my sweet Ruby is dear to my heart and the
fish problem reminds me. I almost lost her last winter, so I count
each day as a blessing.

dick

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Dick wrote:
> I have a 13 year old dog and worry about what I will do with her
> carcass. I have never had a dog die naturally, at home. The vet was
> usually involved. I did have a Greyhound that diet chasing an
> antelope. I was lucky (?) enough to find him within minutes of his
> dying. I took his carcass to my vet, but I know the vet had a pit he
> put dead animals in. No honor in that. I have considered digging a
> grave in my back yard, but I wonder how future residents would feel
> about buying a graveyard? I also wonder if my other dog would dig up
> the carcass?
>
> Sorry to be off topic, but my sweet Ruby is dear to my heart and the
> fish problem reminds me. I almost lost her last winter, so I count
> each day as a blessing.
>
> dick

Dick,

You could always find a field and bury him/her there! Otherwise just dig
a 4-5ft whole in your back garden. I'm sure theres other things buried in
your garden in the past (over a few 10s of thousands of years and more!)

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Humane?
>From: Dick
>Date: 9/17/2004 6:51 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:25:32 -0500, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
>ericschreiber dot com> wrote:
>
>>Geezer From The Freezer wrote:
>>
>>> Why not put the fish in a net and slampdunk it into a wall or a hard
>>> floor bit messy but improves your tennis skills!
>>
>>Two words: "Splatter Zone"
>>
>>:)
>
>Adult fish I slam against the inside of the toilet bowl. Messy, but
>the bowl is easy to clean. I had 20 fry and knew I couldn't use the
>slam dunk with them, so I flushed. I hope their demise was quick. It
>is hard enough to kill them without thinking of their death happening
>painfully. I wondered if letting them suffocate in the trash would be
>quicker, but chose the sewer system.
>
>dick
>


IMO, what you've done was cruel.
It would have been better for the fry to feed them to adult fish.
STOP flushing fish!!!

[Eric Schreiber]

Dick wrote:

> I had 20 fry and knew I couldn't use the slam dunk with them,
> so I flushed. I hope their demise was quick.

It almost certainly was NOT quick or painless.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Dick]

On 17 Sep 2004 14:48:21 GMT, (TYNK 7) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Humane?
>>From: Dick
>>Date: 9/17/2004 6:51 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:25:32 -0500, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
>>ericschreiber dot com> wrote:
>>
>>>Geezer From The Freezer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why not put the fish in a net and slampdunk it into a wall or a hard
>>>> floor bit messy but improves your tennis skills!
>>>
>>>Two words: "Splatter Zone"
>>>
>>>:)
>>
>>Adult fish I slam against the inside of the toilet bowl. Messy, but
>>the bowl is easy to clean. I had 20 fry and knew I couldn't use the
>>slam dunk with them, so I flushed. I hope their demise was quick. It
>>is hard enough to kill them without thinking of their death happening
>>painfully. I wondered if letting them suffocate in the trash would be
>>quicker, but chose the sewer system.
>>
>>dick
>>
>
>
>IMO, what you've done was cruel.
>It would have been better for the fry to feed them to adult fish.
>STOP flushing fish!!!


I have left or put the fry in my 75 gallon community tank, but too
many survive. Sorry your morals ignore that life is hard, not always
fair, and full of terrible choices.

dick

[Dick]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:43:38 +0100, Geezer From The Freezer
> wrote:

>
>
>Dick wrote:
>> I have a 13 year old dog and worry about what I will do with her
>> carcass. I have never had a dog die naturally, at home. The vet was
>> usually involved. I did have a Greyhound that diet chasing an
>> antelope. I was lucky (?) enough to find him within minutes of his
>> dying. I took his carcass to my vet, but I know the vet had a pit he
>> put dead animals in. No honor in that. I have considered digging a
>> grave in my back yard, but I wonder how future residents would feel
>> about buying a graveyard? I also wonder if my other dog would dig up
>> the carcass?
>>
>> Sorry to be off topic, but my sweet Ruby is dear to my heart and the
>> fish problem reminds me. I almost lost her last winter, so I count
>> each day as a blessing.
>>
>> dick
>
>Dick,
>
>You could always find a field and bury him/her there! Otherwise just dig
>a 4-5ft whole in your back garden. I'm sure theres other things buried in
>your garden in the past (over a few 10s of thousands of years and more!)

I have considered preparing a hole, but then can't face looking at
that hole every day, perhaps for years. I can't really see how a hole
in my back yard is better than leaving the carcus out in the desert?
That has been my most acceptable plan. I live on the edge of range
land. I used to walk out a ranch road. The road runs to Mexico and
has only a few ranch houses. I would prefer cremation, but small
towns don't offer such services. When all is said and done, does it
matter what happens when the spark of life is gone?

[Victor Martinez]

Dick wrote:
> many survive. Sorry your morals ignore that life is hard, not always
> fair, and full of terrible choices.

And I'm sorry your morals tell you it's ok to make critters suffer
because you don't want to deal with them in a more apropriate way.

--
Victor Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[Dan White]

"Victor Martinez" > wrote in message
...
> Dick wrote:
> > many survive. Sorry your morals ignore that life is hard, not always
> > fair, and full of terrible choices.
>
> And I'm sorry your morals tell you it's ok to make critters suffer
> because you don't want to deal with them in a more apropriate way.
>

I agree that people should be humane. There's no real reason not to be.
However, I will always have the image in my mind from a nature program that
showed some chimps that had captured something like a gibbon and was eating
it alive. They were tearing flesh from the poor animal and he was screaming
in the direction of the camera, and then it was all over. The animal
kingdom is NOT politically correct.

dwhite

[Victor Martinez]

Dan White wrote:
> in the direction of the camera, and then it was all over. The animal
> kingdom is NOT politically correct.

What does that have to do with the subject at hand?

--
Victor Martinez
Owned and operated by the Fantastic Seven (TM)
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[Dan White]

"Victor Martinez" > wrote in message
...
> Dan White wrote:
> > in the direction of the camera, and then it was all over. The animal
> > kingdom is NOT politically correct.
>
> What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
>

It was just a gut reaction, and something I find interesting. Let me put it
another way. While I believe it is best to minimize the suffering of a
fish, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it while the rest of the animal
world ("Mother Nature") condones behavior that is many, many times worse
than flushing a fish. In other words, do the very best you can to minimize
any suffering, but don't lose any sleep over it if you can't.

Please do let me know next time I stray from the subject.

dwhite

[Nikki Casali]

Dan White wrote:

> "Victor Martinez" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dan White wrote:
>>
>>>in the direction of the camera, and then it was all over. The animal
>>>kingdom is NOT politically correct.
>>
>>What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
>>
>
>
> It was just a gut reaction, and something I find interesting. Let me put it
> another way. While I believe it is best to minimize the suffering of a
> fish, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it while the rest of the animal
> world ("Mother Nature") condones behavior that is many, many times worse
> than flushing a fish. In other words, do the very best you can to minimize
> any suffering, but don't lose any sleep over it if you can't.
>
> Please do let me know next time I stray from the subject.
>

That has many parallels and much significance for humanity.

[Dan White]

"Nikki Casali" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dan White wrote:
>
> > "Victor Martinez" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Dan White wrote:
> >>
> >>>in the direction of the camera, and then it was all over. The animal
> >>>kingdom is NOT politically correct.
> >>
> >>What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
> >>
> >
> >
> > It was just a gut reaction, and something I find interesting. Let me
put it
> > another way. While I believe it is best to minimize the suffering of a
> > fish, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it while the rest of the
animal
> > world ("Mother Nature") condones behavior that is many, many times worse
> > than flushing a fish. In other words, do the very best you can to
minimize
> > any suffering, but don't lose any sleep over it if you can't.
> >
> > Please do let me know next time I stray from the subject.
> >
>
> That has many parallels and much significance for humanity.
>

And since the title of the thread is "Humane?" then I guess that means I was
on topic after all! :O)

dwhite

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Dick wrote:
>
> I have considered preparing a hole, but then can't face looking at
> that hole every day, perhaps for years. I can't really see how a hole
> in my back yard is better than leaving the carcus out in the desert?
> That has been my most acceptable plan. I live on the edge of range
> land. I used to walk out a ranch road. The road runs to Mexico and
> has only a few ranch houses. I would prefer cremation, but small
> towns don't offer such services. When all is said and done, does it
> matter what happens when the spark of life is gone?

I find it ceremonial - a true end to life and a nice way to say goodbye
but thats a personal thing. Each to his/her own.

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Victor Martinez wrote:
>
> Dick wrote:
> > many survive. Sorry your morals ignore that life is hard, not always
> > fair, and full of terrible choices.
>
> And I'm sorry your morals tell you it's ok to make critters suffer
> because you don't want to deal with them in a more apropriate way.

I agree!
Why flush? Out of site out of mind? They are still living on their way
down - that (in my opinion) is disgraceful and cowardly. Clove oil is cheap!

[Eric Schreiber]

Dan White wrote:

> In other words, do the very best you can to minimize any
> suffering, but don't lose any sleep over it if you can't.

In this case, it wasn't a matter of "can't", but rather of "can't be
bothered".


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

Dick wrote:

> Sorry your morals ignore that life is hard, not always
> fair, and full of terrible choices.

It's a pity that your choice in this case was a lazy one. Killing 20
fry would have taken a matter of moments, and would have eliminated
their suffering following being flushed.



--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Humane?
>From: Dick
>Date: 9/18/2004 6:40 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 17 Sep 2004 14:48:21 GMT, (TYNK 7) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Humane?
>>>From: Dick
>>>Date: 9/17/2004 6:51 AM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:25:32 -0500, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
>>>ericschreiber dot com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Geezer From The Freezer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why not put the fish in a net and slampdunk it into a wall or a hard
>>>>> floor bit messy but improves your tennis skills!
>>>>
>>>>Two words: "Splatter Zone"
>>>>
>>>>:)
>>>
>>>Adult fish I slam against the inside of the toilet bowl. Messy, but
>>>the bowl is easy to clean. I had 20 fry and knew I couldn't use the
>>>slam dunk with them, so I flushed. I hope their demise was quick. It
>>>is hard enough to kill them without thinking of their death happening
>>>painfully. I wondered if letting them suffocate in the trash would be
>>>quicker, but chose the sewer system.
>>>
>>>dick
>>>
>>
>>
>>IMO, what you've done was cruel.
>>It would have been better for the fry to feed them to adult fish.
>>STOP flushing fish!!!
>
>
>I have left or put the fry in my 75 gallon community tank, but too
>many survive. Sorry your morals ignore that life is hard, not always
>fair, and full of terrible choices.
>
>dick

I'm in no way saying that life always needs to be fair, and in no way do my
morals ignore that. I still believe that the direction of not being cruel is
the better one.
I "cull" when I have a batch of betta fry, but these are fish are deformed.
They are given to adult fish and it's so quick that there's no time for
suffering.
Having too many survive has never, ever been a problem with Bettas and
Angelfish, so I guess it would depend a bit on the species.
I could never take those deformed, but alive, little fry and flush them away to
suffer for who knows how long.
If you can feed them anymore, at least put them in a container of water and
place it into the frige for a little while (time would depend on the volume of
water and size/ amount of fish), enough time for the fish to start hybernation
symptoms and then after hybernation takes places, place the container into the
freezer.
This will then stop the fish's heart.
Using only the freezer chills the water too quickly and painful ice crystals
form in the fish's bloodstream. So it must be placed in the frige first.
A little compassion can go along way.

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Humane?
>From: Geezer From The Freezer
>Date: 9/20/2004 5:24 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>
>Victor Martinez wrote:
>>
>> Dick wrote:
>> > many survive. Sorry your morals ignore that life is hard, not always
>> > fair, and full of terrible choices.
>>
>> And I'm sorry your morals tell you it's ok to make critters suffer
>> because you don't want to deal with them in a more apropriate way.
>
>I agree!
>Why flush? Out of site out of mind? They are still living on their way
>down - that (in my opinion) is disgraceful and cowardly. Clove oil is cheap!
>

Right. Another option will less cruelty.
We all have "dirty deeds" that sometimes need to be done. We what don't have to
do is be cruel when there are several other options. = /

[E Riehle]

Victor Martinez > wrote in message >...
> TYNK 7 wrote:
> > People think once they flush it away, it's dead. Not always the case.


In my case it is...I have a septic system...

[Eric Schreiber]

E Riehle wrote:

> In my case it is...I have a septic system...

It's still a slow chemical death.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[IDzine01]

I too have heard that cutting off the head just behind the gills is
the only humane way. I've heard of problems with clove oil as well as
the freezing method. The problem is once your attached to your pet,
how can you bring yourself to do it? I wish I had the answer for that
one.


(Danya) wrote in message >...
> "RedForeman ©®" > wrote in message >...
> > || My usual way is to place 10 drops of clove oil for each litre of
> > || aquarium water inside a bucket. The fish is then quickly anesthetised
> > || and in an unconscious state dies within 15 minutes. A fish
> > || veterinarian recommended this to me a few years ago.
> > ||
> > || Nikki
> >
> > This is the preferred way...
>
> i read, i think in one of my books, that you should cut their spinal
> cord to "euthanize" the fish. i had to do this to one of my fish and
> the first try was unsuccessful and i felt bad! so i'm glad to hear
> there's a painless way to go about it.

[IDzine01]

Nature may be cruel but only humans knowingly introduce potentially
dangerous diseases into the ground or water supply. I don't even think
it's legal to flush fish. (Though I'm not sure) It's up to us to make
sure they are disposed of properly.


"Dan White" > wrote in message >...
> "Victor Martinez" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dan White wrote:
> > > in the direction of the camera, and then it was all over. The animal
> > > kingdom is NOT politically correct.
> >
> > What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
> >
>
> It was just a gut reaction, and something I find interesting. Let me put it
> another way. While I believe it is best to minimize the suffering of a
> fish, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it while the rest of the animal
> world ("Mother Nature") condones behavior that is many, many times worse
> than flushing a fish. In other words, do the very best you can to minimize
> any suffering, but don't lose any sleep over it if you can't.
>
> Please do let me know next time I stray from the subject.
>
> dwhite

[IDzine01]

Hey Tynk, Are you sure this is safe? I've been told several times that
this method is really intended to make the "euthanizer" feel better
about what they have to do, but the actual death is long and painful.
Like slowly freezing to death in a lake or something. I'm not being
flippant, I'm just wondering if this method is really legitimate or
more of an Old Wives Tale. I truly don't know what to believe.

(TYNK 7) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: Humane?
> >From: Dick
> >Date: 9/18/2004 6:40 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 17 Sep 2004 14:48:21 GMT, (TYNK 7) wrote:
> >
> >>>Subject: Re: Humane?
> >>>From: Dick
> >>>Date: 9/17/2004 6:51 AM Central Daylight Time
> >>>Message-id: >
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:25:32 -0500, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
> >>>ericschreiber dot com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Geezer From The Freezer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Why not put the fish in a net and slampdunk it into a wall or a hard
> >>>>> floor bit messy but improves your tennis skills!
> >>>>
> >>>>Two words: "Splatter Zone"
> >>>>
> >>>>:)
> >>>
> >>>Adult fish I slam against the inside of the toilet bowl. Messy, but
> >>>the bowl is easy to clean. I had 20 fry and knew I couldn't use the
> >>>slam dunk with them, so I flushed. I hope their demise was quick. It
> >>>is hard enough to kill them without thinking of their death happening
> >>>painfully. I wondered if letting them suffocate in the trash would be
> >>>quicker, but chose the sewer system.
> >>>
> >>>dick
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>IMO, what you've done was cruel.
> >>It would have been better for the fry to feed them to adult fish.
> >>STOP flushing fish!!!
> >
> >
> >I have left or put the fry in my 75 gallon community tank, but too
> >many survive. Sorry your morals ignore that life is hard, not always
> >fair, and full of terrible choices.
> >
> >dick
>
> I'm in no way saying that life always needs to be fair, and in no way do my
> morals ignore that. I still believe that the direction of not being cruel is
> the better one.
> I "cull" when I have a batch of betta fry, but these are fish are deformed.
> They are given to adult fish and it's so quick that there's no time for
> suffering.
> Having too many survive has never, ever been a problem with Bettas and
> Angelfish, so I guess it would depend a bit on the species.
> I could never take those deformed, but alive, little fry and flush them away to
> suffer for who knows how long.
> If you can feed them anymore, at least put them in a container of water and
> place it into the frige for a little while (time would depend on the volume of
> water and size/ amount of fish), enough time for the fish to start hybernation
> symptoms and then after hybernation takes places, place the container into the
> freezer.
> This will then stop the fish's heart.
> Using only the freezer chills the water too quickly and painful ice crystals
> form in the fish's bloodstream. So it must be placed in the frige first.
> A little compassion can go along way.

[sophie]

In message >, IDzine01
> writes
>I too have heard that cutting off the head just behind the gills is
>the only humane way. I've heard of problems with clove oil as well as
>the freezing method. The problem is once your attached to your pet,
>how can you bring yourself to do it? I wish I had the answer for that
>one.

I have never had to euthanase a fish; but I have had to put small
animals out of their misery (blame the cats), also one largeish bird.
When our dog was very old and sick I sat and held his head while the vet
gave him an overdose of anaesthetic (and that was _hard_) - for him it
was quick and painless. If you can't do painless, do quick. It's not
easiest for you (my other half still thinks there's something unnatural
and disturbing about being able to smack a magpie's head with a brick)
but it is certainly kindest for the poor animal on the receiving end.

How can you bring yourself to do it? The question might be better put:
how can you bring yourself _not_ to do it. I would find it a great deal
harder to allow an animal to suffer long and cruelly when the only
possible end was death, anyway.

And I would like to point out that while I may sound entirely heartless,
I just made myself cry...

--
sophie

[E Riehle]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message >...
> E Riehle wrote:
>
> > In my case it is...I have a septic system...
>
> It's still a slow chemical death.

Ah, but there's the rub--I've only put dead fish in the funereal cistern...(C:

[Eric Schreiber]

E Riehle wrote:

>> It's still a slow chemical death.

> Ah, but there's the rub--I've only put dead fish in the funereal
> cistern...(C:

Ah, well, in that case, I reckon no harm. From what (blessedly little)
I understand of septic systems, they're either working very well, in
which case they're not troubling the local environs at all, or they're
not working well, in which case any pathogens from dead fish probably
pale in comparison to the majority, um, effluent.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Dan White]

"IDzine01" > wrote in message
om...
> Nature may be cruel but only humans knowingly introduce potentially
> dangerous diseases into the ground or water supply. I don't even think
> it's legal to flush fish. (Though I'm not sure) It's up to us to make
> sure they are disposed of properly.

I wouldn't recommend you drink any water from the local hippo or elephant
wading pool! I'm not so sure that even 1% of the people who flush fish
realize that it might contaminate anything. After all, we flush far fowler
seeming stuff in there all the time.

dwhite

>
>
> "Dan White" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Victor Martinez" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Dan White wrote:
> > > > in the direction of the camera, and then it was all over. The
animal
> > > > kingdom is NOT politically correct.
> > >
> > > What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
> > >
> >
> > It was just a gut reaction, and something I find interesting. Let me
put it
> > another way. While I believe it is best to minimize the suffering of a
> > fish, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it while the rest of the
animal
> > world ("Mother Nature") condones behavior that is many, many times worse
> > than flushing a fish. In other words, do the very best you can to
minimize
> > any suffering, but don't lose any sleep over it if you can't.
> >
> > Please do let me know next time I stray from the subject.
> >
> > dwhite

[Dick]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:26:37 +0100, sophie
> wrote:

>In message >, IDzine01
> writes
>>I too have heard that cutting off the head just behind the gills is
>>the only humane way. I've heard of problems with clove oil as well as
>>the freezing method. The problem is once your attached to your pet,
>>how can you bring yourself to do it? I wish I had the answer for that
>>one.
>
>I have never had to euthanase a fish; but I have had to put small
>animals out of their misery (blame the cats), also one largeish bird.
>When our dog was very old and sick I sat and held his head while the vet
>gave him an overdose of anaesthetic (and that was _hard_) - for him it
>was quick and painless. If you can't do painless, do quick. It's not
>easiest for you (my other half still thinks there's something unnatural
>and disturbing about being able to smack a magpie's head with a brick)
>but it is certainly kindest for the poor animal on the receiving end.
>
>How can you bring yourself to do it? The question might be better put:
>how can you bring yourself _not_ to do it. I would find it a great deal
>harder to allow an animal to suffer long and cruelly when the only
>possible end was death, anyway.
>
>And I would like to point out that while I may sound entirely heartless,
>I just made myself cry...

It is nice to know this group is so sensitive to causing death to
other lives. I have had to put many dogs down and I cry hard every
time. I just put down a platty that got a growth behind her eye well
over 6 months ago. I marvelled at how well she managed and didn't let
her problem become a handicap. I finally moved her from the
quarantine tank which I needed to treat a molly, to a 29 gallon
community tank. She did well. When I finally saw the morning she was
gasping at the surface, I netted her to put back in the quarantine
tank. It was too easy. She didn't try to escape, so I decided the
time had come. I respect any life that wants to live. I had another
fish with a swim bladder problem. It swam vertically for about 6
months. Became pretty good at catching food flakes, even maing
horizontal dashes to get one. It died naturally, but what a great
struggle.

As pet owners we get faced with decisions we would all rather be left
to God. It is encouraging to know we don't make our decisions
lightly.

dick

[Dick]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:01:49 GMT, "Dan White"
> wrote:

>"IDzine01" > wrote in message
om...
>> Nature may be cruel but only humans knowingly introduce potentially
>> dangerous diseases into the ground or water supply. I don't even think
>> it's legal to flush fish. (Though I'm not sure) It's up to us to make
>> sure they are disposed of properly.
>
>I wouldn't recommend you drink any water from the local hippo or elephant
>wading pool! I'm not so sure that even 1% of the people who flush fish
>realize that it might contaminate anything. After all, we flush far fowler
>seeming stuff in there all the time.
>
>dwhite
>
>>
>>
>> "Dan White" > wrote in message
>...
>> > "Victor Martinez" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > Dan White wrote:
>> > > > in the direction of the camera, and then it was all over. The
>animal
>> > > > kingdom is NOT politically correct.
>> > >
>> > > What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
>> > >
>> >
>> > It was just a gut reaction, and something I find interesting. Let me
>put it
>> > another way. While I believe it is best to minimize the suffering of a
>> > fish, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it while the rest of the
>animal
>> > world ("Mother Nature") condones behavior that is many, many times worse
>> > than flushing a fish. In other words, do the very best you can to
>minimize
>> > any suffering, but don't lose any sleep over it if you can't.
>> >
>> > Please do let me know next time I stray from the subject.
>> >
>> > dwhite
>
Considering that homes with garbage disposals are grinding up all
sorts of things, I doubt that a dead fish will foul the process. I do
think about how long the live fry will survive once I flush.
Considering how carefully we control their environment in our tanks, I
assume that the fry will not suffer too long in the sewage system.
The thought of crushing a handful of fry is beyond me. I held one of
my most beloved dogs as the vet put in the stuff. That dog struggled
to keep its head up even though it could no longer stand on his own.
I am still haunted by how much SAm seemed to still want to live.
Playing God is no fun. I am keeping my thoughts on the larger fish
community and do my best on solving this fry problem. I have now
separated all live bearers by sex into separate tanks. I will never
buy another live bearer!

dick

[Dick]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 05:43:24 -0500, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
ericschreiber dot com> wrote:

>Dick wrote:
>
>> Sorry your morals ignore that life is hard, not always
>> fair, and full of terrible choices.
>
>It's a pity that your choice in this case was a lazy one. Killing 20
>fry would have taken a matter of moments, and would have eliminated
>their suffering following being flushed.


It is not a matter of "lazy". Lack of imagination, yes.
Unwillingness to prolong my misery, yes. Uncarring, not!
I am only human. Yes I minimized my suffering. I am important too!

dick

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Dick wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 05:43:24 -0500, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
> ericschreiber dot com> wrote:
>
> >Dick wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry your morals ignore that life is hard, not always
> >> fair, and full of terrible choices.
> >
> >It's a pity that your choice in this case was a lazy one. Killing 20
> >fry would have taken a matter of moments, and would have eliminated
> >their suffering following being flushed.
>
> It is not a matter of "lazy". Lack of imagination, yes.
> Unwillingness to prolong my misery, yes. Uncarring, not!
> I am only human. Yes I minimized my suffering. I am important too!
>
> dick

Don't keep pets then!

[Dick]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:09:20 -0500, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
ericschreiber dot com> wrote:

>Dick wrote:
>
>> I had 20 fry and knew I couldn't use the slam dunk with them,
>> so I flushed. I hope their demise was quick.
>
>It almost certainly was NOT quick or painless.

Glad to see you are not absolutely certain, "almost" is wiggle room.
I am not certain it is not a fast death. With all the methane in
sewer lines and all the other toxins plus the rapid change in
temperature, I suspect the fry died rather quickly. We don't even
know what their ability to feel pain might be. I lost several fish in
my 75 gallon tank when I "adjusted" it for Ph and the tank went acid.
Within minutes several were dead. Others had red around their eyes,
but I didn't notice anything that looked as though they felt "pain."
Are you expert in what animals feel?

In another post you suggest I not keep pets. I give meaning to my
life by my pets. My dogs seem to want my attention, my fish want me
to feed them. I limit pain, but cannot escape it.

Some of the suggestions for killing fish sound wrong to me, such as
refrigeration then freezing. I would rather flush than go through
that procedure, I think just putting them in the trash can would be as
humane. Fish flop onto the shore and die naturally.

This thread has become goulish. Spending time figuring out how to
kill is not my idea of something I want to do. My mother wanted to
die, but the nursing home had to do all it could to keep her alive.
She quit eating and solved her problem. Slow death, but she got what
she wanted. Humans are funny, here we are thinking of quick, painless
means to death, while our legal and medical system keeps humans
twisting in the wind.

dick

[Eric Schreiber]

Dick wrote:

> Are you expert in what animals feel?

Not at all. However, simple logic dictates that an instant death
entails less suffering than a drawn-out death.


> In another post you suggest I not keep pets.

No. I did not.


> I limit pain, but cannot escape it.

In the case of these fry that you flushed, you certainly could have
limited it a good deal more.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Nikki Casali]

Eric Schreiber wrote:
> Dick wrote:
>
>
>>Are you expert in what animals feel?
>
>
> Not at all. However, simple logic dictates that an instant death
> entails less suffering than a drawn-out death.
>
>

Until the scientific community is absolutely convinced that fish feel no
pain, while there is still a shred of doubt, we should reduce the
suffering of fish as much as possible. If that time of enlightenment
ever comes, then we are left with the fact that fish may very well
suffer from fear, and there's more chance of this. Psychological torture
can be worse than pain.

Nikki

[Dick]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 05:35:56 -0500, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
ericschreiber dot com> wrote:

>Dick wrote:
>
>> Are you expert in what animals feel?
>
>Not at all. However, simple logic dictates that an instant death
>entails less suffering than a drawn-out death.
>
>
>> In another post you suggest I not keep pets.
>
>No. I did not.
>
>
>> I limit pain, but cannot escape it.
>
>In the case of these fry that you flushed, you certainly could have
>limited it a good deal more.

I sincerely wonder if I am the least humane. Many years ago, driving
in the mountains, I lost control of my car. As it zoomed out into
nothing, all that went on in my mind was a dispassionet question,
"Well, this is it, I wonder what is next?" The next awareness was
that of hanging upside down, held to my seat by the seat belt. No
pain, no panic, just a desire to unfasten the seat belt.

Shock! I suspect that the fry go into shock almost immediately. Once
into the sewer system, I suspect the shock and toxic environment
brings instant death.

Then consider the refrigerator/ freezer approach. Adjustment to
climate change is a slow process in nature. As cold covers the water,
the bottom of the lake remains warmed from the earth. Some fish never
hypernate. For those that do, the adaption is slow. The temperature
change in the refrigerator is slow, but not slow in terms of
adjustment of the fish's body. Then it must go through a faster
gradient in the freezer. I suppose death comes from bursting vessels.
I am not saying this is an accurate portrayal of what happens, but
just want to show that we do not know much about dying. We can't be
sure that fish even has a pain sense, avoidance, but pain?

Many years ago, I saw a movie called Soylent Green. Society had
theaters one would go to when ready to die. Science had discovered a
way to induce hullcinations to fit the desired last scenes.
Personally, I want the end to be like my car experience. Lots of
shock until....

dick

Hard to know. I guess we all have to find what hurts us least, for we
will never know how the fish see it.

[Dick]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:05:22 +0100, Nikki Casali
> wrote:

>
>
>Eric Schreiber wrote:
>> Dick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Are you expert in what animals feel?
>>
>>
>> Not at all. However, simple logic dictates that an instant death
>> entails less suffering than a drawn-out death.
>>
>>
>
>Until the scientific community is absolutely convinced that fish feel no
>pain, while there is still a shred of doubt, we should reduce the
>suffering of fish as much as possible. If that time of enlightenment
>ever comes, then we are left with the fact that fish may very well
>suffer from fear, and there's more chance of this. Psychological torture
>can be worse than pain.
>
>Nikki


Some people belive plants "hurt." What are you going to do to keep
the grass from hurting when you mow? I find enough hurt in daily
living that I can't avoid. "9/11" I cried almost daily while watching
the terrible scenes from New York.

This is obviously a thread that has reached many of us. However, we
all are taking care of our own needs. The very effort to kill in the
least painful way, is also an effort to cause ourselves the least
amount of guilt/pain.

dick

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

Dick wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:59:56 +0100, Geezer From The Freezer
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Nikki Casali wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting. I bury all my fish that die in my garden. They get the same
> >> respect as humans. Yes, I'm also mad as a hatter.
> >>
> >> If you live in a high rise apartment block, then I suppose the only way
> >> to safely get rid of your dead fish pets is to throw them in the trash can?
> >
> >I do the same Nikki.
> >
> >I've heard of some people throwing their dead dogs into the trash - thats
> >appauling
> >in my opinion!
>
> I have a 13 year old dog and worry about what I will do with her
> carcass.

This may well depend on local regulation. Here in Germany carcasses
beyond a certain size need to be disposed of through an approved
institution (vulgo: soap factory). That has to do with disease
prevention. Most aquarium fish are too small to fall under these
regulations.

Personally however I think there is a difference between humans and
fish, so a small hole in the garden has to suffice. And if no garden is
available, the trash can is an option, IMHO.

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Fish have pain, its likely that its a different pain to what we
know of, but they certainly are aware of discomfort.

[Nikki Casali]

Dick wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:05:22 +0100, Nikki Casali
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Eric Schreiber wrote:
>>
>>>Dick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are you expert in what animals feel?
>>>
>>>
>>>Not at all. However, simple logic dictates that an instant death
>>>entails less suffering than a drawn-out death.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Until the scientific community is absolutely convinced that fish feel no
>>pain, while there is still a shred of doubt, we should reduce the
>>suffering of fish as much as possible. If that time of enlightenment
>>ever comes, then we are left with the fact that fish may very well
>>suffer from fear, and there's more chance of this. Psychological torture
>>can be worse than pain.
>>
>>Nikki
>
>
>
> Some people belive plants "hurt." What are you going to do to keep
> the grass from hurting when you mow?

Lots of those at http://www.crank.net/

Please cite a peer reviewed scientific article claiming that plants feel
pain. Problem is that there isn't one.

Fish have slightly more complicated nervous systems than plants!

Nikki

[Nikki Casali]

Geezer From The Freezer wrote:
> Fish have pain, its likely that its a different pain to what we
> know of, but they certainly are aware of discomfort.

And ultimately, we only know of our own pain. It is a subjective,
private experience. We can never be 100% sure how someone else feels pain.

Nikki

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Nikki Casali wrote:
>
> Geezer From The Freezer wrote:
> > Fish have pain, its likely that its a different pain to what we
> > know of, but they certainly are aware of discomfort.
>
> And ultimately, we only know of our own pain. It is a subjective,
> private experience. We can never be 100% sure how someone else feels pain.
>
> Nikki

Thats very true although I imagine most people feel pain in a very similar way

[Dan White]

"Dick" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then consider the refrigerator/ freezer approach.

What happened to the boiling water approach? Am I wrong? I thought this
was supposed to be pretty much instant death.

dwhite

[Geezer From The Freezer]

Dan White wrote:
>
> "Dick" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Then consider the refrigerator/ freezer approach.
>
> What happened to the boiling water approach? Am I wrong? I thought this
> was supposed to be pretty much instant death.
>
> dwhite

thats horrible. Use clove oil, much more humane, or a hammer - instant!

[Nikki Casali]

Geezer From The Freezer wrote:
>
> Dan White wrote:
>
>>"Dick" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Then consider the refrigerator/ freezer approach.
>>
>>What happened to the boiling water approach? Am I wrong? I thought this
>>was supposed to be pretty much instant death.
>>
>>dwhite
>
>
> thats horrible. Use clove oil, much more humane, or a hammer - instant!

I do remember reading, years ago, that you could drop tiny fry into a
pan of boiling water for an instant death. I could never bring myself to
doing that when I had less than perfect guppy fry - hunched back - and
just let them live out their lives. They didn't know any better.

[Dick]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:50:17 +0100, Nikki Casali
> wrote:

>
>
>Dick wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:05:22 +0100, Nikki Casali
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Eric Schreiber wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Are you expert in what animals feel?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. However, simple logic dictates that an instant death
>>>>entails less suffering than a drawn-out death.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Until the scientific community is absolutely convinced that fish feel no
>>>pain, while there is still a shred of doubt, we should reduce the
>>>suffering of fish as much as possible. If that time of enlightenment
>>>ever comes, then we are left with the fact that fish may very well
>>>suffer from fear, and there's more chance of this. Psychological torture
>>>can be worse than pain.
>>>
>>>Nikki
>>
>>
>>
>> Some people belive plants "hurt." What are you going to do to keep
>> the grass from hurting when you mow?
>
>Lots of those at http://www.crank.net/
>
>Please cite a peer reviewed scientific article claiming that plants feel
>pain. Problem is that there isn't one.
>
>Fish have slightly more complicated nervous systems than plants!
>
>Nikki

I presume you can site a "peer reviewed scientific article claiming
that" fish feel pain.

There was a lively interest in whether plants respond to trauma many
years ago. Probably I read about it in Scientific American back in
the lat 1950s. The test plant was put in a room separate from the
experimental control. electrodes were attached. Then a leaf torn
off. A reponse was noted by the test plant. Pain? Who knows?

When we accept an idea, we do not demand proof, but when it is not our
idea, it is so easy to say "prove it!" Dan Rather could tell you more
about the syndrome.

Personally, I will trust that shock and toxic sewage will limit any
stress.

dick

[Nikki Casali]

Dick wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:50:17 +0100, Nikki Casali
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Dick wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:05:22 +0100, Nikki Casali
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Eric Schreiber wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you expert in what animals feel?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not at all. However, simple logic dictates that an instant death
>>>>>entails less suffering than a drawn-out death.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Until the scientific community is absolutely convinced that fish feel no
>>>>pain, while there is still a shred of doubt, we should reduce the
>>>>suffering of fish as much as possible. If that time of enlightenment
>>>>ever comes, then we are left with the fact that fish may very well
>>>>suffer from fear, and there's more chance of this. Psychological torture
>>>>can be worse than pain.
>>>>
>>>>Nikki
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Some people belive plants "hurt." What are you going to do to keep
>>>the grass from hurting when you mow?
>>
>>Lots of those at http://www.crank.net/
>>
>>Please cite a peer reviewed scientific article claiming that plants feel
>>pain. Problem is that there isn't one.
>>
>>Fish have slightly more complicated nervous systems than plants!
>>
>>Nikki
>
>
> I presume you can site a "peer reviewed scientific article claiming
> that" fish feel pain.
>

I've never directly said that fish feel pain, just that we should be
careful. There's a chance that fish feel no pain whatsoever. Here's a
couple of journalistic references that discuss fish pain.

New Scientist vol 134 issue 1818 - 25 April 92, page 30
Title: "Do animals feel pain?: By drawing analogies between humans and
other animals, researchers tentatively conclude that fish and octopuses
can feel pain, but insects can't. But the cutoff point is inevitably fuzzy
"

New Scientist vol 178 issue 2393 - 03 May 2003, page 15
Title: "Does a hook hurt a fish? The evidence is reeling in"
Conclusion:
What is clear from Sneddon's work is that fish experience prolonged
discomfort following an injection that would be painful to humans. And
that is good enough for Bateson. "There seems, already, to be a good
argument to say that fish should be treated carefully," he says.




> There was a lively interest in whether plants respond to trauma many
> years ago. Probably I read about it in Scientific American back in
> the lat 1950s.

I don't know if my archives go that far back. 8-0

The test plant was put in a room separate from the
> experimental control. electrodes were attached. Then a leaf torn
> off. A reponse was noted by the test plant. Pain? Who knows?
>

Plants have no brain, no nervous system. What benefit would pain provide
in a plant? It just simply wouldn't be able to uproot and avoid it.

> When we accept an idea, we do not demand proof, but when it is not our
> idea, it is so easy to say "prove it!" Dan Rather could tell you more
> about the syndrome.
>
> Personally, I will trust that shock and toxic sewage will limit any
> stress.
>
> dick

[Eric Schreiber]

Dick wrote:

> I presume you can site a "peer reviewed scientific article claiming
> that" fish feel pain.

(I'm attempting to strike the balance point between fair use and
providing the meaningful passages, so there's a fair bit of clipping)

Source: Science Now; 5/5/2003, p3, 1p, 1bw
Author: Pickrell, John

[...]researchers at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, U.K., claim to
have the best evidence yet that fish detect, and are distressed by,
painful stimuli.

[...] scientists led by physiologist Lynne Sneddon have found 58
receptors on the face and head of a trout that respond to painful
mechanical, chemical, or thermal stimuli. The researchers found the
receptors by measuring the responses of neurons in anesthetized fish,
they report online 30 April in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[...]The heart rates of trout injected with acid or venom increased up
to 30% faster after treatment than those of trout injected with saline
and trout that were simply handled and put back in the tank. What's
more, the treated trout took more than twice as long to resume feeding
and displayed "anomalous" behaviors such as rocking motions or rubbing
their lips against the side of the tank


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Nikki Casali]

Eric Schreiber wrote:

> Dick wrote:
>
>
>>I presume you can site a "peer reviewed scientific article claiming
>>that" fish feel pain.
>
>
> (I'm attempting to strike the balance point between fair use and
> providing the meaningful passages, so there's a fair bit of clipping)
>
> Source: Science Now; 5/5/2003, p3, 1p, 1bw
> Author: Pickrell, John
>
> [...]researchers at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, U.K., claim to
> have the best evidence yet that fish detect, and are distressed by,
> painful stimuli.
>
> [...] scientists led by physiologist Lynne Sneddon have found 58
> receptors on the face and head of a trout that respond to painful
> mechanical, chemical, or thermal stimuli. The researchers found the
> receptors by measuring the responses of neurons in anesthetized fish,
> they report online 30 April in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
>
> [...]The heart rates of trout injected with acid or venom increased up
> to 30% faster after treatment than those of trout injected with saline
> and trout that were simply handled and put back in the tank. What's
> more, the treated trout took more than twice as long to resume feeding
> and displayed "anomalous" behaviors such as rocking motions or rubbing
> their lips against the side of the tank
>

The article "New Scientist vol 178 issue 2393 - 03 May 2003, page 15"
which I referred to discusses the same study as above. The article starts:
"FISH can feel pain, according to a controversial study. The finding
will inflame arguments over whether angling should be considered a cruel
blood sport alongside fox hunting and hare coursing."

Nikki

[Dick]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:40:32 +0100, Nikki Casali
> wrote:

>
>
>Dick wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:50:17 +0100, Nikki Casali
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Dick wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:05:22 +0100, Nikki Casali
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Eric Schreiber wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are you expert in what animals feel?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not at all. However, simple logic dictates that an instant death
>>>>>>entails less suffering than a drawn-out death.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Until the scientific community is absolutely convinced that fish feel no
>>>>>pain, while there is still a shred of doubt, we should reduce the
>>>>>suffering of fish as much as possible. If that time of enlightenment
>>>>>ever comes, then we are left with the fact that fish may very well
>>>>>suffer from fear, and there's more chance of this. Psychological torture
>>>>>can be worse than pain.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nikki
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Some people belive plants "hurt." What are you going to do to keep
>>>>the grass from hurting when you mow?
>>>
>>>Lots of those at http://www.crank.net/
>>>
>>>Please cite a peer reviewed scientific article claiming that plants feel
>>>pain. Problem is that there isn't one.
>>>
>>>Fish have slightly more complicated nervous systems than plants!
>>>
>>>Nikki
>>
>>
>> I presume you can site a "peer reviewed scientific article claiming
>> that" fish feel pain.
>>
>
>I've never directly said that fish feel pain, just that we should be
>careful. There's a chance that fish feel no pain whatsoever. Here's a
>couple of journalistic references that discuss fish pain.
>
>New Scientist vol 134 issue 1818 - 25 April 92, page 30
>Title: "Do animals feel pain?: By drawing analogies between humans and
>other animals, researchers tentatively conclude that fish and octopuses
>can feel pain, but insects can't. But the cutoff point is inevitably fuzzy
>"
>
>New Scientist vol 178 issue 2393 - 03 May 2003, page 15
>Title: "Does a hook hurt a fish? The evidence is reeling in"
>Conclusion:
>What is clear from Sneddon's work is that fish experience prolonged
>discomfort following an injection that would be painful to humans. And
>that is good enough for Bateson. "There seems, already, to be a good
>argument to say that fish should be treated carefully," he says.
>
>
>
>
>> There was a lively interest in whether plants respond to trauma many
>> years ago. Probably I read about it in Scientific American back in
>> the lat 1950s.
>
>I don't know if my archives go that far back. 8-0
>
> The test plant was put in a room separate from the
>> experimental control. electrodes were attached. Then a leaf torn
>> off. A reponse was noted by the test plant. Pain? Who knows?
>>
>
>Plants have no brain, no nervous system. What benefit would pain provide
>in a plant? It just simply wouldn't be able to uproot and avoid it.

Some plants close, turn, emit in response to sun, wind, insects. No
brain? No, but plants do manage to respond to their environment
either avoiding or attracting. (going from memory which isn't the
greatest, but in the fog of the years these thoughts were deposited,
no pain). Notice I said there was a "response" not "pain." I am
inclined to think fish feel "pain." As I get older, I feel pain in
lots of places and pain in my feet limits my mobility. Extreme pain
brings "shock" which removes the awareness.

I wonder how Darwinism explains organisms going from simple
"awareness" and avoidance/approach went on to retain consciousness of
"pain?"

Intellectualizing does not change the fact that each of us must reach
our own conclusion as to what our personal reasoning can live with.
By the way, there is a current thread in alt.aquaria, dealing with
Plecos burning themselves by laying against the heater and a response
suggesting that "mesh heater guards" be installed. The fact that
the plecos didn't move and burned themselves may be relevant to this
discussion. Ironically, one person reported installing the mesh only
to have 3 fish die after getting entangled in the mesh. Some days you
just can't win.

dick


>
>> When we accept an idea, we do not demand proof, but when it is not our
>> idea, it is so easy to say "prove it!" Dan Rather could tell you more
>> about the syndrome.
>>
>> Personally, I will trust that shock and toxic sewage will limit any
>> stress.
>>
>> dick

[Dick]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:58:16 -0500, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
ericschreiber dot com> wrote:

>Dick wrote:
>
>> I presume you can site a "peer reviewed scientific article claiming
>> that" fish feel pain.
>
>(I'm attempting to strike the balance point between fair use and
>providing the meaningful passages, so there's a fair bit of clipping)
>
>Source: Science Now; 5/5/2003, p3, 1p, 1bw
>Author: Pickrell, John
>
>[...]researchers at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, U.K., claim to
>have the best evidence yet that fish detect, and are distressed by,
>painful stimuli.
>
>[...] scientists led by physiologist Lynne Sneddon have found 58
>receptors on the face and head of a trout that respond to painful
>mechanical, chemical, or thermal stimuli. The researchers found the
>receptors by measuring the responses of neurons in anesthetized fish,
>they report online 30 April in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
>
>[...]The heart rates of trout injected with acid or venom increased up
>to 30% faster after treatment than those of trout injected with saline
>and trout that were simply handled and put back in the tank. What's
>more, the treated trout took more than twice as long to resume feeding
>and displayed "anomalous" behaviors such as rocking motions or rubbing
>their lips against the side of the tank


But, Eric, that only shows the fish is equipped to be able to respond,
either to approach or to avoid. "Pain" is subjective. If I touch a
hot stove, my hand moves before my brain is aware. How can
physiological responses be equated to conscious decisions to react. I
just thought of the "fire walkers" who appear to not only ignore the
heat, but claim the skin of their feet do not even blister?

As I flew into the air in my car, I had no awareness of sensation.
After getting out of my seat belt, no pain. Not until the next day,
in the hospital, did I become aware of "pain."

dick

[Dick]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:35:29 +0100, Nikki Casali
> wrote:

>
>
>Eric Schreiber wrote:
>
>> Dick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I presume you can site a "peer reviewed scientific article claiming
>>>that" fish feel pain.
>>
>>
>> (I'm attempting to strike the balance point between fair use and
>> providing the meaningful passages, so there's a fair bit of clipping)
>>
>> Source: Science Now; 5/5/2003, p3, 1p, 1bw
>> Author: Pickrell, John
>>
>> [...]researchers at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, U.K., claim to
>> have the best evidence yet that fish detect, and are distressed by,
>> painful stimuli.
>>
>> [...] scientists led by physiologist Lynne Sneddon have found 58
>> receptors on the face and head of a trout that respond to painful
>> mechanical, chemical, or thermal stimuli. The researchers found the
>> receptors by measuring the responses of neurons in anesthetized fish,
>> they report online 30 April in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
>>
>> [...]The heart rates of trout injected with acid or venom increased up
>> to 30% faster after treatment than those of trout injected with saline
>> and trout that were simply handled and put back in the tank. What's
>> more, the treated trout took more than twice as long to resume feeding
>> and displayed "anomalous" behaviors such as rocking motions or rubbing
>> their lips against the side of the tank
>>
>
>The article "New Scientist vol 178 issue 2393 - 03 May 2003, page 15"
>which I referred to discusses the same study as above. The article starts:
>"FISH can feel pain, according to a controversial study. The finding
>will inflame arguments over whether angling should be considered a cruel
>blood sport alongside fox hunting and hare coursing."
>
>Nikki

First of all I would suggest the article over reaches in declaring
fish feel "pain." A physiological response is obvious.

Poor fishermen, hunters, providers of meat products, et al. Our
abilities to kill conscientiously is doomed. If we don't kill, we are
doomed. <g>

dick

[Dick]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:37:33 +0100, Nikki Casali
> wrote:

>
>
>Geezer From The Freezer wrote:
>>
>> Dan White wrote:
>>
>>>"Dick" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Then consider the refrigerator/ freezer approach.
>>>
>>>What happened to the boiling water approach? Am I wrong? I thought this
>>>was supposed to be pretty much instant death.
>>>
>>>dwhite
>>
>>
>> thats horrible. Use clove oil, much more humane, or a hammer - instant!
>
>I do remember reading, years ago, that you could drop tiny fry into a
>pan of boiling water for an instant death. I could never bring myself to
>doing that when I had less than perfect guppy fry - hunched back - and
>just let them live out their lives. They didn't know any better.


Letting the fry live would be my first choice, however, my quandry
"boils" down to the greatest good for the greatest number. I include
me in the majority. My tanks are full. I have no room for more
tanks, nor want to care for more. We do not always have the luxury of
doing the most kind acts. A family with an autistic child may have to
turn to an institution to care for the child, many an elder parent is
put into Nursing Homes so adequate care can be given. Humans must
make "painful" decisions. I can not imagine myself putting wiggling
fry into a pot of boiling water and yet lobsters are put there daily.

dick

[sophie]

In message >, Dick
> writes
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:35:29 +0100, Nikki Casali
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Eric Schreiber wrote:
>>
>>> Dick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I presume you can site a "peer reviewed scientific article claiming
>>>>that" fish feel pain.
>>>
>>>
>>> (I'm attempting to strike the balance point between fair use and
>>> providing the meaningful passages, so there's a fair bit of clipping)
>>>
>>> Source: Science Now; 5/5/2003, p3, 1p, 1bw
>>> Author: Pickrell, John
>>>
>>> [...]researchers at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, U.K., claim to
>>> have the best evidence yet that fish detect, and are distressed by,
>>> painful stimuli.
>>>
>>> [...] scientists led by physiologist Lynne Sneddon have found 58
>>> receptors on the face and head of a trout that respond to painful
>>> mechanical, chemical, or thermal stimuli. The researchers found the
>>> receptors by measuring the responses of neurons in anesthetized fish,
>>> they report online 30 April in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
>>>
>>> [...]The heart rates of trout injected with acid or venom increased up
>>> to 30% faster after treatment than those of trout injected with saline
>>> and trout that were simply handled and put back in the tank. What's
>>> more, the treated trout took more than twice as long to resume feeding
>>> and displayed "anomalous" behaviors such as rocking motions or rubbing
>>> their lips against the side of the tank
>>>
>>
>>The article "New Scientist vol 178 issue 2393 - 03 May 2003, page 15"
>>which I referred to discusses the same study as above. The article starts:
>>"FISH can feel pain, according to a controversial study. The finding
>>will inflame arguments over whether angling should be considered a cruel
>>blood sport alongside fox hunting and hare coursing."
>>
>>Nikki
>
>First of all I would suggest the article over reaches in declaring
>fish feel "pain." A physiological response is obvious.
>
>Poor fishermen, hunters, providers of meat products, et al. Our
>abilities to kill conscientiously is doomed.

I think the key word here is "conscientiously".

--
sophie

[Nikki Casali]

Dick wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 21:35:29 +0100, Nikki Casali
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Eric Schreiber wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I presume you can site a "peer reviewed scientific article claiming
>>>>that" fish feel pain.
>>>
>>>
>>>(I'm attempting to strike the balance point between fair use and
>>>providing the meaningful passages, so there's a fair bit of clipping)
>>>
>>>Source: Science Now; 5/5/2003, p3, 1p, 1bw
>>>Author: Pickrell, John
>>>
>>>[...]researchers at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, U.K., claim to
>>>have the best evidence yet that fish detect, and are distressed by,
>>>painful stimuli.
>>>
>>>[...] scientists led by physiologist Lynne Sneddon have found 58
>>>receptors on the face and head of a trout that respond to painful
>>>mechanical, chemical, or thermal stimuli. The researchers found the
>>>receptors by measuring the responses of neurons in anesthetized fish,
>>>they report online 30 April in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
>>>
>>>[...]The heart rates of trout injected with acid or venom increased up
>>>to 30% faster after treatment than those of trout injected with saline
>>>and trout that were simply handled and put back in the tank. What's
>>>more, the treated trout took more than twice as long to resume feeding
>>>and displayed "anomalous" behaviors such as rocking motions or rubbing
>>>their lips against the side of the tank
>>>
>>
>>The article "New Scientist vol 178 issue 2393 - 03 May 2003, page 15"
>>which I referred to discusses the same study as above. The article starts:
>>"FISH can feel pain, according to a controversial study. The finding
>>will inflame arguments over whether angling should be considered a cruel
>>blood sport alongside fox hunting and hare coursing."
>>
>>Nikki
>
>
> First of all I would suggest the article over reaches in declaring
> fish feel "pain." A physiological response is obvious.
>
> Poor fishermen, hunters, providers of meat products, et al. Our
> abilities to kill conscientiously is doomed. If we don't kill, we are
> doomed. <g>

That raises another issue. According to the latest news, we need to
reduce our meat consumption otherwise we WILL be doomed.

I envisage that some time in the future, when we are advanced enough,
societies won't depend on the need to kill. The simulated meat will
taste just as good. I can also see a nightmare scenario where animals
are genetically engineered without brains.

Hey, anyone for some soylant green?

Nikki

[Eric Schreiber]

Dick wrote:

>>> I presume you can site a "peer reviewed scientific article claiming
>>> that" fish feel pain.

>> Source: Science Now; 5/5/2003, p3, 1p, 1bw
>> Author: Pickrell, John

> But, Eric, that only shows the fish is equipped to be able to respond,
> either to approach or to avoid. "Pain" is subjective.

The article referenced meets your stated requirements.


> If I touch a hot stove, my hand moves before my brain is aware.
> How can physiological responses be equated to conscious decisions
> to react.

And a very short while thereafter, you feel pain. It modifies your
short term behavior (reaction such as running cold water over it) as
well as your long term behavior (avoiding doing it again).

In the article I cited, the fish have both short term and long term
behavioral responses, indicating an effect beyond the merely
physiological.

You are quite right that pain is subjective. It even varies a great
deal from one person to another. That is hardly reason enough to assume
that fish do not feel pain - a responsible fish keeper will take care
to err on the side of caution and minimize the effects on the animals
in his care.


> I just thought of the "fire walkers" who appear to not only ignore
> the heat, but claim the skin of their feet do not even blister?

Oh dear.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Dick]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:58:16 -0500, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
ericschreiber dot com> wrote:

>Dick wrote:
>
>> I presume you can site a "peer reviewed scientific article claiming
>> that" fish feel pain.
>
>(I'm attempting to strike the balance point between fair use and
>providing the meaningful passages, so there's a fair bit of clipping)
>
>Source: Science Now; 5/5/2003, p3, 1p, 1bw
>Author: Pickrell, John
>
>[...]researchers at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, U.K., claim to
>have the best evidence yet that fish detect, and are distressed by,
>painful stimuli.
>
>[...] scientists led by physiologist Lynne Sneddon have found 58
>receptors on the face and head of a trout that respond to painful
>mechanical, chemical, or thermal stimuli. The researchers found the
>receptors by measuring the responses of neurons in anesthetized fish,
>they report online 30 April in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
>
>[...]The heart rates of trout injected with acid or venom increased up
>to 30% faster after treatment than those of trout injected with saline
>and trout that were simply handled and put back in the tank. What's
>more, the treated trout took more than twice as long to resume feeding
>and displayed "anomalous" behaviors such as rocking motions or rubbing
>their lips against the side of the tank


I don't know why it takes me so long to remember to Google. One of
the first to pop up was certainly one of the more interesting to read:

http://www2.cedarcrest.edu/academic/writing/pleasure09/wallflowers.htm

So, I won't go off to the looney tank quite yet.

I do think we must be careful about anthropomorphising behavior we
witness.

dick

[Nikki Casali]

Dick wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:37:33 +0100, Nikki Casali
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Geezer From The Freezer wrote:
>>
>>>Dan White wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Dick" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Then consider the refrigerator/ freezer approach.
>>>>
>>>>What happened to the boiling water approach? Am I wrong? I thought this
>>>>was supposed to be pretty much instant death.
>>>>
>>>>dwhite
>>>
>>>
>>>thats horrible. Use clove oil, much more humane, or a hammer - instant!
>>
>>I do remember reading, years ago, that you could drop tiny fry into a
>>pan of boiling water for an instant death. I could never bring myself to
>>doing that when I had less than perfect guppy fry - hunched back - and
>>just let them live out their lives. They didn't know any better.
>
>
>
> Letting the fry live would be my first choice, however, my quandry
> "boils" down to the greatest good for the greatest number. I include
> me in the majority. My tanks are full. I have no room for more
> tanks, nor want to care for more. We do not always have the luxury of
> doing the most kind acts. A family with an autistic child may have to
> turn to an institution to care for the child, many an elder parent is
> put into Nursing Homes so adequate care can be given. Humans must
> make "painful" decisions. I can not imagine myself putting wiggling
> fry into a pot of boiling water and yet lobsters are put there daily.

So which is the more caring for the animal: a protracted sewer death or
an instant heat death?

Can you get hold of clove oil? Once you do, you will be relieved from
the pain of deciding whether to flush or not. That quandary is over. :-(

Nikki

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Humane?
>From: (IDzine01)
>Date: 9/20/2004 3:18 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Hey Tynk, Are you sure this is safe? I've been told several times that
>this method is really intended to make the "euthanizer" feel better
>about what they have to do, but the actual death is long and painful.
>Like slowly freezing to death in a lake or something. I'm not being
>flippant, I'm just wondering if this method is really legitimate or
>more of an Old Wives Tale. I truly don't know what to believe.

The "slowly freezing to death" is a human, warm blooded thing.
Fish, being cold blooded don't go the same route as warm blooded animals do.
The studies I have read learned that by simply using the freezer first, if
appeared to put them into hybernation, but before so Ice crystals had formed in
the bloodstream and that that would be painful.
When a fish was placed into a frige first to be put into hybernation, no ice
crystals to be formed, so no pain. The freezer then finishes the euthanasia
process.
I was always recommeded to use the freezer (only) method until that new
research was done.

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Humane?
>From: Dick
>Date: 9/21/2004 5:09 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:01:49 GMT, "Dan White"
> wrote:
>
>>"IDzine01" > wrote in message
om...
>>> Nature may be cruel but only humans knowingly introduce potentially
>>> dangerous diseases into the ground or water supply. I don't even think
>>> it's legal to flush fish. (Though I'm not sure) It's up to us to make
>>> sure they are disposed of properly.
>>
>>I wouldn't recommend you drink any water from the local hippo or elephant
>>wading pool! I'm not so sure that even 1% of the people who flush fish
>>realize that it might contaminate anything. After all, we flush far fowler
>>seeming stuff in there all the time.
>>
>>dwhite
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Dan White" > wrote in message
>...
>>> > "Victor Martinez" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> > > Dan White wrote:
>>> > > > in the direction of the camera, and then it was all over. The
>>animal
>>> > > > kingdom is NOT politically correct.
>>> > >
>>> > > What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > It was just a gut reaction, and something I find interesting. Let me
>>put it
>>> > another way. While I believe it is best to minimize the suffering of a
>>> > fish, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it while the rest of the
>>animal
>>> > world ("Mother Nature") condones behavior that is many, many times worse
>>> > than flushing a fish. In other words, do the very best you can to
>>minimize
>>> > any suffering, but don't lose any sleep over it if you can't.
>>> >
>>> > Please do let me know next time I stray from the subject.
>>> >
>>> > dwhite
>>
>Considering that homes with garbage disposals are grinding up all
>sorts of things, I doubt that a dead fish will foul the process. I do
>think about how long the live fry will survive once I flush.
>Considering how carefully we control their environment in our tanks, I
>assume that the fry will not suffer too long in the sewage system.
>The thought of crushing a handful of fry is beyond me. I held one of
>my most beloved dogs as the vet put in the stuff. That dog struggled
>to keep its head up even though it could no longer stand on his own.
>I am still haunted by how much SAm seemed to still want to live.
>Playing God is no fun. I am keeping my thoughts on the larger fish
>community and do my best on solving this fry problem. I have now
>separated all live bearers by sex into separate tanks. I will never
>buy another live bearer!
>
>dick
>

Dick, I too have had to euthanize a family dog.
That part after the vet injects that vial pink liquid into their veins, is an
adrenaline rush. This happens all the time.
It's a side affect of the drug, not a struggle to live.
It's horrible to go through this, as I have held my first Rottie, and our first
family pet, a cat named Ziggy as they went. Both (not at the same time),
becoame very ill. Both to the point that it would be inhumane to keep them
alive. My Vet warned me about the rush of energy they get right after the
injection.
It happened with both and it wasn't easy to deal with.
I hope knowing that your beloved pet wasn't fighting to stay alive after being
injected has some sort of relief for you.
Geez, any way I type this it all sounds so cold, and heartless...but it's not
at all. I'm fighting back tears just thinking about it all.

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Humane?
>From: (E Riehle)
>Date: 9/20/2004 10:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Victor Martinez > wrote in message
>...
>> TYNK 7 wrote:
>> > People think once they flush it away, it's dead. Not always the case.
>
>
>In my case it is...I have a septic system...
>

If the fish was alive when you flushed, it suffered horribly.

[Dick]

On 26 Sep 2004 03:52:52 GMT, (TYNK 7) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Humane?
>>From: Dick
>>Date: 9/21/2004 5:09 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 02:01:49 GMT, "Dan White"
> wrote:
>>
>>>"IDzine01" > wrote in message
om...
>>>> Nature may be cruel but only humans knowingly introduce potentially
>>>> dangerous diseases into the ground or water supply. I don't even think
>>>> it's legal to flush fish. (Though I'm not sure) It's up to us to make
>>>> sure they are disposed of properly.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't recommend you drink any water from the local hippo or elephant
>>>wading pool! I'm not so sure that even 1% of the people who flush fish
>>>realize that it might contaminate anything. After all, we flush far fowler
>>>seeming stuff in there all the time.
>>>
>>>dwhite
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dan White" > wrote in message
>...
>>>> > "Victor Martinez" > wrote in message
>>>> > ...
>>>> > > Dan White wrote:
>>>> > > > in the direction of the camera, and then it was all over. The
>>>animal
>>>> > > > kingdom is NOT politically correct.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > It was just a gut reaction, and something I find interesting. Let me
>>>put it
>>>> > another way. While I believe it is best to minimize the suffering of a
>>>> > fish, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it while the rest of the
>>>animal
>>>> > world ("Mother Nature") condones behavior that is many, many times worse
>>>> > than flushing a fish. In other words, do the very best you can to
>>>minimize
>>>> > any suffering, but don't lose any sleep over it if you can't.
>>>> >
>>>> > Please do let me know next time I stray from the subject.
>>>> >
>>>> > dwhite
>>>
>>Considering that homes with garbage disposals are grinding up all
>>sorts of things, I doubt that a dead fish will foul the process. I do
>>think about how long the live fry will survive once I flush.
>>Considering how carefully we control their environment in our tanks, I
>>assume that the fry will not suffer too long in the sewage system.
>>The thought of crushing a handful of fry is beyond me. I held one of
>>my most beloved dogs as the vet put in the stuff. That dog struggled
>>to keep its head up even though it could no longer stand on his own.
>>I am still haunted by how much SAm seemed to still want to live.
>>Playing God is no fun. I am keeping my thoughts on the larger fish
>>community and do my best on solving this fry problem. I have now
>>separated all live bearers by sex into separate tanks. I will never
>>buy another live bearer!
>>
>>dick
>>
>
>Dick, I too have had to euthanize a family dog.
>That part after the vet injects that vial pink liquid into their veins, is an
>adrenaline rush. This happens all the time.
>It's a side affect of the drug, not a struggle to live.
>It's horrible to go through this, as I have held my first Rottie, and our first
>family pet, a cat named Ziggy as they went. Both (not at the same time),
>becoame very ill. Both to the point that it would be inhumane to keep them
>alive. My Vet warned me about the rush of energy they get right after the
>injection.
>It happened with both and it wasn't easy to deal with.
>I hope knowing that your beloved pet wasn't fighting to stay alive after being
>injected has some sort of relief for you.
>Geez, any way I type this it all sounds so cold, and heartless...but it's not
>at all. I'm fighting back tears just thinking about it all.

Your concern and caring comes through loud and clear. I appreciate
the offering. I have had several dogs put down over the years, but
had never seen one hold his head up so long. We had been close since
he was given to me 9 years earlier. When I retired Sam and I traveled
around the US in my motorhome until I found my new home after 23,000
miles and 9 months of traveling. Ironically, I had another dog at the
same time that I didn't care much for, but kept for lack of a better
alternative. I had to put her down before Sam. She made no struggle
and I was surprised to find myself in a torrent of tears.

The pain of the moment is awful, but is the price we pay for all the
good times, that I accept. I never thought Nicki would receive this
tribute, but she was the love child of two dogs I lived with for many.
years.

Thanks for writing.

dick

[Dick]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:58:08 +0100, Nikki Casali
> wrote:

>
>So which is the more caring for the animal: a protracted sewer death or
>an instant heat death?
>
>Can you get hold of clove oil? Once you do, you will be relieved from
>the pain of deciding whether to flush or not. That quandary is over. :-(
>
>Nikki

I have never heard of clove oil. In any case I am comfortable with
the flushing for the fry.

dick

[Dick]

On 26 Sep 2004 03:54:33 GMT, (TYNK 7) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Humane?
>>From: (E Riehle)
>>Date: 9/20/2004 10:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Victor Martinez > wrote in message
>...
>>> TYNK 7 wrote:
>>> > People think once they flush it away, it's dead. Not always the case.
>>
>>
>>In my case it is...I have a septic system...
>>
>
>If the fish was alive when you flushed, it suffered horribly.

I guess I will just have to disagree TYNK. I have found our lengthy
exploration of death and dying revealing in many ways, but I am
comfortable with flushing frys.

dick

[Nikki Casali]

Dick wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:58:08 +0100, Nikki Casali
> > wrote:
>
>
>>So which is the more caring for the animal: a protracted sewer death or
>>an instant heat death?
>>
>>Can you get hold of clove oil? Once you do, you will be relieved from
>>the pain of deciding whether to flush or not. That quandary is over. :-(
>>
>>Nikki
>
>
> I have never heard of clove oil. In any case I am comfortable with
> the flushing for the fry.
>

OK. Remember that many think this is cruel. Just don't say you "flush"
in front of a bunch of fish lovers because you'll know what to expect!
8-0 |-0 8-0

http://www.cedarvale.net/essentialoils/clovebud.htm
http://www.kokosgoldfish.com/tom06.html
http://www.bettasrus.com/disease/euthanasia.htm
http://wetwebfotos.com/talk/thread.jsp?forum=24&thread=10498

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Humane?
>From: Dick
>Date: 9/26/2004 4:50 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 26 Sep 2004 03:54:33 GMT, (TYNK 7) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Humane?
>>>From: (E Riehle)
>>>Date: 9/20/2004 10:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>Victor Martinez > wrote in message
>...
>>>> TYNK 7 wrote:
>>>> > People think once they flush it away, it's dead. Not always the case.
>>>
>>>
>>>In my case it is...I have a septic system...
>>>
>>
>>If the fish was alive when you flushed, it suffered horribly.
>
>I guess I will just have to disagree TYNK. I have found our lengthy
>exploration of death and dying revealing in many ways, but I am
>comfortable with flushing frys.
>
>dick

http://freshaquarium.about.com/cs/disease/a/noflush.htm

[Dick]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:25:36 +0100, Nikki Casali
> wrote:

>
>
>Dick wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:58:08 +0100, Nikki Casali
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So which is the more caring for the animal: a protracted sewer death or
>>>an instant heat death?
>>>
>>>Can you get hold of clove oil? Once you do, you will be relieved from
>>>the pain of deciding whether to flush or not. That quandary is over. :-(
>>>
>>>Nikki
>>
>>
>> I have never heard of clove oil. In any case I am comfortable with
>> the flushing for the fry.
>>
>
>OK. Remember that many think this is cruel. Just don't say you "flush"
>in front of a bunch of fish lovers because you'll know what to expect!
>8-0 |-0 8-0
>
>http://www.cedarvale.net/essentialoils/clovebud.htm
>http://www.kokosgoldfish.com/tom06.html
>http://www.bettasrus.com/disease/euthanasia.htm
>http://wetwebfotos.com/talk/thread.jsp?forum=24&thread=10498

And never say anything good about Bush in front of a group of
Democrats!

Come on, it is difference of ideas that I come to this group to read,
not some "party line."

dick

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

TYNK 7 wrote:


> The studies I have read learned that by simply using the freezer first, if
> appeared to put them into hybernation, but before so Ice crystals had formed in
> the bloodstream and that that would be painful.
> When a fish was placed into a frige first to be put into hybernation, no ice
> crystals to be formed, so no pain. The freezer then finishes the euthanasia
> process.
> I was always recommeded to use the freezer (only) method until that new
> research was done.


Wouldn't it be better to use an ice/water mixture to chill the fish?
This would be quicker than placing them in a fridge (higher heat
conductivity of water vs air) and avoid the anoxia that is inevitable
when fishes are taken out of the water.

[sophie]

In message >, Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
> writes
>TYNK 7 wrote:
>
>
>> The studies I have read learned that by simply using the freezer first, if
>> appeared to put them into hybernation, but before so Ice crystals had
>>formed in
>> the bloodstream and that that would be painful.
>> When a fish was placed into a frige first to be put into hybernation, no ice
>> crystals to be formed, so no pain. The freezer then finishes the euthanasia
>> process.
>> I was always recommeded to use the freezer (only) method until that new
>> research was done.
>
>
>Wouldn't it be better to use an ice/water mixture to chill the fish?
>This would be quicker than placing them in a fridge (higher heat
>conductivity of water vs air) and avoid the anoxia that is inevitable
>when fishes are taken out of the water.


I'd always assumed that you placed the fish in some of its tank water in
the fridge (in a suitable container)
--
sophie

[kerrigan]

I can't seriously believe that this discussion is going on. We have people
dying for your right to discuss such trivial BS as this and all that you can
come up with is this? Put your happy assed life up for this country and then
tell me what you think about the discussion that your on. No, No, actually
think about this for a second before you respond. Ask yourself, WHY AM I,
able, to even ask a question such as this, without intervention from the
government? The fact is, is that PEOPLE died, that's right, PEOPLE........
DIED, for you right to even subject others to such stupid BS as this. You
can hammer me all you want...but, the fact is, is that PEOPLE......died for
your damn pansy assed right to question something as minute as this.





"Dick" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:25:36 +0100, Nikki Casali
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Dick wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:58:08 +0100, Nikki Casali
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>So which is the more caring for the animal: a protracted sewer death or
>>>>an instant heat death?
>>>>
>>>>Can you get hold of clove oil? Once you do, you will be relieved from
>>>>the pain of deciding whether to flush or not. That quandary is over. :-(
>>>>
>>>>Nikki
>>>
>>>
>>> I have never heard of clove oil. In any case I am comfortable with
>>> the flushing for the fry.
>>>
>>
>>OK. Remember that many think this is cruel. Just don't say you "flush"
>>in front of a bunch of fish lovers because you'll know what to expect!
>>8-0 |-0 8-0
>>
>>http://www.cedarvale.net/essentialoils/clovebud.htm
>>http://www.kokosgoldfish.com/tom06.html
>>http://www.bettasrus.com/disease/euthanasia.htm
>>http://wetwebfotos.com/talk/thread.jsp?forum=24&thread=10498
>
> And never say anything good about Bush in front of a group of
> Democrats!
>
> Come on, it is difference of ideas that I come to this group to read,
> not some "party line."
>
> dick

[Dick]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:24:48 -0500, "kerrigan"
> wrote:

>I can't seriously believe that this discussion is going on. We have people
>dying for your right to discuss such trivial BS as this and all that you can
>come up with is this? Put your happy assed life up for this country and then
>tell me what you think about the discussion that your on. No, No, actually
>think about this for a second before you respond. Ask yourself, WHY AM I,
>able, to even ask a question such as this, without intervention from the
>government? The fact is, is that PEOPLE died, that's right, PEOPLE........
>DIED, for you right to even subject others to such stupid BS as this. You
>can hammer me all you want...but, the fact is, is that PEOPLE......died for
>your damn pansy assed right to question something as minute as this.
>
>
>
>
You are right, people have died so we have the right to discuss what
we want. Why waste those lives by self censure? I find the
seriousness with which all participants have entered into this
discussion refreshing. You add dimension to the discussion by
reminding us of the price that has been paid for this arena.

Thanks

dick

>
>"Dick" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 12:25:36 +0100, Nikki Casali
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Dick wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:58:08 +0100, Nikki Casali
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So which is the more caring for the animal: a protracted sewer death or
>>>>>an instant heat death?
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you get hold of clove oil? Once you do, you will be relieved from
>>>>>the pain of deciding whether to flush or not. That quandary is over. :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>Nikki
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have never heard of clove oil. In any case I am comfortable with
>>>> the flushing for the fry.
>>>>
>>>
>>>OK. Remember that many think this is cruel. Just don't say you "flush"
>>>in front of a bunch of fish lovers because you'll know what to expect!
>>>8-0 |-0 8-0
>>>
>>>http://www.cedarvale.net/essentialoils/clovebud.htm
>>>http://www.kokosgoldfish.com/tom06.html
>>>http://www.bettasrus.com/disease/euthanasia.htm
>>>http://wetwebfotos.com/talk/thread.jsp?forum=24&thread=10498
>>
>> And never say anything good about Bush in front of a group of
>> Democrats!
>>
>> Come on, it is difference of ideas that I come to this group to read,
>> not some "party line."
>>
>> dick
>

[Nikki Casali]

Dick wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:24:48 -0500, "kerrigan"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I can't seriously believe that this discussion is going on. We have people
>>dying for your right to discuss such trivial BS as this and all that you can
>>come up with is this? Put your happy assed life up for this country and then
>>tell me what you think about the discussion that your on. No, No, actually
>>think about this for a second before you respond. Ask yourself, WHY AM I,
>>able, to even ask a question such as this, without intervention from the
>>government? The fact is, is that PEOPLE died, that's right, PEOPLE........
>>DIED, for you right to even subject others to such stupid BS as this. You
>>can hammer me all you want...but, the fact is, is that PEOPLE......died for
>>your damn pansy assed right to question something as minute as this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> You are right, people have died so we have the right to discuss what
> we want. Why waste those lives by self censure? I find the
> seriousness with which all participants have entered into this
> discussion refreshing. You add dimension to the discussion by
> reminding us of the price that has been paid for this arena.
>

The irony.

[TYNK 7]

>Subject: Re: Humane?
>From: Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
>Date: 9/27/2004 8:05 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>TYNK 7 wrote:
>
>
>> The studies I have read learned that by simply using the freezer first, if
>> appeared to put them into hybernation, but before so Ice crystals had
>formed in
>> the bloodstream and that that would be painful.
>> When a fish was placed into a frige first to be put into hybernation, no
>ice
>> crystals to be formed, so no pain. The freezer then finishes the euthanasia
>> process.
>> I was always recommeded to use the freezer (only) method until that new
>> research was done.
>
>
>Wouldn't it be better to use an ice/water mixture to chill the fish?
>This would be quicker than placing them in a fridge (higher heat
>conductivity of water vs air) and avoid the anoxia that is inevitable
>when fishes are taken out of the water.
>

I don't think so. I would the temp shock would just cause more pain and havoc
on them.
And what do you mean "when fishes are taken out of the water."?
They're never taken *out* of the water.
They are placed into the frige in either a bag (same as for shipping, etc) or
container holding enough water for them to be comfortable.
After the fish into the state of hybernation, the whole bag/container is then
transfered to the freezer as is. The fish is never taken out.

[Aquarijen]

"Dick" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:37:33 +0100, Nikki Casali
> > wrote:
>
> Letting the fry live would be my first choice, however, my quandry
> "boils" down to the greatest good for the greatest number. I include
> me in the majority. My tanks are full. I have no room for more
> tanks, nor want to care for more. We do not always have the luxury of
> doing the most kind acts. A family with an autistic child may have to
> turn to an institution to care for the child, many an elder parent is
> put into Nursing Homes so adequate care can be given. Humans must
> make "painful" decisions. I can not imagine myself putting wiggling
> fry into a pot of boiling water and yet lobsters are put there daily.
>
> dick

I have an autistic child and fish tanks. Your comments just struck me as
one of those "I have that" things...
I belong to "Freecycle" - www.freecycle.org - it is arranged by city and it
is pretty much all over.... People will take anything including fish fry.
-Jen