fish euthanasia

[HK_Newbie]

Alright, I've pretty much given up hope on one of my pond goldfish on ever
getting better, so I moved him into an indoor tank (after acclimating him to
the temp change) and waited a week for what I assume to be a severe slim
bladder disorder to heal. He was laying either on the top or bottom of the
pond, moving only when prodded and gasping for breath while the rest of his
pond mates seemed fine. I figured it would be easier to treat him inside,
in my hospital tank, but so far no luck. All my past experience for what I
assume to be dropsy (bulging scales, inability to swim rightside up or
maintain balance) the fish has either healed under treatment within a week
or died. This fish just won't do either though...

I've also fed him a thawed out pea just in case as well.

I feel that his options are pretty much gone and I'm not really interested
in seeing how long he can prolong his suffering, so my main question is the
best way to go about "ending" it for him. I realize how stupid this might
sound, but I rather liked this fish and have had him in my pond for three
years so I want to do this as quickly as I can. Any opinions? Or have
there been personally experienced cases where your own fish survived over a
week in this conditition to make a recovery?

I'll cross-post since this is a pond fish too, thanks in advance!

--Ryan

[Jon Pike]

"HK_Newbie" > wrote in news:J7Rtd.343$P14.77
@trndny05:

> Any opinions?

Depending on the size, either a big kitchen knife or an axe... :/
I had to use an axe on the last fish I had to put down.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

[Tom Randy]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:11:05 +0000, HK_Newbie wrote:

> Alright, I've pretty much given up hope on one of my pond goldfish on ever
> getting better, so I moved him into an indoor tank (after acclimating him to
> the temp change) and waited a week for what I assume to be a severe slim
> bladder disorder to heal. He was laying either on the top or bottom of the
> pond, moving only when prodded and gasping for breath while the rest of his
> pond mates seemed fine. I figured it would be easier to treat him inside,
> in my hospital tank, but so far no luck. All my past experience for what I
> assume to be dropsy (bulging scales, inability to swim rightside up or
> maintain balance) the fish has either healed under treatment within a week
> or died. This fish just won't do either though...
>
> I've also fed him a thawed out pea just in case as well.
>
> I feel that his options are pretty much gone and I'm not really interested
> in seeing how long he can prolong his suffering, so my main question is the
> best way to go about "ending" it for him. I realize how stupid this might
> sound, but I rather liked this fish and have had him in my pond for three
> years so I want to do this as quickly as I can. Any opinions? Or have
> there been personally experienced cases where your own fish survived over a
> week in this conditition to make a recovery?
>
> I'll cross-post since this is a pond fish too, thanks in advance!
>
> --Ryan


Well this is highly debated in fish cicles. Some say clove oil, some say
freezing, some say off with the head is the fastest way.

Thankfully I haven't had to do it yet...

[Steve Barker]

How about peeling out on him with the car?

Flushing down the commode?

Drop in a bucket of bleach?

just some ideas off the top.


s


"HK_Newbie" > wrote in message
news:J7Rtd.343$P14.77@trndny05...
.. I realize how stupid this might
> sound, but I rather liked this fish and have had him in my pond for three
> years so I want to do this as quickly as I can. Any opinions? Or have
> there been personally experienced cases where your own fish survived over
> a
> week in this conditition to make a recovery?
>
> I'll cross-post since this is a pond fish too, thanks in advance!
>
> --Ryan
>
>

[Eric Schreiber]

Steve Barker wrote:

> How about peeling out on him with the car?
> Flushing down the commode?
> Drop in a bucket of bleach?
> just some ideas off the top.

None of which were any good.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[rtk]

It really is a problem because fish tend to die so terribly slowly. I
know the best way to end it, but no way would I be able to do that.
Usually I don't have the courage to do anything and that's the cruelest
non-solution of all. I've seen a fish take more than a week to slowly
die and of course I read all sorts of silly accusatory messages in their
pathetic little clouded eyes. If I were braver and more considerate of
the fish than I am of my own selfish feelings, I would remove them with
a little tank water and perhaps add a little alcohol to the water
and/or the freezer. Just typing this makes me squirm. I know, I know,
the guillotine is kinder, but I can't.

Ruth Kazez

[Derek Broughton]

Tom Randy wrote:

> Well this is highly debated in fish cicles. Some say clove oil, some say
> freezing, some say off with the head is the fastest way.
>
> Thankfully I haven't had to do it yet...

It's hard to understand how "off with the head" could be fast or humane.
I've seen fish heads gasping for what seemed like hours (but I was a kid at
the time, so might have been just a few minutes).

Now, a completely untested method I was told about last summer was "vodka in
the gills, then off with the head". Seems like a waste of alcohol to me.
--
derek

[Andy Hill]

"HK_Newbie" > wrote:
> ... my main question is the
>best way to go about "ending" it for him. I realize how stupid this might
>sound, but I rather liked this fish and have had him in my pond for three
>years so I want to do this as quickly as I can. Any opinions?
>
Years ago, I bought a small bottle of MS-222 / Finquel / Tricaine
Methanesulfonate (a fish anesthetic) for this purpose. Knock the fish out
using the "sleep" dose, then add a large overdose to finish the job. Kind of
expensive up front (around $50, IIRC), but I figure I'm going to be dead and
gone before I use up the one bottle I have, and I like to know I'm not botching
the job.

[Rick]

"HK_Newbie" > wrote in message
news:J7Rtd.343$P14.77@trndny05...
> Alright, I've pretty much given up hope on one of my pond goldfish on ever
> getting better, so I moved him into an indoor tank (after acclimating him
to
> the temp change) and waited a week for what I assume to be a severe slim
> bladder disorder to heal. He was laying either on the top or bottom of
the
> pond, moving only when prodded and gasping for breath while the rest of
his
> pond mates seemed fine. I figured it would be easier to treat him inside,
> in my hospital tank, but so far no luck. All my past experience for what
I
> assume to be dropsy (bulging scales, inability to swim rightside up or
> maintain balance) the fish has either healed under treatment within a week
> or died. This fish just won't do either though...
>
> I've also fed him a thawed out pea just in case as well.
>
> I feel that his options are pretty much gone and I'm not really interested
> in seeing how long he can prolong his suffering, so my main question is
the
> best way to go about "ending" it for him. I realize how stupid this might
> sound, but I rather liked this fish and have had him in my pond for three
> years so I want to do this as quickly as I can. Any opinions? Or have
> there been personally experienced cases where your own fish survived over
a
> week in this conditition to make a recovery?
>
> I'll cross-post since this is a pond fish too, thanks in advance!
>
> --Ryan
>
In a back issue of TFH magazine there was an article on how best to
euthanasia fish and depending on the size of the fish it was suggested that
"crushing or decapitating" was the quickest way. It also mentioned clove
oil.

Rick

[george]

"HK_Newbie" > wrote in message
news:J7Rtd.343$P14.77@trndny05...
> Alright, I've pretty much given up hope on one of my pond goldfish on ever
> getting better, so I moved him into an indoor tank (after acclimating him to
> the temp change) and waited a week for what I assume to be a severe slim
> bladder disorder to heal. He was laying either on the top or bottom of the
> pond, moving only when prodded and gasping for breath while the rest of his
> pond mates seemed fine. I figured it would be easier to treat him inside,
> in my hospital tank, but so far no luck. All my past experience for what I
> assume to be dropsy (bulging scales, inability to swim rightside up or
> maintain balance) the fish has either healed under treatment within a week
> or died. This fish just won't do either though...
>
> I've also fed him a thawed out pea just in case as well.
>
> I feel that his options are pretty much gone and I'm not really interested
> in seeing how long he can prolong his suffering, so my main question is the
> best way to go about "ending" it for him. I realize how stupid this might
> sound, but I rather liked this fish and have had him in my pond for three
> years so I want to do this as quickly as I can. Any opinions? Or have
> there been personally experienced cases where your own fish survived over a
> week in this conditition to make a recovery?
>
> I'll cross-post since this is a pond fish too, thanks in advance!
>
> --Ryan
>

This may sound insensitive to some, but he will die within a few minutes if you
just pull him out of the water, and place him in a proper recepticle. If you
believe in "waste not, want not, you can always lay him on the ground until he
dies, and then add him to your compost pile.

[Rodney Pont]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:32:02 GMT, george wrote:

>This may sound insensitive to some, but he will die within a few minutes if you
>just pull him out of the water, and place him in a proper recepticle. If you
>believe in "waste not, want not, you can always lay him on the ground until he
>dies, and then add him to your compost pile.

This can take a long time if the fish lies still. There is thirty times
more oxygen in air than in water and gills are very good at taking in
oxygen. Unfortunately without being supported in water they will
collapse so their surface area will be drastically reduced. How many
people have found an apparently dead fish outside the pond only too
have it revive when placed back in?

--
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail ngpsm4 (at) infohitsystems (dot) ltd (dot) uk

[george]

"Rodney Pont" > wrote in message
news:atcfzvasbuvgflfgrzfygqhx.i8horw0.pminews@ihs1 ...
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:32:02 GMT, george wrote:
>
>>This may sound insensitive to some, but he will die within a few minutes if
>>you
>>just pull him out of the water, and place him in a proper recepticle. If you
>>believe in "waste not, want not, you can always lay him on the ground until he
>>dies, and then add him to your compost pile.
>
> This can take a long time if the fish lies still. There is thirty times
> more oxygen in air than in water and gills are very good at taking in
> oxygen. Unfortunately without being supported in water they will
> collapse so their surface area will be drastically reduced. How many
> people have found an apparently dead fish outside the pond only too
> have it revive when placed back in?
>
> --

We're talking about a fish in it's last throes, dude. Just because air has more
oxygen than water doesn't mean that they can utilize it better. Gills not only
act as oxygen exchangers, but also eliminate toxins, such as ammonia, from the
blood. They need water in order to function properly. When they are denied
water, ammonia will build up in the blood very rapidly, killing the fish.

[Ook]

"Rodney Pont" > wrote in message
news:atcfzvasbuvgflfgrzfygqhx.i8horw0.pminews@ihs1 ...
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:32:02 GMT, george wrote:
>
>>This may sound insensitive to some, but he will die within a few minutes
>>if you
>>just pull him out of the water, and place him in a proper recepticle. If
>>you
>>believe in "waste not, want not, you can always lay him on the ground
>>until he
>>dies, and then add him to your compost pile.
>
> This can take a long time if the fish lies still. There is thirty times
> more oxygen in air than in water and gills are very good at taking in
> oxygen. Unfortunately without being supported in water they will
> collapse so their surface area will be drastically reduced. How many
> people have found an apparently dead fish outside the pond only too
> have it revive when placed back in?
>

My Pleco laid on the front room floor for hours and had the cats playing
with him before we found him. We thought he was a goner, but we put him back
in the tank anyhow. That night when we got home, he was breathing. For an
entire week he just sat there growing fungus and gasping. He lost his fins
and scales and was really a miserable looking wretch. But he healed, grew
back most of his fins, and today enjoys a leasurely existance in EthelMs
botanical garden in Henderson, Nevada. I'm not sure about goldfish, but some
fish can live for hours or days out of the water.

[HK_Newbie]

Thanks for the suggestions folks, I figured the best and fastest way to do
it was with the chinese butcher knife and to my surprise it was very fast
for the fish and I kept all digits.
I'm not sure about the leaving it out to try thing or the other "inventive"
suggestions, but the anesthetic idea's piqued my interest and I may buy some
in the future and try it out.

---Ryan

[Bill Oertell]

Well...the deed's done now, but my vote would have been for a small amount of
water and a blender. Ought to be real quick, plus you can use the mixture for
fertalizer later.

[Nitesbane]

"rtk" > wrote in message
...
>
> It really is a problem because fish tend to die so terribly slowly. I
> know the best way to end it, but no way would I be able to do that.
> Usually I don't have the courage to do anything and that's the cruelest
> non-solution of all. I've seen a fish take more than a week to slowly
> die and of course I read all sorts of silly accusatory messages in their
> pathetic little clouded eyes. If I were braver and more considerate of
> the fish than I am of my own selfish feelings, I would remove them with
> a little tank water and perhaps add a little alcohol to the water
> and/or the freezer.

I had to put a fish down once and freezing cold water with a couple drops of
alcohol did the deed in only a second or two.

[george]

"Ook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rodney Pont" > wrote in message
> news:atcfzvasbuvgflfgrzfygqhx.i8horw0.pminews@ihs1 ...
>> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:32:02 GMT, george wrote:
>>
>>>This may sound insensitive to some, but he will die within a few minutes if
>>>you
>>>just pull him out of the water, and place him in a proper recepticle. If you
>>>believe in "waste not, want not, you can always lay him on the ground until
>>>he
>>>dies, and then add him to your compost pile.
>>
>> This can take a long time if the fish lies still. There is thirty times
>> more oxygen in air than in water and gills are very good at taking in
>> oxygen. Unfortunately without being supported in water they will
>> collapse so their surface area will be drastically reduced. How many
>> people have found an apparently dead fish outside the pond only too
>> have it revive when placed back in?
>>
>
> My Pleco laid on the front room floor for hours and had the cats playing with
> him before we found him. We thought he was a goner, but we put him back in the
> tank anyhow. That night when we got home, he was breathing. For an entire week
> he just sat there growing fungus and gasping. He lost his fins and scales and
> was really a miserable looking wretch. But he healed, grew back most of his
> fins, and today enjoys a leasurely existance in EthelMs botanical garden in
> Henderson, Nevada. I'm not sure about goldfish, but some fish can live for
> hours or days out of the water.

Was he on his last fin, so to speak, before he jumped out (I asssumed that he
jumped out)? You're missing the point. The guy said his fish was nearly dead.
If that is the case, it certainly is not going to linger long after pulling it
out of the water.

[The Drunken Lord]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:11:05 GMT, "HK_Newbie" >
wrote:

>Alright, I've pretty much given up hope on one of my pond goldfish on ever
>getting better, so I moved him into an indoor tank (after acclimating him to
>the temp change) and waited a week for what I assume to be a severe slim
>bladder disorder to heal. He was laying either on the top or bottom of the
>pond, moving only when prodded and gasping for breath while the rest of his
>pond mates seemed fine. I figured it would be easier to treat him inside,
>in my hospital tank, but so far no luck. All my past experience for what I
>assume to be dropsy (bulging scales, inability to swim rightside up or
>maintain balance) the fish has either healed under treatment within a week
>or died. This fish just won't do either though...
>
>I've also fed him a thawed out pea just in case as well.
>
>I feel that his options are pretty much gone and I'm not really interested
>in seeing how long he can prolong his suffering, so my main question is the
>best way to go about "ending" it for him. I realize how stupid this might
>sound, but I rather liked this fish and have had him in my pond for three
>years so I want to do this as quickly as I can. Any opinions? Or have
>there been personally experienced cases where your own fish survived over a
>week in this conditition to make a recovery?
>
>I'll cross-post since this is a pond fish too, thanks in advance!

I almost prematurely euthanized a betta but he was one of my best
fighters, so I put him in a salt bath for four hours and the little
fella revived.

[The Drunken Lord]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 05:12:46 GMT, "Nitesbane"
> wrote:

>
>"rtk" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> It really is a problem because fish tend to die so terribly slowly. I
>> know the best way to end it, but no way would I be able to do that.
>> Usually I don't have the courage to do anything and that's the cruelest
>> non-solution of all. I've seen a fish take more than a week to slowly
>> die and of course I read all sorts of silly accusatory messages in their
>> pathetic little clouded eyes. If I were braver and more considerate of
>> the fish than I am of my own selfish feelings, I would remove them with
>> a little tank water and perhaps add a little alcohol to the water
>> and/or the freezer.
>
>I had to put a fish down once and freezing cold water with a couple drops of
>alcohol did the deed in only a second or two.

If you drop a fish in freezing cold water, they will flap around for a
second before expiring. It is a method I have used, but some people
here think it is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.

[The Drunken Lord]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 06:33:46 -0600, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
ericschreiber dot com> wrote:

>Steve Barker wrote:
>
>> How about peeling out on him with the car?
>> Flushing down the commode?
>> Drop in a bucket of bleach?
>> just some ideas off the top.
>
>None of which were any good.

We have apparently been infested with losers from rec.ponds.

[The Drunken Lord]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 10:14:21 -0700, Andy Hill >
wrote:

>"HK_Newbie" > wrote:
>> ... my main question is the
>>best way to go about "ending" it for him. I realize how stupid this might
>>sound, but I rather liked this fish and have had him in my pond for three
>>years so I want to do this as quickly as I can. Any opinions?
>>
>Years ago, I bought a small bottle of MS-222 / Finquel / Tricaine
>Methanesulfonate (a fish anesthetic) for this purpose. Knock the fish out
>using the "sleep" dose, then add a large overdose to finish the job. Kind of
>expensive up front (around $50, IIRC), but I figure I'm going to be dead and
>gone before I use up the one bottle I have, and I like to know I'm not botching
>the job.

There is nothing worse than an inefficient kill. Several years ago I
helped a friend of mine kill a goat to cook for the 4th of July.
Because of inefficiencies, the kill took 45 minutes. Although the
goat tasted good, I believe the experience did detract from the
flavor.

[lg]

"Bill Oertell" > wrote in message
...
> Well...the deed's done now, but my vote would have been for a small amount
of
> water and a blender. Ought to be real quick, plus you can use the mixture
for
> fertalizer later.
>
>

I haven't had to put a fish down yet.......

I don't recon I could do it......

But it would have to be the quicket I recon...........

[Happy'Cam'per]

"The Drunken Lord" > wrote in message
...

> We have apparently been infested with losers from rec.ponds.

And lets guess, you are the upstanding drunken mullet of the aquaria NG's?
--
"In the beginning, God said the four-dimensional divergence of an
antisymmetric,
second rank tensor equals zero, and there was Light , and it was good."

[Roy]

Its been awhile since i posted to rec.ponds as it seems for the most
part to be there are a few selective little bunch of idealists with
their own concepts on how "ponding" should be...and everything else is
either flamed or filtered........I would think after this post of how
to efectively and quickly kill a fish that the pond bitch" Nedras"
filter is going to be pretty darn well max'ed out with new names to
plonk........
My method would have been cut its head off or just stick in a plactic
bag with some Budweiser.........

Y'all have a great day.............that is except for Nedra, I hope
her f**king pond freezes into a giant ice block along with her in it.
Nedra the Ice Queen of rec.ponds...............
Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
I had no input whatsoever.
Remove "nospam" from email addy.

[Happy'Cam'per]

"Roy" > wrote in message
...
> Y'all have a great day.............that is except for Nedra, I hope
> her f**king pond freezes into a giant ice block along with her in it.
> Nedra the Ice Queen of rec.ponds...............
> Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
> Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
> I had no input whatsoever.
> Remove "nospam" from email addy.

Hey, did I miss a flame war or something between you and Nedra, damn, I
always miss the juicy stuff :|
In defense of Nedra, I think she's a sweetie pie who probably would'nt harm
a hair on your head. Sometimes in e-mail communications things get a tad
misconstrued, perhaps this is what happened to you. Keeping grudges causes
cancer, i would let it go if I were you :).

HAVE A NICE WEEKEND PORGERS. (I'm off to go scouring the local waterways for
South African Marsilea, wish me luck :)
--
"In the beginning, God said the four-dimensional divergence of an
antisymmetric,
second rank tensor equals zero, and there was Light , and it was good."

[Eric Schreiber]

Bill Oertell wrote:

> Well...the deed's done now, but my vote would have been for a small
> amount of water and a blender. Ought to be real quick, plus you can
> use the mixture for fertalizer later.

That approach, while I agree is probably extremely fast, suffers from
one severe problem - your wife killing you for using her blender that
way.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[2pods]

"Roy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Its been awhile since i posted to rec.ponds as it seems for the most
> part to be there are a few selective little bunch of idealists with
> their own concepts on how "ponding" should be...and everything else is
> either flamed or filtered........I would think after this post of how
> to efectively and quickly kill a fish that the pond bitch" Nedras"
> filter is going to be pretty darn well max'ed out with new names to
> plonk........
> My method would have been cut its head off or just stick in a plactic
> bag with some Budweiser.........
>
> Y'all have a great day.............that is except for Nedra, I hope
> her f**king pond freezes into a giant ice block along with her in it.
> Nedra the Ice Queen of rec.ponds...............
> Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
> Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
> I had no input whatsoever.
> Remove "nospam" from email addy.

Don't be shy Roy, say what you mean ;-)

Peter

[The Drunken Lord]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:52:04 +0200, "Happy'Cam'per" > wrote:

>"The Drunken Lord" > wrote in message
...
>
>> We have apparently been infested with losers from rec.ponds.
>
>And lets guess, you are the upstanding drunken mullet of the aquaria NG's?

Yes, sometimes I take a drink but it does not interfere with the care
I take of my fish or the enthusiasm I feel for aquaria.

[Derek Broughton]

The Drunken Lord wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 06:33:46 -0600, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
> ericschreiber dot com> wrote:
>
>>Steve Barker wrote:
>>
>>> How about peeling out on him with the car?
>>> Flushing down the commode?
>>> Drop in a bucket of bleach?
>>> just some ideas off the top.
>>
>>None of which were any good.
>
> We have apparently been infested with losers from rec.ponds.

Funny, that sort of crap never shows up in rec.ponds, must be one of yours.
It's just the typical difference between an alt. group and a rec. group.
--
derek

[Derek Broughton]

Roy wrote:

> My method would have been cut its head off or just stick in a plactic
> bag with some Budweiser.........

Aha! Finally, a use for Budweiser.
--
derek

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:Nf6ud.635452$mD.176841@attbi_s02...
>
> "Rodney Pont" > wrote in message
> news:atcfzvasbuvgflfgrzfygqhx.i8horw0.pminews@ihs1 ...
> > On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:32:02 GMT, george wrote:
> >
> >>This may sound insensitive to some, but he will die within a few minutes
if
> >>you
> >>just pull him out of the water, and place him in a proper recepticle.
If you
> >>believe in "waste not, want not, you can always lay him on the ground
until he
> >>dies, and then add him to your compost pile.
> >
> > This can take a long time if the fish lies still. There is thirty times
> > more oxygen in air than in water and gills are very good at taking in
> > oxygen. Unfortunately without being supported in water they will
> > collapse so their surface area will be drastically reduced. How many
> > people have found an apparently dead fish outside the pond only too
> > have it revive when placed back in?
> >
> > --
>
> We're talking about a fish in it's last throes, dude. Just because air
has more
> oxygen than water doesn't mean that they can utilize it better. Gills not
only
> act as oxygen exchangers, but also eliminate toxins, such as ammonia, from
the
> blood. They need water in order to function properly. When they are
denied
> water, ammonia will build up in the blood very rapidly, killing the fish.

IMHO taking a fish out of water to put it out of misery would be akin to
tossing you into the pond and holding you under to end your suffering.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"Bill Oertell" > wrote in message
...
> Well...the deed's done now, but my vote would have been for a small amount
of
> water and a blender. Ought to be real quick, plus you can use the mixture
for
> fertalizer later.

You can't be serious. Can you?

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"Roy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Its been awhile since i posted to rec.ponds as it seems for the most
> part to be there are a few selective little bunch of idealists with
> their own concepts on how "ponding" should be...and everything else is
> either flamed or filtered........I would think after this post of how
> to efectively and quickly kill a fish that the pond bitch" Nedras"
> filter is going to be pretty darn well max'ed out with new names to
> plonk........
> My method would have been cut its head off or just stick in a plactic
> bag with some Budweiser.........
>
> Y'all have a great day.............that is except for Nedra, I hope
> her f**king pond freezes into a giant ice block along with her in it.
> Nedra the Ice Queen of rec.ponds...............
> Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
> Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
> I had no input whatsoever.
> Remove "nospam" from email addy.

I hate to fullfill your prophecy, but kindly go plonk yourself. I agree that
we have some distinct opinions on this group, but the regulars and many of
the newbies are very tolerant. Hell, even Ingrid takes a beating on her Salt
opinions, but for the most part we all agree to disagree.

More importantly, Nedra is a very kind, and very informed ponder, especially
when it comes to Lotus. I can handl you initial opinions, but you can take
your belligerent, sophormoric attack on Nedra and gingerly place with where
the sun does not shine.

A bag and some budweiser? You can't be serious.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"The Drunken Lord" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:52:04 +0200, "Happy'Cam'per" > wrote:
>
> >"The Drunken Lord" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> We have apparently been infested with losers from rec.ponds.
> >
> >And lets guess, you are the upstanding drunken mullet of the aquaria
NG's?
>
> Yes, sometimes I take a drink but it does not interfere with the care
> I take of my fish or the enthusiasm I feel for aquaria.

Nor ours, for our ponds.

BV.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:Nf6ud.635452$mD.176841@attbi_s02...
>>
>> "Rodney Pont" > wrote in message
>> news:atcfzvasbuvgflfgrzfygqhx.i8horw0.pminews@ihs1 ...
>> > On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:32:02 GMT, george wrote:
>> >
>> >>This may sound insensitive to some, but he will die within a few minutes
> if
>> >>you
>> >>just pull him out of the water, and place him in a proper recepticle.
> If you
>> >>believe in "waste not, want not, you can always lay him on the ground
> until he
>> >>dies, and then add him to your compost pile.
>> >
>> > This can take a long time if the fish lies still. There is thirty times
>> > more oxygen in air than in water and gills are very good at taking in
>> > oxygen. Unfortunately without being supported in water they will
>> > collapse so their surface area will be drastically reduced. How many
>> > people have found an apparently dead fish outside the pond only too
>> > have it revive when placed back in?
>> >
>> > --
>>
>> We're talking about a fish in it's last throes, dude. Just because air
> has more
>> oxygen than water doesn't mean that they can utilize it better. Gills not
> only
>> act as oxygen exchangers, but also eliminate toxins, such as ammonia, from
> the
>> blood. They need water in order to function properly. When they are
> denied
>> water, ammonia will build up in the blood very rapidly, killing the fish.
>
> IMHO taking a fish out of water to put it out of misery would be akin to
> tossing you into the pond and holding you under to end your suffering.
>
> BV.
>

Would you rather that it languish for days in the pond until it dies? Oh, and
last time I looked, fish were not people. Are you suggesting that they are? Do
you eat fish? If so, does that make your a murderer?

[Mike Patterson]

Wow, I've been reading rec.ponds for about 4-5 years, had no idea it
was so bad. I honestly don't remember any flames, except for a
obnoxious guy a couple years back that was always going overboard with
the backwoods hardnose routine. Went by "Foxeye" or something like
that.

I also read about 12 other groups, I recognise you from a couple, by
far rec.ponds is the most docile and friendly.

I'm not real impressed with nedra all the time either, but you seem to
be really bent out of shape about it. Suggest you take a deep breath
and shake it off. Stress can kill! Ignore those who bug you.
Killfilters are your friend.

OTOH, didn't know re.aquaria existed, will probably read it for a
while now, thanks for the crosspost... how's that for a newsgroup
oddity? :-)

Mike

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:47:23 GMT, (Roy) wrote:

>
>Its been awhile since i posted to rec.ponds as it seems for the most
>part to be there are a few selective little bunch of idealists with
>their own concepts on how "ponding" should be...and everything else is
>either flamed or filtered........I would think after this post of how
>to efectively and quickly kill a fish that the pond bitch" Nedras"
>filter is going to be pretty darn well max'ed out with new names to
>plonk........
>My method would have been cut its head off or just stick in a plactic
>bag with some Budweiser.........
>
>Y'all have a great day.............that is except for Nedra, I hope
>her f**king pond freezes into a giant ice block along with her in it.
>Nedra the Ice Queen of rec.ponds...............
>Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
>Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
>I had no input whatsoever.
>Remove "nospam" from email addy.

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." - Lily Tomlin

[Bill Oertell]

Who said she had to find out?

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> Bill Oertell wrote:
>
> > Well...the deed's done now, but my vote would have been for a small
> > amount of water and a blender. Ought to be real quick, plus you can
> > use the mixture for fertalizer later.
>
> That approach, while I agree is probably extremely fast, suffers from
> one severe problem - your wife killing you for using her blender that
> way.
>
>
> --
> Eric Schreiber
> www.ericschreiber.com

[Bill Oertell]

Hey, it'd be a helluva lot faster than some of the other methods that have been
recommended and the resulting mixture would actually have some (albeit, small)
use.

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Oertell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Well...the deed's done now, but my vote would have been for a small amount
> of
> > water and a blender. Ought to be real quick, plus you can use the mixture
> for
> > fertalizer later.
>
> You can't be serious. Can you?
>
> BV.
>
>

[Eric Schreiber]

Bill Oertell wrote:

>> one severe problem - your wife killing you for using her
>> blender that way.

> Who said she had to find out?

Bill, Bill, Bill, don't you know that they *always* find out,
eventually?

--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Nedra]

Holy Mackeral !!! I'm A pond bitch and rec.pond's Ice Queen; also wishes
that my pond freezes solid - with me in it. WOW! Actually I think the guy
has a flair for putting words on paper.
ROFLOL - My first howler of the day.

Nedra
Lotus Garden:
http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
Backyard Pond:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836

"Mike Patterson" > wrote in message
...
> Wow, I've been reading rec.ponds for about 4-5 years, had no idea it
> was so bad. I honestly don't remember any flames, except for a
> obnoxious guy a couple years back that was always going overboard with
> the backwoods hardnose routine. Went by "Foxeye" or something like
> that.
>
> I also read about 12 other groups, I recognise you from a couple, by
> far rec.ponds is the most docile and friendly.
>
> I'm not real impressed with nedra all the time either, but you seem to
> be really bent out of shape about it. Suggest you take a deep breath
> and shake it off. Stress can kill! Ignore those who bug you.
> Killfilters are your friend.
>
> OTOH, didn't know re.aquaria existed, will probably read it for a
> while now, thanks for the crosspost... how's that for a newsgroup
> oddity? :-)
>
> Mike
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:47:23 GMT, (Roy) wrote:
>
> >
> >Its been awhile since i posted to rec.ponds as it seems for the most
> >part to be there are a few selective little bunch of idealists with
> >their own concepts on how "ponding" should be...and everything else is
> >either flamed or filtered........I would think after this post of how
> >to efectively and quickly kill a fish that the pond bitch" Nedras"
> >filter is going to be pretty darn well max'ed out with new names to
> >plonk........
> >My method would have been cut its head off or just stick in a plactic
> >bag with some Budweiser.........
> >
> >Y'all have a great day.............that is except for Nedra, I hope
> >her f**king pond freezes into a giant ice block along with her in it.
> >Nedra the Ice Queen of rec.ponds...............
> >Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
> >Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
> >I had no input whatsoever.
> >Remove "nospam" from email addy.
>
> Mike Patterson
> Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
> "I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." -
Lily Tomlin

[The Drunken Lord]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:39:24 -0500, "Benign Vanilla"
> wrote:

>
>"The Drunken Lord" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:52:04 +0200, "Happy'Cam'per" > wrote:
>>
>> >"The Drunken Lord" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >> We have apparently been infested with losers from rec.ponds.
>> >
>> >And lets guess, you are the upstanding drunken mullet of the aquaria
>NG's?
>>
>> Yes, sometimes I take a drink but it does not interfere with the care
>> I take of my fish or the enthusiasm I feel for aquaria.
>
>Nor ours, for our ponds.

The difference is that due to drinking that goes on here, I have to
limit the size of my indoor aquariums, because accidents can happen
while drinking. I just noticed that a friend had left a burning
cigarette in the seat of a 150 year old Windsor chair, which burnt my
ass--not literally, for alas, I was not in the chair at the time. But
if I had seen it while the drunken scoundrel was here a fight could
possibly have ensued. He is banned from coming over for a month as a
result of that mishap.

Outdoors at your pond, you are free to drink to your heart's delight
without worry of falling 55 gallon aquariums hitting the floor.

[rtk]

Nedra wrote:

> Holy Mackeral !!! I'm A pond bitch and rec.pond's Ice Queen; also wishes
> that my pond freezes solid - with me in it. WOW! Actually I think the guy
> has a flair for putting words on paper.
> ROFLOL - My first howler of the day.

Wahhh, I wanna be a pond bitch too. Who says you're the Ice Queen?
Nobody voted. I'd make a good Ice Queen. Holy koi indeed.

Ruth Kazez


>
> Nedra
> Lotus Garden:
> http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
> Backyard Pond:
> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836
>
> "Mike Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Wow, I've been reading rec.ponds for about 4-5 years, had no idea it
>>was so bad. I honestly don't remember any flames, except for a
>>obnoxious guy a couple years back that was always going overboard with
>>the backwoods hardnose routine. Went by "Foxeye" or something like
>>that.
>>
>>I also read about 12 other groups, I recognise you from a couple, by
>>far rec.ponds is the most docile and friendly.
>>
>>I'm not real impressed with nedra all the time either, but you seem to
>>be really bent out of shape about it. Suggest you take a deep breath
>>and shake it off. Stress can kill! Ignore those who bug you.
>>Killfilters are your friend.
>>
>>OTOH, didn't know re.aquaria existed, will probably read it for a
>>while now, thanks for the crosspost... how's that for a newsgroup
>>oddity? :-)
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:47:23 GMT, (Roy) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Its been awhile since i posted to rec.ponds as it seems for the most
>>>part to be there are a few selective little bunch of idealists with
>>>their own concepts on how "ponding" should be...and everything else is
>>>either flamed or filtered........I would think after this post of how
>>>to efectively and quickly kill a fish that the pond bitch" Nedras"
>>>filter is going to be pretty darn well max'ed out with new names to
>>>plonk........
>>>My method would have been cut its head off or just stick in a plactic
>>>bag with some Budweiser.........
>>>
>>>Y'all have a great day.............that is except for Nedra, I hope
>>>her f**king pond freezes into a giant ice block along with her in it.
>>>Nedra the Ice Queen of rec.ponds...............
>>>Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
>>>Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
>>>I had no input whatsoever.
>>>Remove "nospam" from email addy.
>>
>>Mike Patterson
>>Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
>>"I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." -
>
> Lily Tomlin
>

[Nedra]

Please don't despair, Ruth. I'll share the pond bitch title!!
See, you can be one too :) <snicker>

Nedra

Lotus Garden:
http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
Backyard Pond:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836

"rtk" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Nedra wrote:
>
> > Holy Mackeral !!! I'm A pond bitch and rec.pond's Ice Queen; also
wishes
> > that my pond freezes solid - with me in it. WOW! Actually I think the
guy
> > has a flair for putting words on paper.
> > ROFLOL - My first howler of the day.
>
> Wahhh, I wanna be a pond bitch too. Who says you're the Ice Queen?
> Nobody voted. I'd make a good Ice Queen. Holy koi indeed.
>
> Ruth Kazez
>
>
> >
> > Nedra
> > Lotus Garden:
> > http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
> > Backyard Pond:
> > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836
> >
> > "Mike Patterson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Wow, I've been reading rec.ponds for about 4-5 years, had no idea it
> >>was so bad. I honestly don't remember any flames, except for a
> >>obnoxious guy a couple years back that was always going overboard with
> >>the backwoods hardnose routine. Went by "Foxeye" or something like
> >>that.
> >>
> >>I also read about 12 other groups, I recognise you from a couple, by
> >>far rec.ponds is the most docile and friendly.
> >>
> >>I'm not real impressed with nedra all the time either, but you seem to
> >>be really bent out of shape about it. Suggest you take a deep breath
> >>and shake it off. Stress can kill! Ignore those who bug you.
> >>Killfilters are your friend.
> >>
> >>OTOH, didn't know re.aquaria existed, will probably read it for a
> >>while now, thanks for the crosspost... how's that for a newsgroup
> >>oddity? :-)
> >>
> >>Mike
> >>
> >>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:47:23 GMT, (Roy) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Its been awhile since i posted to rec.ponds as it seems for the most
> >>>part to be there are a few selective little bunch of idealists with
> >>>their own concepts on how "ponding" should be...and everything else is
> >>>either flamed or filtered........I would think after this post of how
> >>>to efectively and quickly kill a fish that the pond bitch" Nedras"
> >>>filter is going to be pretty darn well max'ed out with new names to
> >>>plonk........
> >>>My method would have been cut its head off or just stick in a plactic
> >>>bag with some Budweiser.........
> >>>
> >>>Y'all have a great day.............that is except for Nedra, I hope
> >>>her f**king pond freezes into a giant ice block along with her in it.
> >>>Nedra the Ice Queen of rec.ponds...............
> >>>Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
> >>>Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
> >>>I had no input whatsoever.
> >>>Remove "nospam" from email addy.
> >>
> >>Mike Patterson
> >>Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
> >>"I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." -
> >
> > Lily Tomlin
> >

[Benign Vanilla]

"The Drunken Lord" > wrote in message
<snip>
> The difference is that due to drinking that goes on here, I have to
> limit the size of my indoor aquariums, because accidents can happen
> while drinking. I just noticed that a friend had left a burning
> cigarette in the seat of a 150 year old Windsor chair, which burnt my
> ass--not literally, for alas, I was not in the chair at the time. But
> if I had seen it while the drunken scoundrel was here a fight could
> possibly have ensued. He is banned from coming over for a month as a
> result of that mishap.
>
> Outdoors at your pond, you are free to drink to your heart's delight
> without worry of falling 55 gallon aquariums hitting the floor.

Your friends are nearly burning your house down, and we're the ones with the
problem? LOL. Go back to trolling alt.aquaria and leave us to our drunken
koi.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:U8qud.740499$8_6.5391@attbi_s04...
<snip>
> > IMHO taking a fish out of water to put it out of misery would be akin to
> > tossing you into the pond and holding you under to end your suffering.
> >
> > BV.
> >
>
> Would you rather that it languish for days in the pond until it dies? Oh,
and
> last time I looked, fish were not people. Are you suggesting that they
are? Do
> you eat fish? If so, does that make your a murderer?

Actually I hate seafood. Ick. So I am not a good person to ask this. I am
not saying the fish should be left to suffer. If the OP needs to end it's
suffering, I believe there are better ways, then suffocating the fish, as I
believe if you ended a human's life there are better ways then drowning
them.

I am also not suggesting fish are human, but that does not change the fact
that I would not knowably impose suffering any living thing where I can
avoid it.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"Bill Oertell" > wrote in message
...
> Hey, it'd be a helluva lot faster than some of the other methods that have
been
> recommended and the resulting mixture would actually have some (albeit,
small)
> use.
<snip>

Faster then an anesthetic? or an axe?

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"Nedra" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Please don't despair, Ruth. I'll share the pond bitch title!!
> See, you can be one too :) <snicker>
<snip>

If, hypothetically, I was into cross dressing...could I also share in the
Ice Bitch title? Hypothetically, of course.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> Bill Oertell wrote:
>
> >> one severe problem - your wife killing you for using her
> >> blender that way.
>
> > Who said she had to find out?
>
> Bill, Bill, Bill, don't you know that they *always* find out,
> eventually?

They don't "find out" they just "know". LOL.
BV.

[Mike Patterson]

Whatever you said to him must have ticked him off big time.
Gotta have a thick skin to survive in Usenet Land.
Mike


On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 03:55:37 GMT, "Nedra" >
wrote:

>Holy Mackeral !!! I'm A pond bitch and rec.pond's Ice Queen; also wishes
>that my pond freezes solid - with me in it. WOW! Actually I think the guy
>has a flair for putting words on paper.
>ROFLOL - My first howler of the day.
>
>Nedra
>Lotus Garden:
>http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
>Backyard Pond:
>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836
>
>"Mike Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>> Wow, I've been reading rec.ponds for about 4-5 years, had no idea it
>> was so bad. I honestly don't remember any flames, except for a
>> obnoxious guy a couple years back that was always going overboard with
>> the backwoods hardnose routine. Went by "Foxeye" or something like
>> that.
>>
>> I also read about 12 other groups, I recognise you from a couple, by
>> far rec.ponds is the most docile and friendly.
>>
>> I'm not real impressed with nedra all the time either, but you seem to
>> be really bent out of shape about it. Suggest you take a deep breath
>> and shake it off. Stress can kill! Ignore those who bug you.
>> Killfilters are your friend.
>>
>> OTOH, didn't know re.aquaria existed, will probably read it for a
>> while now, thanks for the crosspost... how's that for a newsgroup
>> oddity? :-)
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:47:23 GMT, (Roy) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Its been awhile since i posted to rec.ponds as it seems for the most
>> >part to be there are a few selective little bunch of idealists with
>> >their own concepts on how "ponding" should be...and everything else is
>> >either flamed or filtered........I would think after this post of how
>> >to efectively and quickly kill a fish that the pond bitch" Nedras"
>> >filter is going to be pretty darn well max'ed out with new names to
>> >plonk........
>> >My method would have been cut its head off or just stick in a plactic
>> >bag with some Budweiser.........
>> >
>> >Y'all have a great day.............that is except for Nedra, I hope
>> >her f**king pond freezes into a giant ice block along with her in it.
>> >Nedra the Ice Queen of rec.ponds...............
>> >Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
>> >Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
>> >I had no input whatsoever.
>> >Remove "nospam" from email addy.
>>
>> Mike Patterson
>> Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
>> "I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." -
>Lily Tomlin

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." - Lily Tomlin

[Nedra]

Of course you can, BV, cross dressing or no. The more the merrier??
LOL

Nedra

Lotus Garden:
http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
Backyard Pond:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nedra" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Please don't despair, Ruth. I'll share the pond bitch title!!
> > See, you can be one too :) <snicker>
> <snip>
>
> If, hypothetically, I was into cross dressing...could I also share in the
> Ice Bitch title? Hypothetically, of course.
>
> BV.
>
>

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:U8qud.740499$8_6.5391@attbi_s04...
> <snip>
>> > IMHO taking a fish out of water to put it out of misery would be akin to
>> > tossing you into the pond and holding you under to end your suffering.
>> >
>> > BV.
>> >
>>
>> Would you rather that it languish for days in the pond until it dies? Oh,
> and
>> last time I looked, fish were not people. Are you suggesting that they
> are? Do
>> you eat fish? If so, does that make your a murderer?
>
> Actually I hate seafood. Ick. So I am not a good person to ask this. I am
> not saying the fish should be left to suffer. If the OP needs to end it's
> suffering, I believe there are better ways, then suffocating the fish, as I
> believe if you ended a human's life there are better ways then drowning
> them.
>
> I am also not suggesting fish are human, but that does not change the fact
> that I would not knowably impose suffering any living thing where I can
> avoid it.
>
> BV.
>

By ending their suffering, you are doing them a service, not visa versa.

[Nedra]

He's the guy with the lake/ pond, right? I can't remember that we even
posted
face-to-face .... as it were. Whatever it was it must have been a real
doozy! And I am sorry to have gotten to him so badly ... really I am.

Nedra
--
Lotus Garden:
http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
Backyard Pond:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836
"Mike Patterson" > wrote in message
...
> Whatever you said to him must have ticked him off big time.
> Gotta have a thick skin to survive in Usenet Land.
> Mike
>
>
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 03:55:37 GMT, "Nedra" >
> wrote:
>
> >Holy Mackeral !!! I'm A pond bitch and rec.pond's Ice Queen; also wishes
> >that my pond freezes solid - with me in it. WOW! Actually I think the guy
> >has a flair for putting words on paper.
> >ROFLOL - My first howler of the day.
> >
> >Nedra
> >Lotus Garden:
> >http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
> >Backyard Pond:
> >http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836
> >
> >"Mike Patterson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Wow, I've been reading rec.ponds for about 4-5 years, had no idea it
> >> was so bad. I honestly don't remember any flames, except for a
> >> obnoxious guy a couple years back that was always going overboard with
> >> the backwoods hardnose routine. Went by "Foxeye" or something like
> >> that.
> >>
> >> I also read about 12 other groups, I recognise you from a couple, by
> >> far rec.ponds is the most docile and friendly.
> >>
> >> I'm not real impressed with nedra all the time either, but you seem to
> >> be really bent out of shape about it. Suggest you take a deep breath
> >> and shake it off. Stress can kill! Ignore those who bug you.
> >> Killfilters are your friend.
> >>
> >> OTOH, didn't know re.aquaria existed, will probably read it for a
> >> while now, thanks for the crosspost... how's that for a newsgroup
> >> oddity? :-)
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:47:23 GMT, (Roy) wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Its been awhile since i posted to rec.ponds as it seems for the most
> >> >part to be there are a few selective little bunch of idealists with
> >> >their own concepts on how "ponding" should be...and everything else is
> >> >either flamed or filtered........I would think after this post of how
> >> >to efectively and quickly kill a fish that the pond bitch" Nedras"
> >> >filter is going to be pretty darn well max'ed out with new names to
> >> >plonk........
> >> >My method would have been cut its head off or just stick in a plactic
> >> >bag with some Budweiser.........
> >> >
> >> >Y'all have a great day.............that is except for Nedra, I hope
> >> >her f**king pond freezes into a giant ice block along with her in it.
> >> >Nedra the Ice Queen of rec.ponds...............
> >> >Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
> >> >Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
> >> >I had no input whatsoever.
> >> >Remove "nospam" from email addy.
> >>
> >> Mike Patterson
> >> Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
> >> "I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more
specific..." -
> >Lily Tomlin
>
> Mike Patterson
> Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
> "I always wanted to be somebody...I should have been more specific..." -
Lily Tomlin

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

> By ending their suffering, you are doing them a service, not visa
> versa.

By extension, you would be doing them a greater service by ending their
suffering quickly, rather than increasing it by leaving them flopping
out of water to die.

--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[The Drunken Lord]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:01:58 GMT, "Nedra" >
wrote:

>Of course you can, BV, cross dressing or no. The more the merrier??
>LOL

We are used to higher quality postings on alt.aquaria than what you
have so far produced.

If you are most interested in flaming than in serious discussion of
aquaria, I humbly suggest that you go to alt.flames.******s.

[george]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> george wrote:
>
>> By ending their suffering, you are doing them a service, not visa
>> versa.
>
> By extension, you would be doing them a greater service by ending their
> suffering quickly, rather than increasing it by leaving them flopping
> out of water to die.
>

If the fish is floating on it's side and no remedies are helping it, it is
certainly not going to last very long out of water.

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

> If the fish is floating on it's side and no remedies are helping it,
> it is certainly not going to last very long out of water.

Perhaps, perhaps not. That's irrelevant. If the goal is to minimize the
suffering of the animal, then the best solution is to kill it
immediately, not to let it die relatively slowly in open air.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[george]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> george wrote:
>
>> If the fish is floating on it's side and no remedies are helping it,
>> it is certainly not going to last very long out of water.
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. That's irrelevant. If the goal is to minimize the
> suffering of the animal, then the best solution is to kill it
> immediately, not to let it die relatively slowly in open air.
>

Excuse me for saying so, but it is a fish. How much do you think it suffers?
If it is a goldfish, it's brain pan is smaller than a pea. The fact is, people
tend to anthropomorphize their pets, be it a goldfish or a St. Benard. Do you
also euthanize a dying piece of hard coral? Or a snail? If it makes you feel
any better, you can always deliver "last rights" after it expires.

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

> Excuse me for saying so, but it is a fish. How much do you think it
> suffers?

I don't know how much a fish suffers. Neither do you. The apparent
difference between us is that I choose to err on the side of caution,
and assume that fish can experience suffering. Therefore, as a
responsible fish-keeper, I am compelled to take steps to minimize that
potential suffering.


>Do you also euthanize a dying piece of hard coral? Or a snail?

I use the presence of a central nervous system as my guide.


> If it makes you feel any better, you can
> always deliver "last rights" after it expires.

Attempt at clever condescension noted, but what one does *after* the
animal is dead has no bearing on what it experienced as it died.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[george]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> george wrote:
>
>> Excuse me for saying so, but it is a fish. How much do you think it
>> suffers?
>
> I don't know how much a fish suffers. Neither do you. The apparent
> difference between us is that I choose to err on the side of caution,
> and assume that fish can experience suffering. Therefore, as a
> responsible fish-keeper, I am compelled to take steps to minimize that
> potential suffering.
>
>
>>Do you also euthanize a dying piece of hard coral? Or a snail?
>
> I use the presence of a central nervous system as my guide.

Oh, so you do make a distinction between a human being and, say, and amoeba.
That's heartening.

>
>> If it makes you feel any better, you can
>> always deliver "last rights" after it expires.
>
> Attempt at clever condescension noted, but what one does *after* the
> animal is dead has no bearing on what it experienced as it died.
>

Like you said, how do you know what it experienced as it died? Is it even
conscious when it is dying? Does it even have a conscience? If you feel that
pulling a dying fish out of water is inhumane, don't do it. I have no problem
whatsoever because I know that by doing so, I am putting it out of its misery.
Having said that, I've rarely had to do it because I don't let my fish get into
that bad a shape. Sure, we've all had fish die suddenly. But I've been
fortunate enough to have been able to care for my fish, and have a keen enough
eye to tell when there is a problem, and so have rarely lost one due to illness.
And I've been raising fish for 35 years. I find it amazing that people will buy
feeder guppies or feeder goldfish to feed to other fish, and then worry about
how best to put a sick fish out of its misery.

[[email protected]]

went to check pond temp and feed the fish ... I lifted the flap nobody there, then
they all came streaming at me from wherever and they almost jumped outta the pond
trying to get to the food. good thing I keep the netting over the pond with the
plastic over that. sheesh.
water temp 55oF. temp temp 42, wind outta the west 25 mph.
http://www.mu.edu/~buxtoni/mypond/winters/winter.htm
Ingrid


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

> Oh brother! Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage
> rights, the right to drive a car, or buy a house?

It's always amusing to see people resort to absurdity when faced with
an argument they cannot successfully counter. It's a logical fallcy,
known as the 'slippery slope'. Rarely is it taken to the extreme you've
demonstrated here.


> You PETA dorks make me want to throw up.

And one more nail in the coffin, resorting to ad hominem attacks and
name calling.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

> Like you said, how do you know what it experienced as it died?

As I said, I don't. However, being a responsible fish keeper, when it
comes time to kill a fish, I do so in the fastest fashion I can. In
this way, if the fish does experience pain, I minimize the suffering as
much as possible.

I'm not sure why you're having such difficulty with this concept. It's
really quite simple.

--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Ray Martini]

Hey DL where ya been! Haven't seen ya in a while!!

Happy Holidays ...



"Happy'Cam'per" > wrote in message
...
> "The Drunken Lord" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> We have apparently been infested with losers from rec.ponds.
>
> And lets guess, you are the upstanding drunken mullet of the aquaria NG's?
> --
> "In the beginning, God said the four-dimensional divergence of an
> antisymmetric,
> second rank tensor equals zero, and there was Light , and it was good."
>
>

[Crashj]

On or about Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:02:50 -0600, "Eric Schreiber" <eric at
ericschreiber dot com> wrote something like:

>george wrote:
<>
>> You PETA dorks make me want to throw up.
>
>And one more nail in the coffin, resorting to ad hominem attacks and
>name calling.

Is that the "PETA" part or the "dork" part?

" I am not a PETA"
--
Crashj

[Eric Schreiber]

Crashj wrote:

>> resorting to ad hominem attacks and name calling.

> Is that the "PETA" part or the "dork" part?

Hehe, I suppose that depends entirely upon how one feels about PETA.
Despite being an animal lover, my opinion of PETA is decidedly low.

--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Snooze]

After all the suggestions that have come from the trolls, I'm surprised
nobody suggested the obvious, which is based on an idiom to mean too easy.

1: shotgun
2: barrel
3: fish

It's like shooting fish in a barrel...

Snooze

[george]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> Crashj wrote:
>
>>> resorting to ad hominem attacks and name calling.
>
>> Is that the "PETA" part or the "dork" part?
>
> Hehe, I suppose that depends entirely upon how one feels about PETA.
> Despite being an animal lover, my opinion of PETA is decidedly low.
>

That's good to know. So how would you euthanize a fish you know is dying?

[george]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> george wrote:
>
>> Like you said, how do you know what it experienced as it died?
>
> As I said, I don't. However, being a responsible fish keeper, when it
> comes time to kill a fish, I do so in the fastest fashion I can. In
> this way, if the fish does experience pain, I minimize the suffering as
> much as possible.
>
> I'm not sure why you're having such difficulty with this concept. It's
> really quite simple.

And that method would be?

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

> So how would you euthanize a fish you know is dying?

The very fastest way that I can - crushing.

--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:HR1vd.178532$5K2.125536@attbi_s03...
>
> "kc" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Why does it matter "how much" it suffers? It's a living, breathing
being.
> > It's moronic to decide how much you're going to care about something and
how
> > much it's life is worth by how smart you've decided it is...
> > Kirsten
>
> Oh brother! Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage rights,
the
> right to drive a car, or buy a house? And if so, how do you propose that
we
> collect taxes from them? It's a fish, woman! Yeah, it's cute, and
playful, and
> ocassionally aggressive. But it is still a fish. If it is past saving it
> doesn't much matter how you put it out of its' misery as long as you do.
You
> PETA dorks make me want to throw up.

<SNIP>

I am not a PETA dork, nor do I support that organization in any way.
However, that does not mean that I am going to take a living creature and
cause it suffering. Tossing a fish on the ground to let it die is akin to
tossing you into the pond and holding you under.

Bv.

[george]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> george wrote:
>
>> So how would you euthanize a fish you know is dying?
>
> The very fastest way that I can - crushing.
>
> --
> Eric Schreiber
> www.ericschreiber.com

It's your mess.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:HR1vd.178532$5K2.125536@attbi_s03...
>>
>> "kc" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Why does it matter "how much" it suffers? It's a living, breathing
> being.
>> > It's moronic to decide how much you're going to care about something and
> how
>> > much it's life is worth by how smart you've decided it is...
>> > Kirsten
>>
>> Oh brother! Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage rights,
> the
>> right to drive a car, or buy a house? And if so, how do you propose that
> we
>> collect taxes from them? It's a fish, woman! Yeah, it's cute, and
> playful, and
>> ocassionally aggressive. But it is still a fish. If it is past saving it
>> doesn't much matter how you put it out of its' misery as long as you do.
> You
>> PETA dorks make me want to throw up.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> I am not a PETA dork, nor do I support that organization in any way.
> However, that does not mean that I am going to take a living creature and
> cause it suffering. Tossing a fish on the ground to let it die is akin to
> tossing you into the pond and holding you under.
>
> Bv.
>

So you too think that fish and humans have equal value? Sorry, as much as I
love raising fish, I have to disagree. And I don't think a fish that is near
death is going to suffer much by pulling it out of the water and letting it
suffocate. They don't have the nervous system that we do, so to suggest that
they feel pain like we do is a bit naive, and quite anthropomorhic.

[rtk]

george wrote:
When it came to her last
> week, she refused to eat, and her will did not allow a feeding tube nor an IV
> for hydration after she had lost consciousness. All we could so was watch her
> waste away. Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or allowing a
> near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours? You tell me.
>
>
Let's see now if I got this straight. My fish is going belly up, full
of white fuzz and all the other fish are beginning to take bites at it.
Of course it doesn't feel a thing, doesn't mind because - you suggest
- it's small, like for example a little puppy which of course doesn't
feel pain because dogs are so much bigger. At this point I remove my
fish and I ask myself about my mother's health. I then balance the
possiblility of allowing the mother to waste away or of painlessly
killing the fish. Is this what you're suggesting? If I come out on the
side of my mother, then I take a bite out of the fish? Or what? I must
admit the quandary you propose doesn't lend itself to the decision
making process as I understand it. I thought we were discussing the
quickest, easiest on the fish, way to end its slow death, but you seem
to be saying that suffocation of the fish over a period of a few hours
will somehow prolong the lives of our mothers.

Ruth Kazez

[george]

"rtk" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> george wrote:
> When it came to her last
>> week, she refused to eat, and her will did not allow a feeding tube nor an IV
>> for hydration after she had lost consciousness. All we could so was watch
>> her waste away. Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or
>> allowing a near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours? You tell me.
> Let's see now if I got this straight. My fish is going belly up, full of
> white fuzz and all the other fish are beginning to take bites at it. Of course
> it doesn't feel a thing, doesn't mind because - you suggest - it's small, like
> for example a little puppy which of course doesn't feel pain because dogs are
> so much bigger. At this point I remove my fish and I ask myself about my
> mother's health. I then balance the possiblility of allowing the mother to
> waste away or of painlessly killing the fish. Is this what you're
> suggesting? If I come out on the side of my mother, then I take a bite out of
> the fish? Or what? I must admit the quandary you propose doesn't lend itself
> to the decision making process as I understand it. I thought we were
> discussing the quickest, easiest on the fish, way to end its slow death, but
> you seem to be saying that suffocation of the fish over a period of a few
> hours will somehow prolong the lives of our mothers.
>
> Ruth Kazez

No, you don't have it straight. But then, I would never expect you to.
Obviously if you can't tell the difference between a dog, a puppy, a fish, and
your mother, then chances are you don't have any business caring for any of the
above.

[rtk]

george wrote:

>
> No, you don't have it straight. But then, I would never expect you to.
> Obviously if you can't tell the difference between a dog, a puppy, a fish, and
> your mother, then chances are you don't have any business caring for any of the
> above.
>
>
George, you said:
Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or
>> allowing a near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours? You tell me.

You were giving us an odd choice.

Ruth Kazez

[Anne Lurie]

Here's the deal -- y'all at alt.aquaria accept responsibility for the
drunken lord, and I will attempt to discourage cross-posting from the folks
at rec.ponds.

BUT, if I hear much more dissing of grandmothers from any of y'all, I will
not be happy!

Anne ("Do not mess with Granny") Lurie
Raleigh, NC


"The Drunken Lord" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:01:58 GMT, "Nedra" >
> wrote:
>
>>Of course you can, BV, cross dressing or no. The more the merrier??
>>LOL
>
> We are used to higher quality postings on alt.aquaria than what you
> have so far produced.
>
> If you are most interested in flaming than in serious discussion of
> aquaria, I humbly suggest that you go to alt.flames.******s.

[Bill Oertell]

Is that something they learn in home ec or what?

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
> ...
> > Bill Oertell wrote:
> >
> > >> one severe problem - your wife killing you for using her
> > >> blender that way.
> >
> > > Who said she had to find out?
> >
> > Bill, Bill, Bill, don't you know that they *always* find out,
> > eventually?
>
> They don't "find out" they just "know". LOL.
> BV.
>
>

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

>> The very fastest way that I can - crushing.

> It's your mess.

No mess at all if done properly. Fish comes out of the tank, goes into
a plastic bag, and whack. No prolonged suffering, no mess.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

>> Tossing a fish on the ground to let it die is akin to
>> tossing you into the pond and holding you under.

> So you too think that fish and humans have equal value?

You really have a gift for inventiveness, don't you?

--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

> fish simply haven't got the biology for feeling the kind
> of pain that we experience.

While that is certainly a possibility, it hasn't been conclusively
shown as yet. And even if the suffering a fish experiences if of a
different order, that hardly justifies extending that suffering any
longer than necessary.

> perhaps the question to be asked here is why it was allowed
> to get in the such bad shape in the first place.

This looks like a distraction tactic, as it isn't particularly
relevant. Fish get injured, diseased, or grow old, just like any animal.

> most of it's systems have already shut down, and so it likely
> will feel very little, if anything at all by allowing it to
> suffocate.

Personally, I'm not willing to take such a cavalier position based on
your idea of what is 'likely'.

> I find it to be much preferable to smashing it or cutting
> it's head off, as some have suggested.

Why? Are you squeamish?

> Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or
> allowing a near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours?

This comparison is highly disingenuous given your repeated comments
about anthropomorphizing.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

> I was trying to prove the point that fish aren't human, don't have
> human emotions, feelings, and certainly do not have the nervous
> system to feel pain the way we do.

That's multiple points, some of which are empirically true, and the
others you utterly failed to prove. Maybe if you tried holding your
breath and stomping your feet the next time you presented your opinion
as factual you'd get better results.



--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Roy]

Well the way I see it, Rotenone (sp?) is an approved and widely used
product for dispensing of fish, its indiscriminate in what dies and
what lives when applied, be it in a fish tank, pond lake or what have
you and it does its job by depletion of oxigen, so evidently for it to
be as widely accepted as it is, it must for the most part be
considered humane.so evidentlyu oxygen starvation is an approved and
accepted method...I could not see it to kill fish in an aquarium,.
but hey it will kill a fish and thats what this topic is about. I
don;t say I condone it or approve of it, but its a method.......
available in powder and liquid, and its available in lots of garden
centers etc as its commonly used as an insecticide.Controlled
applications in non contained waters, no control permits needed in
contained waters.....i most states. So bucket with water, that should
satisfy those that say its inhumane to allow fish to die out of water,
and apply rotenone........presto, euthanized fish.......no kitchen
utensils to clean up and no nasty skid marks on the driveway.

I can;t see it being any worse than what a lot say as to using clove
oil and vodka etc, and then freezing etc.......afterall there are
critics that say lethal injection method of execution is not as
painless as everyone says it is, so how does anyone know a fish is
actually pain free or just imopbilized when using clove oil
etc.......its a shot in the dark at best.......what ever turns your
handle.....go for it, its your life you paid for the fish its your
decision, and I am not the one to judge......

Of course I still go for baggie full of Budweiser myself!
Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
Opinions expressed are those of my wife,
I had no input whatsoever.
Remove "nospam" from email addy.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:cCkvd.564943$D%.212354@attbi_s51...
<snip>
> > I am not a PETA dork, nor do I support that organization in any way.
> > However, that does not mean that I am going to take a living creature
and
> > cause it suffering. Tossing a fish on the ground to let it die is akin
to
> > tossing you into the pond and holding you under.
>
> So you too think that fish and humans have equal value? Sorry, as much as
I
> love raising fish, I have to disagree. And I don't think a fish that is
near
> death is going to suffer much by pulling it out of the water and letting
it
> suffocate. They don't have the nervous system that we do, so to suggest
that
> they feel pain like we do is a bit naive, and quite anthropomorhic.

I am starting to believe you are just trolling, but I'll continue to bite.

I do believe all living creatures are on some level equal to humans in
importance. More importantly, what I believe is that it's narcissitic for
humans to believe they are somehow above other creatures and therefore have
some right to treat them poorly.

You "don't think" the fish will suffer, but you don't know. It's your
responsibility to ensure as little suffering for that creature as you can,
IMHO. Just because they do not have the nervous system that we have, does
not mean they do not feel pain, and does not mean they should be treated
without regard.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:h_pvd.189005$V41.174745@attbi_s52...
<snip>
> I was trying to prove the point that fish aren't human, don't have human
> emotions, feelings, and certainly do not have the nervous system to feel
pain
> the way we do. But you knew that already, didn't you?

Nobody but YOU has said that fish are akin to humans. You seem to think that
only Humans can suffer pain, and you repeatedly state that assuming fish can
feel pain is some how athropomorphic. So if your dog got hit by a car would
just let it lie there and die? I mean it's not human, it can't possibly be
pain. I suggest you step your dog's tail and tell us if it feels pain. If it
does, does that make it human?

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"Bill Oertell" > wrote in message
...
> Is that something they learn in home ec or what?
<snip>

Oh your wife is going to get you for that comment. She already knows of
course.

BV.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:cCkvd.564943$D%.212354@attbi_s51...
> <snip>
>> > I am not a PETA dork, nor do I support that organization in any way.
>> > However, that does not mean that I am going to take a living creature
> and
>> > cause it suffering. Tossing a fish on the ground to let it die is akin
> to
>> > tossing you into the pond and holding you under.
>>
>> So you too think that fish and humans have equal value? Sorry, as much as
> I
>> love raising fish, I have to disagree. And I don't think a fish that is
> near
>> death is going to suffer much by pulling it out of the water and letting
> it
>> suffocate. They don't have the nervous system that we do, so to suggest
> that
>> they feel pain like we do is a bit naive, and quite anthropomorhic.
>
> I am starting to believe you are just trolling, but I'll continue to bite.
>
> I do believe all living creatures are on some level equal to humans in
> importance. More importantly, what I believe is that it's narcissitic for
> humans to believe they are somehow above other creatures and therefore have
> some right to treat them poorly.
>
> You "don't think" the fish will suffer, but you don't know.
> It's your responsibility to ensure as little suffering for that creature as
> you can,
> IMHO. Just because they do not have the nervous system that we have, does
> not mean they do not feel pain, and does not mean they should be treated
> without regard.
>
> BV.

It is an anatomical certainty that fish do not have the pain receptors that
humans have, and so are not capable of feeling pain the way humans do. I:m not
suggesting that you pull a healthy fish, who might, admittedly, feel something
vagely resembling pain, if put to the test. My argument is that if a fish is in
so dire a shape that it has to be "put down", then certainly that fish is
unlikely to feel much, if any pain at all, no matter how one decides to end it's
life.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:h_pvd.189005$V41.174745@attbi_s52...
> <snip>
>> I was trying to prove the point that fish aren't human, don't have human
>> emotions, feelings, and certainly do not have the nervous system to feel
> pain
>> the way we do. But you knew that already, didn't you?
>
> Nobody but YOU has said that fish are akin to humans. You seem to think that
> only Humans can suffer pain, and you repeatedly state that assuming fish can
> feel pain is some how athropomorphic. So if your dog got hit by a car would
> just let it lie there and die? I mean it's not human, it can't possibly be
> pain. I suggest you step your dog's tail and tell us if it feels pain. If it
> does, does that make it human?
>
> BV.
>

Wow. I think you need to take a deep breath and calm down. First of all, where
did I say that fish are akin to humans? Where did I say that only humans can
suffer pain? The fact that YOU assume that fish "suffer" as humans do is the
reason why I used the term anthropomorphic. The dog analogy is a non-sequitur
since dogs have vastly more complex nervous systems than fish, and in fact, have
nervous systems that in many ways are comparable to humans. They certainly DO
feel pain the way we do, as anyone who has ever cared for an injured dog can
attest to. I don't know why you persist in this line of reasoning, when my only
point is that a near-death fish is highly unlikely to experience much, if any
pain, and so to suggest that pulling the fish out of water and allowing it to
die is somehow inhumane is simply ludicrous.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:%uEvd.498511$wV.91467@attbi_s54...
<snip>
> It is an anatomical certainty that fish do not have the pain receptors
that
> humans have, and so are not capable of feeling pain the way humans do.
I:m not
> suggesting that you pull a healthy fish, who might, admittedly, feel
something
> vagely resembling pain, if put to the test. My argument is that if a fish
is in
> so dire a shape that it has to be "put down", then certainly that fish is
> unlikely to feel much, if any pain at all, no matter how one decides to
end it's
> life.


You keep making the comparison of fish to humans. Nobody but you is
suggesting fish are on par with humans from a nervous system standpoint.
That does not change the fact that they may and probably do feel pain. That
does not change the fact that anything we can do as fish owners to minimize
this suffering is a good idea.

Using your own faulted logic, and the story of your mother ailing from old
age. Would you use a slow method of euthanasia on a loved one, simply
because they are "in so dire shape...that it is unlikely to feel much"?

BV.

[george]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> george wrote:
>
>> fish simply haven't got the biology for feeling the kind
>> of pain that we experience.
>
> While that is certainly a possibility, it hasn't been conclusively
> shown as yet. And even if the suffering a fish experiences if of a
> different order, that hardly justifies extending that suffering any
> longer than necessary.

Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors, and do not
have the peripheral or central nervous system to experience what we would
experience as pain. They exhibit fright/flight reactions, as most all higher
organisms do. If a fish is in such dire straights that it has to be "taken
down", the chances that it will "suffer" by removing it from water and allowing
it to die are highly unlikely. And again, your concept of "suffering" is highly
anthropomorhic.

>> perhaps the question to be asked here is why it was allowed
>> to get in the such bad shape in the first place.
>
> This looks like a distraction tactic, as it isn't particularly
> relevant. Fish get injured, diseased, or grow old, just like any animal.

Sure they do. If you raise fish, you are going to experience dead fish. I've
stated as much already. My point is that most fish diseases (other than toxic
shock or poisoning) do not result in a fish dying or being in dire straights
over night. There are symptoms. Swim bladder disease has specific symptoms that
are easily recognizable in the early stages, as is the case for many fish
diseases. The point here is that if a fish is not behaving normally, then the
time to act is when that behavior is first noticed, not when it is too late to
do anything about it. Then the argument over how to put the fish down becomes
moot.

I have another question for you. How do you think most pet shops deal with dying
fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable treatements? Ask you pet shop
owner what he does. I think you will be surprised at the answer, if he/she will
even give it to you.

>> most of it's systems have already shut down, and so it likely
>> will feel very little, if anything at all by allowing it to
>> suffocate.
>
> Personally, I'm not willing to take such a cavalier position based on
> your idea of what is 'likely'.

Again, that certainly is your choice. You do what you have to do.

>> I find it to be much preferable to smashing it or cutting
>> it's head off, as some have suggested.
>
> Why? Are you squeamish?
>

Me? You've got to be kidding. I dissected an Orangutan in Primatology class,
and studied autopsy cases in Forensic Anthropology class in college. And I've
taken Human anatomy and comparative vertebrate anatomy. I just don't like
making unnecessary messes and then have to clean them up. Call me lazy, if you
like.

>> Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or
>> allowing a near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours?
>
> This comparison is highly disingenuous given your repeated comments
> about anthropomorphizing.
>

Not at all. It has to do with the concept of "suffering", and how one defines
it. I am under no illusion that a fish experiences pain at any level comparible
to what a dying person experiences, and so I have no problem at all with ending
the life of a near-death fish in the way I described.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:OCEvd.498533$wV.326174@attbi_s54...
<snip>
> Wow. I think you need to take a deep breath and calm down. First of all,
where
> did I say that fish are akin to humans? Where did I say that only humans
can
> suffer pain? The fact that YOU assume that fish "suffer" as humans do is
the
> reason why I used the term anthropomorphic. The dog analogy is a
non-sequitur
> since dogs have vastly more complex nervous systems than fish, and in
fact, have
> nervous systems that in many ways are comparable to humans. They
certainly DO
> feel pain the way we do, as anyone who has ever cared for an injured dog
can
> attest to. I don't know why you persist in this line of reasoning, when
my only
> point is that a near-death fish is highly unlikely to experience much, if
any
> pain, and so to suggest that pulling the fish out of water and allowing it
to
> die is somehow inhumane is simply ludicrous.

I am quite calm, so need to calm further.

It is you that has repeatedly stated in this thread that "fish are not as
complex as humans", and "fish don't feel like humans do". You are the one
anthropomorphizing this conversation. Nobody else is making this comparison.

My analogy using the dog was simply intended to point out the error in your
logic. A less advanced creature does not by virtue of being less advanced
deserve less respect, or lack of compassion. Human, Dog, fish, etc.

The original thread was simply about minimizing the suffering of an ailing
fish. You contend that fish are so less advanced then us, that simply
tossing it on the ground is adequate. I contend that any living being should
be treated as important and as a pond owner I take that philosphy to a
degree whereby I do what I can to minize the suffering of every living
creature around me.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as we clearly have different
philosophies on the importance of lesser species.

BV.

P.S. I don't believe you can treate anything but humans, humanely. :)

[kc]

Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the
only things you own.
The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how a
living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
Kirsten
"george" > wrote in message
news:LWEvd.569192$D%.88482@attbi_s51...
>
> "Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
> ...
>> george wrote:
>>
>>> fish simply haven't got the biology for feeling the kind
>>> of pain that we experience.
>>
>> While that is certainly a possibility, it hasn't been conclusively
>> shown as yet. And even if the suffering a fish experiences if of a
>> different order, that hardly justifies extending that suffering any
>> longer than necessary.
>
> Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors, and
> do not have the peripheral or central nervous system to experience what we
> would experience as pain. They exhibit fright/flight reactions, as most
> all higher organisms do. If a fish is in such dire straights that it has
> to be "taken down", the chances that it will "suffer" by removing it from
> water and allowing it to die are highly unlikely. And again, your concept
> of "suffering" is highly anthropomorhic.
>
>>> perhaps the question to be asked here is why it was allowed
>>> to get in the such bad shape in the first place.
>>
>> This looks like a distraction tactic, as it isn't particularly
>> relevant. Fish get injured, diseased, or grow old, just like any animal.
>
> Sure they do. If you raise fish, you are going to experience dead fish.
> I've stated as much already. My point is that most fish diseases (other
> than toxic shock or poisoning) do not result in a fish dying or being in
> dire straights over night. There are symptoms. Swim bladder disease has
> specific symptoms that are easily recognizable in the early stages, as is
> the case for many fish diseases. The point here is that if a fish is not
> behaving normally, then the time to act is when that behavior is first
> noticed, not when it is too late to do anything about it. Then the
> argument over how to put the fish down becomes moot.
>
> I have another question for you. How do you think most pet shops deal with
> dying fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable treatements? Ask
> you pet shop owner what he does. I think you will be surprised at the
> answer, if he/she will even give it to you.
>
>>> most of it's systems have already shut down, and so it likely
>>> will feel very little, if anything at all by allowing it to
>>> suffocate.
>>
>> Personally, I'm not willing to take such a cavalier position based on
>> your idea of what is 'likely'.
>
> Again, that certainly is your choice. You do what you have to do.
>
>>> I find it to be much preferable to smashing it or cutting
>>> it's head off, as some have suggested.
>>
>> Why? Are you squeamish?
>>
>
> Me? You've got to be kidding. I dissected an Orangutan in Primatology
> class, and studied autopsy cases in Forensic Anthropology class in
> college. And I've taken Human anatomy and comparative vertebrate anatomy.
> I just don't like making unnecessary messes and then have to clean them
> up. Call me lazy, if you like.
>
>>> Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or
>>> allowing a near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours?
>>
>> This comparison is highly disingenuous given your repeated comments
>> about anthropomorphizing.
>>
>
> Not at all. It has to do with the concept of "suffering", and how one
> defines it. I am under no illusion that a fish experiences pain at any
> level comparible to what a dying person experiences, and so I have no
> problem at all with ending the life of a near-death fish in the way I
> described.
>

[rtk]

Research funding is hard to come by, generally reserved for subjects
which have some more or less direct benefit for humans. The study of
mercury in fish food has a much better chance of being supported than
the sensitivities of goldfish in an artificial environment.

We regularly read in the newspapers about some startling ability of
animals, fish, and birds: dog detects kidney disease in owner, cat finds
home 300 miles away , ape uses variety of tools, one specie nurses
another. We have known for a long time that animals surpass humans in
many special ways: hearing, speed, navigation, loyalty, among others.
Those of us who have pets have experienced little surprises regularly:
my fish know I'm the one with food and not the other guy; my dog knew
the leash was meaningful only in my hand; my hunter cat would not harm a
mouse in our house. That one fish hiding behind the rock knows he's the
one my net is after while the others just go their merry way!

My point is we do not know how the fish feels out of water, lying on the
counter, moving frantically and gasping. We're not going to find out in
school an no one will likely receive funding to research it. But we do
know about our own nervous systems and our ability to project our
feelings, to feel especially kindly toward those who are smaller than
us, to think logically about their well-being, and to treat all living
creatures with care. Some of can't do this, not think clearly or act
kindly. To suggest that what is big feels more than what is small, that
the human animal feels more pain than other animals, that all creatures,
being of less value than one's mother, need therefore receive no
consideration, diminishes the person.


Ruth Kazez

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

> Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors,
> and do not have the peripheral or central nervous system to
> experience what we would experience as pain.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with work done at the Roslin Institute in
Scotland last year that demonstrated fish have a neurological response
that is remarkably similar to the pain response in humans.


> If a fish
> is in such dire straights that it has to be "taken down", the chances
> that it will "suffer" by removing it from water and allowing it to
> die are highly unlikely.

So you keep repeating. As I've already noted, repeating it over and
over will not magically transform opinion into fact.


>> This looks like a distraction tactic
>> If you raise fish, you are going to experience dead fish.

[paragraph snipped]

As I expected, it was a distrction tactic, as it attempts to turn the
debate away from the subject by getting involved in casting blame.


> How do you think most pet shops deal
> with dying fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable
> treatements? Ask you pet shop owner what he does. I think you will
> be surprised at the answer, if he/she will even give it to you.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. How pet stores deal with their fish isn't
relevant, and certainly doesn't qualify as an authoritative approach.
History is replete with examples of 'most people' or 'authorities'
acting stupidly.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Benign Vanilla]

"rtk" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> My point is we do not know how the fish feels out of water, lying on the
> counter, moving frantically and gasping. We're not going to find out in
> school an no one will likely receive funding to research it. But we do
> know about our own nervous systems and our ability to project our
> feelings, to feel especially kindly toward those who are smaller than
> us, to think logically about their well-being, and to treat all living
> creatures with care. Some of can't do this, not think clearly or act
> kindly. To suggest that what is big feels more than what is small, that
> the human animal feels more pain than other animals, that all creatures,
> being of less value than one's mother, need therefore receive no
> consideration, diminishes the person.
>
>
> Ruth Kazez

This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say. Thanks Ruth.

BV.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:%uEvd.498511$wV.91467@attbi_s54...
> <snip>
>> It is an anatomical certainty that fish do not have the pain receptors
> that
>> humans have, and so are not capable of feeling pain the way humans do.
> I:m not
>> suggesting that you pull a healthy fish, who might, admittedly, feel
> something
>> vagely resembling pain, if put to the test. My argument is that if a fish
> is in
>> so dire a shape that it has to be "put down", then certainly that fish is
>> unlikely to feel much, if any pain at all, no matter how one decides to
> end it's
>> life.
>
>
> You keep making the comparison of fish to humans. Nobody but you is
> suggesting fish are on par with humans from a nervous system standpoint.
> That does not change the fact that they may and probably do feel pain. That
> does not change the fact that anything we can do as fish owners to minimize
> this suffering is a good idea.
>
> Using your own faulted logic, and the story of your mother ailing from old
> age. Would you use a slow method of euthanasia on a loved one, simply
> because they are "in so dire shape...that it is unlikely to feel much"?
>
> BV.
>

I certainly would not put her in a bag and smash her with a hammer. How's that
for an answer?

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:OCEvd.498533$wV.326174@attbi_s54...
> <snip>
>> Wow. I think you need to take a deep breath and calm down. First of all,
> where
>> did I say that fish are akin to humans? Where did I say that only humans
> can
>> suffer pain? The fact that YOU assume that fish "suffer" as humans do is
> the
>> reason why I used the term anthropomorphic. The dog analogy is a
> non-sequitur
>> since dogs have vastly more complex nervous systems than fish, and in
> fact, have
>> nervous systems that in many ways are comparable to humans. They
> certainly DO
>> feel pain the way we do, as anyone who has ever cared for an injured dog
> can
>> attest to. I don't know why you persist in this line of reasoning, when
> my only
>> point is that a near-death fish is highly unlikely to experience much, if
> any
>> pain, and so to suggest that pulling the fish out of water and allowing it
> to
>> die is somehow inhumane is simply ludicrous.
>
> I am quite calm, so need to calm further.
>
> It is you that has repeatedly stated in this thread that "fish are not as
> complex as humans", and "fish don't feel like humans do". You are the one
> anthropomorphizing this conversation. Nobody else is making this comparison.

That is not anthropomorphizing. Do you even understand the meaning of the word?

anthropomorphize - to attribute human form or personality to things not human.

Your assumption that fish "suffer" is an anthropomorphization.

> My analogy using the dog was simply intended to point out the error in your
> logic. A less advanced creature does not by virtue of being less advanced
> deserve less respect, or lack of compassion. Human, Dog, fish, etc.

I never said anything about not respecting other living creatures. That you
would think that I would do otherwise is disrespectful of me.

> The original thread was simply about minimizing the suffering of an ailing
> fish. You contend that fish are so less advanced then us, that simply
> tossing it on the ground is adequate. I contend that any living being should
> be treated as important and as a pond owner I take that philosphy to a
> degree whereby I do what I can to minize the suffering of every living
> creature around me.

I take it then, that you've never been fishing, or when you do, you have someone
else bait the hook. Am I close?

> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as we clearly have different
> philosophies on the importance of lesser species.
>
> BV.
>
> P.S. I don't believe you can treate anything but humans, humanely. :)
>

Whatever that means.

[george]

"kc" wrote in message
...
> Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the only
> things you own.
> The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how a
> living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
> Kirsten

I am a scientist, girlfriend. But don't take my word for it. If you can set
aside your emotional reaction to the conversation for a moment, try to read
this, and then tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm

Do Fish Feel Pain?

By Dr. James D. Rose, University of Wyoming Do fish, like humans, experience
pain and suffering? People hold very differing beliefs about this question. Some
would believe that if fish react to stimuli that would cause a person to feel
pain that the fish must also be feeling pain. Others assume that fish are too
different from humans for the matter to be of concern. Many people don't know
quite what to think about the issue. Neuroscience research has clarified the
neurological and psychological processes that cause the experience of pain, so
we can address this question from a large base of factual information.

PAIN IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE THAT IS SEPARATE FROM BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS TO
INJURIOUS STIMULI

It has become very clear that pain is a psychological experience with both a
perceptual aspect and an emotional aspect. The perceptual aspect tells us that
we have been injured, like the first sensation when you hit your thumb with a
hammer. The emotional aspect is separate as in the suffering that follows after
we are first aware of hitting our thumb. But, injurious stimuli do not always
lead to the experience of pain. Think of a trip to the dentist. When a dentist
injects a local anesthetic into your jaw to block nerve conduction, some of your
teeth and a part of your mouth feel numb. When a tooth is then drilled, the
sensory nerve cells in the tooth that would normally trigger pain are still
excited, but the nerve block prevents activity in these receptors from being
sent to the brain, so pain is not felt. In addition, a person's behavioral
reaction to pain is separate from pain experience. We see this separation when a
person endures pain without showing any discomfort. On the other hand, people
sometimes react behaviorally to injury without any feeling any experience of
pain or suffering. This kind of separation between behavioral and psychological
responses to injury results from certain forms of damage of the brain or spinal
cord. Because the experience of pain is separate from the behavioral response to
injury, the term nociception is used to refer to detection of injury by the
nervous system (which may or may not lead to pain). Injurious stimuli that
usually lead to pain experience are called nociceptive stimuli. The term pain
should be used only to refer to the unpleasant psychological experience that can
result from a nociceptive stimulus.

REACTIONS TO INJURY ARE PRESENT IN ALL FORMS OF ANIMAL LIFE BUT THESE REACTIONS
DO NOT MEAN THAT PAIN IS EXPERIENCED-IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A NOCICEPTIVE
STIMULUS TO BE CONSCIOUSLY EXEPERIENCED FOR A BEHAVIORAL REACTION TO OCCUR

In humans, reactions to nociceptive stimuli are usually associated with
feelings of pain. Consequently, humans often assume that reactions by animals to
nociceptive stimuli mean that these animals experience similar pain. In reality,
reactions to nociceptive stimuli are protective responses that can occur in
forms of life that are incapable of perceiving pain. The ability to detect and
react to nociceptive stimuli is a widespread characteristic of animal life.
Single-celled creatures such as an ameba will move away from irritating chemical
or mechanical stimuli. These reactions are automatic and because the ameba doesn't
have a nervous system, it has no ability to actually sense the stimulus that
causes its reaction or to feel pain. There are many other invertebrate organisms
(animals without backbones) that also react to nociceptive stimuli, but with
somewhat more complex patterns of escape than an ameba. For example, starfish
have a primitive nervous system that interconnects sensory receptors detecting
injurious stimuli with muscle cells that cause movements, enabling the starfish
to slowly move away from a nociceptive stimulus. The starfish's nervous system
has only a small number of nerve cells. It has no brain, so like the ameba, its
reactions are not very precise or complex and it can't experience, in the way of
humans, the stimuli that trigger its reactions. Thus, protective reactions don't
require very complex nervous systems and can occur in animals incapable of
perceiving, that is being aware of, the stimuli that cause such reactions.

IN VERTEBRATES, REACTIONS TO INJURIOUS STIMULI ARE CONTROLLED BY THE SPINAL CORD
AND BRAINSTEM

Vertebrates generally have more complex nervous systems than invertebrates and
vertebrates have a clearly developed brain. This brain receives information from
the spinal cord about nociceptive stimuli that contact the body surface. Working
together with the spinal cord, the brain generates rapid, coordinated responses
that cause the organism to escape these stimuli. These automatically generated
responses include withdrawal of the stimulated body part, struggling, locomotion
and in some animals, vocalizations. All of these responses are generated by the
lower levels of the nervous system, including the brainstem and spinal cord.

HUMAN EXISTENCE IS CEREBRALLY-DOMINATED- A FISH'S EXISTENCE IS BRAINSTEM
DOMINATED

Human existence is dominated by functions of the massively developed cerebral
hemispheres. Fishes have only primitive cerebral hemispheres and their existence
is dominated by brainstem functions. The brains of vertebrate animals differ
greatly in structural and functional complexity. Cold-blooded animals, such as
fish, frogs, salamanders, lizards and snakes, have simpler brains than
warm-blooded vertebrates, the birds and mammals. Fish have the simplest types
of brains of any vertebrates, while humans, have the most complex brains of any
species. All mammals have enlarged cerebral hemispheres that are mainly an outer
layer of neocortex. Conscious awareness of sensations, emotions and pain in
humans depend on our massively-developed neocortex and other specialized brain
regions in the cerebral hemispheres. If the cerebral hemispheres of a human are
destroyed, a comatose, vegetative state results. Fish, in contrast, have very
small cerebral hemispheres that lack neocortex. If the cerebral hemispheres of a
fish are destroyed, the fish's behavior is quite normal, because the simple
behaviors of which a fish is capable (including all of its reactions to
nociceptive stimuli) depend mainly on the brainstem and spinal cord. Thus, a
human's existence is dominated by the cerebral hemispheres, but a fish is a
brainstem-dominated organism.
The capacity to perceive and be aware of sensory stimuli, rather than just react
to such stimuli requires a complex brain. In humans, the cerebral hemispheres,
especially the neocortex, is the functional system that allows us to be aware of
sensory stimuli. If the cortex of the human brain is damaged or made
dysfunctional, we lose our awareness of sensations. For example, damage of the
visual part of the cortex causes blindness, even though vision-related sensory
activity is still occurring in subcortical parts of the brain. If the neocortex
is widely damaged we lose our capacity to be aware of our existence in general.
This loss of awareness occurs in spite of the fact that the levels of our
nervous system below the cerebral hemispheres, the brainstem and spinal cord,
can still be functioning and processing signals from sensory stimuli, including
injurious stimuli. In a fish, "seeing" is performed by the brainstem and occurs
automatically without awareness. Consequently, a fish's visual behavior is quite
normal if the small cerebral hemispheres are removed, but a human is blind if
the visual cortex region of the cerebral hemispheres is destroyed. This is
because our visual behavior depends greatly on conscious awareness of visual
sensations.
In spite of our unawareness of brainstem functions, the brainstem and spinal
cord contain programs that control our more automatic behavioral functions.
Smiling and laughter, vocalizations, keeping our balance, breathing, swallowing
and sleeping are all processes that are generated by these lower, brainstem and
spinal cord programs.

FISH DO NOT HAVE THE BRAIN DEVELOPMENT THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
EXPERIENCE OF PAIN OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF AWARENESS

The experience of pain depends on functions of our complex, enlarged cerebral
hemispheres. The unpleasant emotional aspect of pain is generated by specific
regions of the human cerebral hemispheres, especially the frontal lobes. The
functional activity of these frontal lobe regions is closely tied to the
emotional aspect of pain in humans and damage of these brain regions in people
eliminates the unpleasantness of pain. These regions do not exist in a fish
brain. Therefore, a fish doesn't have the neurological capacity to experience
the unpleasant psychological aspect of pain. This point is especially important,
because some opponents of fishing have argued that fish are capable of feeling
pain because some of the lower, subcortical nervous system pathways important
for nociception are present in fish. Obviously this argument has no validity
because without the special frontal lobe regions that are essential for pain
experiences, lower pathways alone can't produce this experience. The rapid,
well-coordinated escape responses of a fish to nociceptive stimuli are generated
automatically at brainstem and spinal cord levels but, if a fish's brainstem and
spinal cord work like a humans (and it is very likely that they do) there is no
awareness of neural activity occurring at these levels.
It might be argued that fish have the capacity to generate the psychological
experience of pain by a different process than that occurring in the frontal
lobes of the human brain, but such an argument is insupportable. The capacity to
experience pain, as we know it, has required the massive expansion of our
cerebral hemispheres, thus allocating large numbers of brain cells to the task
of conscious experience, including the emotional reaction of pain. The small,
relatively simple fish brain is fully devoted to regulating just the functions
of which a fish is capable. A fish brain is simple and efficient, and capable of
only a limited number of operations, much like a 1949 Volkswagen automobile. By
comparison, the human brain is built on the same basic plan as that of a fish,
but with massive expansions and additional capacities. The human brain is more
like a modern luxury car with all-wheel drive, climate control, emission
controls, electronic fuel injection, anti-theft devices and computerized systems
monitoring. These refinements and additional functions couldn't exist without
massive additional hardware. The massive additional neurological hardware of the
human cerebral hemispheres makes possible the psychological dimension of our
existence, including pain experience.
There are also huge differences between mammals in the degree of complexity of
cerebral hemisphere development, especially within the frontal lobes. The brains
of predatory mammals are typically larger and more complex than brains of their
prey. For example, the brains of sheep and deer have a tiny fraction of the
frontal lobe mass that is present in humans, making it probable that the kinds
of psychological experience of these animals, including pain, is quite different
from human experience.

THE REACTIONS OF FISH TO NOCICEPTIVE STIMULI ARE SIMILAR TO THEIR REACTIONS TO
PREDATORS AND OTHER NON-NOCICEPTIVE STIMULI

When a fish is hooked by an angler, it typically responds with rapid swimming
behavior that appears to be a flight response. Human observers sometimes
interpret this flight response to be a reaction to pain, as if the fish was
capable of the same kind of pain experience as a human. From the previous
explanation, it should be clear that fish behavior is a result of brainstem and
spinal patterns of activity that are automatically elicited by the stimulation
of being hooked, but that fish don't have the brain systems necessary to
experience pain. It is very important to note that the flight responses of a
hooked fish are essentially no different from responses of a fish being pursued
by a visible predator or a fish that has been startled by a vibration in the
water. These visual and vibratory stimuli do not activate nociceptive types of
sensory neurons so the flight responses can't be due to activation of
pain-triggering neural systems. Instead, these flight responses of fish are a
general reaction to many types of potentially threatening stimuli and can't be
taken to represent a response to pain. Also, these flight responses are unlikely
to reflect fear because the brain regions known to be responsible for the
experience of fear, which include some of the same regions necessary for the
emotional aspect of pain, are not present in a fish brain. Instead, these
responses are simply protective reactions to a wide range of stimuli associated
with predators or other threats, to which a fish automatically and rapidly
responds.
Although fish don't have the capacity to experience human-like pain or
suffering, their reactions to nociceptive stimuli or capture are still important
because these reactions include the secretion of stress hormones. These stress
hormones can have undesirable health effects on fish if they are secreted in
large amounts over a long period of time. So, it's important when practicing
catch-and-release fishing to observe the usually recommended procedures of
landing a fish before it is exhausted and returning it to the water quickly.
The facts about the neurological processes that generate pain make it highly
unlikely that fish experience the emotional distress and suffering of pain.
Thus, the struggles of a fish don't signify suffering when the fish is seized in
the talons of an osprey, when it is devoured while still alive by a Kodiak bear,
or when it is caught by an angler.

P.S. - Or when a dying fish is put out of it's misery by taking it out of the
water.

[rtk]

george wrote:


>>
>>Using your own faulted logic, and the story of your mother ailing from old
>>age. Would you use a slow method of euthanasia on a loved one, simply
>>because they are "in so dire shape...that it is unlikely to feel much"?
>>
>>BV.
>>
>
>
> I certainly would not put her in a bag and smash her with a hammer. How's that
> for an answer?
>
>

Oh, that's very reassuring. I feel better already. (But I have the
feeling that I saw that Hitchcock movie ages ago.)

Ruth Kazez

[george]

"rtk" > wrote in message ...
> Research funding is hard to come by, generally reserved for subjects which
> have some more or less direct benefit for humans. The study of mercury in
> fish food has a much better chance of being supported than the sensitivities
> of goldfish in an artificial environment.
>
> We regularly read in the newspapers about some startling ability of animals,
> fish, and birds: dog detects kidney disease in owner, cat finds home 300 miles
> away , ape uses variety of tools, one specie nurses another. We have known for
> a long time that animals surpass humans in many special ways: hearing, speed,
> navigation, loyalty, among others. Those of us who have pets have experienced
> little surprises regularly: my fish know I'm the one with food and not the
> other guy; my dog knew the leash was meaningful only in my hand; my hunter cat
> would not harm a mouse in our house. That one fish hiding behind the rock
> knows he's the one my net is after while the others just go their merry way!
>
> My point is we do not know how the fish feels out of water, lying on the
> counter, moving frantically and gasping. We're not going to find out in
> school an no one will likely receive funding to research it. But we do know
> about our own nervous systems and our ability to project our feelings, to feel
> especially kindly toward those who are smaller than us, to think logically
> about their well-being, and to treat all living creatures with care. Some of
> can't do this, not think clearly or act kindly. To suggest that what is big
> feels more than what is small, that the human animal feels more pain than
> other animals, that all creatures, being of less value than one's mother, need
> therefore receive no consideration, diminishes the person.
>
>
> Ruth Kazez

This is not about whether one animal has more value than another, or whether one
animal deserves more consideration than another. And frankly, I am quite
offended by your suggestion that I don't have consideration for other animals.
I've been raising fish for 35 years of my life: you cannot have such a hobby
for so long a time and not have emotional attachment to your animals. It is
about whether fish experience the human emotion of pain and suffering, which, if
certain people had paid attention in the science classes (or even taken one)
that some criticise me for taking, you would have discovered that they don't.

And my point is that we do know that they don't experience pain and suffering.
I've already posted the complete text, but I will, for your benefit, post a link
to an article, which talks in detail about whether fish can experience pain and
suffering:

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rtk" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snip>
>> My point is we do not know how the fish feels out of water, lying on the
>> counter, moving frantically and gasping. We're not going to find out in
>> school an no one will likely receive funding to research it. But we do
>> know about our own nervous systems and our ability to project our
>> feelings, to feel especially kindly toward those who are smaller than
>> us, to think logically about their well-being, and to treat all living
>> creatures with care. Some of can't do this, not think clearly or act
>> kindly. To suggest that what is big feels more than what is small, that
>> the human animal feels more pain than other animals, that all creatures,
>> being of less value than one's mother, need therefore receive no
>> consideration, diminishes the person.
>>
>>
>> Ruth Kazez
>
> This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say. Thanks Ruth.
>
> BV.
>

My point is that we do know. And to suggest that I don't have compassion for
other creatures is quite insulting and untrue. I would have thought that you
two would have more sense that this. Please read the article at the following
link:

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm

[george]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> george wrote:
>
>> Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors,
>> and do not have the peripheral or central nervous system to
>> experience what we would experience as pain.
>
> Perhaps you are unfamiliar with work done at the Roslin Institute in
> Scotland last year that demonstrated fish have a neurological response
> that is remarkably similar to the pain response in humans.
>

Yes I am familiar with their work, and it has some major flaws. To quote from
their web site:

"They carried out two types of experiment. In the first they anaesthetised trout
and used fine electrodes and sensitive recording equipment to capture the
electrical signals that were passing from the lips to the brain. When bee venom
was placed on the fish's lips, the pattern of the electrical recordings was
typical of those from pain receptors in humans, strongly suggesting that the
lips of fish also contain pain receptors. Bee venom was used as a convenient
experimental test noxious stimulus.

The second set of experiments was conducted on free swimming, hungry trout. When
food was provided the fish rapidly ate it up. If bee venom was applied to their
lips beforehand, the fish failed to eat the food and showed behaviours
indicative of discomfort. These behaviours provided further evidence that the
fish found the venom painful."


Now, read the article at the link below, and see if you can figure out where the
Roslin institute went wrong with their experiment.

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm


After you've read it, come back, and we'll discuss some more about why the
Roslin experiments are so flawed.

>> If a fish
>> is in such dire straights that it has to be "taken down", the chances
>> that it will "suffer" by removing it from water and allowing it to
>> die are highly unlikely.
>
> So you keep repeating. As I've already noted, repeating it over and
> over will not magically transform opinion into fact.

It IS a fact, not my opinion.

>
>>> This looks like a distraction tactic
>>> If you raise fish, you are going to experience dead fish.
>
> [paragraph snipped]
>
> As I expected, it was a distrction tactic, as it attempts to turn the
> debate away from the subject by getting involved in casting blame.
>
>
>> How do you think most pet shops deal
>> with dying fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable
>> treatements? Ask you pet shop owner what he does. I think you will
>> be surprised at the answer, if he/she will even give it to you.
>
> Argumentum ad verecundiam. How pet stores deal with their fish isn't
> relevant, and certainly doesn't qualify as an authoritative approach.
> History is replete with examples of 'most people' or 'authorities'
> acting stupidly.

Oh boy, here we go. If you are going to start throwing insults, and can't have
a rational conversation about the subject, then it is very clear that the
conversation is over.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
> ...
>> Bill Oertell wrote:
>>
>> >> one severe problem - your wife killing you for using her
>> >> blender that way.
>>
>> > Who said she had to find out?
>>
>> Bill, Bill, Bill, don't you know that they *always* find out,
>> eventually?
>
> They don't "find out" they just "know". LOL.
> BV.
>

It's the ring. It has radar!!!

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

> I am a scientist, girlfriend.

You would think a scientist would have better manners.


> If you can set aside your emotional reaction to the
> conversation for a moment, try to read this, and then
> tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

> http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm

Odd that you should require setting aside emotions when the article you
present classifies pain as having an emotional aspect.

The article suffers from a couple of problems, not the least of which
is that it was written for "Reviews of Fishery Science". It seems
probable that a periodical for that field has a vested interest in
arriving at the conclusion that fish do not feel pain. Certainly the
web site hosting the article does.


> the neurological processes that generate pain make it **highly
> unlikely** that fish experience the emotional distress and
> suffering of pain.

Emphasis added. After all those paragraphs, he hedges his bet with the
phrase "highly unlikely". I suppose I would have too, had I spent all
that time trying to spin pain as an emotional phenomenon, rather than a
physical sensation.


> P.S. - Or when a dying fish is put out of it's misery by taking it
> out of the water.

Excuse me - if a fish is incapable of suffering pain, how then is it
capable of experiencing misery?


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

>> repeating it over and over will not magically transform
>> opinion into fact.

> It IS a fact, not my opinion.

No, still not working. Try stamping your feet, see if that helps.


> Oh boy, here we go. If you are going to start throwing insults, and
> can't have a rational conversation about the subject, then it is very
> clear that the conversation is over.

Why are you suddenly interested in having a rational converstaion?
You've been making extreme and irrational statments all along. For
example "Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage rights,
the right to drive a car, or buy a house" and "you can always deliver
'last rights' after it expire". And let us not forget the bizarre
discussion of your mother's lingering death.

As for throwing insults, does the phrase "you PETA dorks make me want
to throw up" ring a bell?

That you're unwilling or unable to comprehend what I've been saying is
entirely your own problem. But if you want to declare the conversation
over, well, go ahead. Frankly, you should have bailed a long time ago.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[george]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> george wrote:
>
>> I am a scientist, girlfriend.
>
> You would think a scientist would have better manners.
>

Obviously, you don't know many.

>> If you can set aside your emotional reaction to the
>> conversation for a moment, try to read this, and then
>> tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.
>
>> http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
>
> Odd that you should require setting aside emotions when the article you
> present classifies pain as having an emotional aspect.
>
> The article suffers from a couple of problems, not the least of which
> is that it was written for "Reviews of Fishery Science". It seems
> probable that a periodical for that field has a vested interest in
> arriving at the conclusion that fish do not feel pain. Certainly the
> web site hosting the article does.

Oh please. Indeed. If it was written by the Pope, no doubt you would find
fault with it. The American Fisheries Society is a scientific organization of
biologists, scientists, fisheries managers, and fish-culture experts. They are
the leading experts in the field. Their research not only helps to improve the
quality of our rivers and streams, but that research has led to many medical
breakthroughs that have allowed you, for instance, to keep your fish healthy so
you don't have to euthanize them. And Dr. James Rose, the author of that
article, has spent 30 years researching brain function, including the reaction
to pain, and has done extensive work with fish and other animals. I could
provide other studies for you as well, but no doubt you aren't interested in the
facts, so there would be no point in my doing that.

>
>> the neurological processes that generate pain make it **highly
>> unlikely** that fish experience the emotional distress and
>> suffering of pain.
>
> Emphasis added. After all those paragraphs, he hedges his bet with the
> phrase "highly unlikely". I suppose I would have too, had I spent all
> that time trying to spin pain as an emotional phenomenon, rather than a
> physical sensation.

Well, obviously I'm wasting my time here. I've provided you with the facts
based on the best scientific information available. If you choose to ignore
them for whatever agenda you have, that is your choice. If you don't like my
choice for euthanizing fish, don't use it. You could always place your little
one in a fish bowl, take it to the vet and let him put it down with an
injection. No doubt, he would get a real chuckle out of it.

>> P.S. - Or when a dying fish is put out of it's misery by taking it
>> out of the water.
>
> Excuse me - if a fish is incapable of suffering pain, how then is it
> capable of experiencing misery?
>

Well, that was certainly an anthropomorphic statement on my part, now wasn't it?
Let me rephrase that so you will feel better. "Or when a dying fish is
"euthanized" by taking it out of the water and asphyxiating it.

[george]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> george wrote:
>
>>> repeating it over and over will not magically transform
>>> opinion into fact.
>
>> It IS a fact, not my opinion.
>
> No, still not working. Try stamping your feet, see if that helps.
>
>
>> Oh boy, here we go. If you are going to start throwing insults, and
>> can't have a rational conversation about the subject, then it is very
>> clear that the conversation is over.
>
> Why are you suddenly interested in having a rational converstaion?
> You've been making extreme and irrational statments all along. For
> example "Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage rights,
> the right to drive a car, or buy a house" and "you can always deliver
> 'last rights' after it expire". And let us not forget the bizarre
> discussion of your mother's lingering death.
>
> As for throwing insults, does the phrase "you PETA dorks make me want
> to throw up" ring a bell?
>
> That you're unwilling or unable to comprehend what I've been saying is
> entirely your own problem. But if you want to declare the conversation
> over, well, go ahead. Frankly, you should have bailed a long time ago.

I understand completely what you are saying. You are saying that you really
don't want to discuss facts, but would rather stay ignorant because it makes you
feel better than knowing the cold, hard truth.

[RichToyBox]

Fish may not feel pain by your definition of pain, but they feel discomfort,
which is one of my definitions of pain. If you don't believe it, look at
the actions of a fish with parasites, trying to scape them off, or jumping
out of the water to loosen them. They react to a tummy ache or head ache or
whatever by going and laying off by themselves, rather than swimming with
the other fish and coming to eat. When taken out of water, they do a lot of
flopping around trying to get back into the water, and I would say that was
a reaction to the discomfort of being out of water.

Specific wording with specific definitions doesn't change what the
respondents on this thread have been trying to say. Personnally I use the
clove oil, because it is used for other treatments, such as abrasion
treatments with iodine, parasite scrapings, and injections when needed. It
may not be needed for pain, but it makes the fish much easier to handle
during these procedures, and I "assume" much less "painful" for the fish.
Seeing a fish out of water is painful for me, if not them.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html

"george" > wrote in message
news:nXMvd.500557$wV.107640@attbi_s54...
>
> "Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
> ...
>> george wrote:
>>
>>>> repeating it over and over will not magically transform
>>>> opinion into fact.
>>
>>> It IS a fact, not my opinion.
>>
>> No, still not working. Try stamping your feet, see if that helps.
>>
>>
>>> Oh boy, here we go. If you are going to start throwing insults, and
>>> can't have a rational conversation about the subject, then it is very
>>> clear that the conversation is over.
>>
>> Why are you suddenly interested in having a rational converstaion?
>> You've been making extreme and irrational statments all along. For
>> example "Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage rights,
>> the right to drive a car, or buy a house" and "you can always deliver
>> 'last rights' after it expire". And let us not forget the bizarre
>> discussion of your mother's lingering death.
>>
>> As for throwing insults, does the phrase "you PETA dorks make me want
>> to throw up" ring a bell?
>>
>> That you're unwilling or unable to comprehend what I've been saying is
>> entirely your own problem. But if you want to declare the conversation
>> over, well, go ahead. Frankly, you should have bailed a long time ago.
>
> I understand completely what you are saying. You are saying that you
> really don't want to discuss facts, but would rather stay ignorant because
> it makes you feel better than knowing the cold, hard truth.
>

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:x5Kvd.655563$mD.524018@attbi_s02...
>
> "kc" wrote in message
> ...
> > Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the
only
> > things you own.
> > The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how
a
> > living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
> > Kirsten
>
> I am a scientist, girlfriend. But don't take my word for it. If you can
set
> aside your emotional reaction to the conversation for a moment, try to
read
> this, and then tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.
>
> http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
<snip>

Aside from the political aspects of that site, I am troubled by the article
from the first paragraph. Why is it that when this topic arises, the jump to
comparing fish and humans is always made. If a fish feels pain, the fish is
like a human. That is not accurate logic. Just because a person believes a
fish feels pain, does not mean that they think fish are like humans.

This article starts off with a great big dose of anthropomorphication (sp?).

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:4IJvd.655387$mD.411580@attbi_s02...
<snip>
> > You keep making the comparison of fish to humans. Nobody but you is
> > suggesting fish are on par with humans from a nervous system standpoint.
> > That does not change the fact that they may and probably do feel pain.
That
> > does not change the fact that anything we can do as fish owners to
minimize
> > this suffering is a good idea.
> >
> > Using your own faulted logic, and the story of your mother ailing from
old
> > age. Would you use a slow method of euthanasia on a loved one, simply
> > because they are "in so dire shape...that it is unlikely to feel much"?
> >
> > BV.
> >
>
> I certainly would not put her in a bag and smash her with a hammer. How's
that
> for an answer?

I certainly hope not. LOL.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:0PJvd.234897$HA.24792@attbi_s01...
<snip>
> > It is you that has repeatedly stated in this thread that "fish are not
as
> > complex as humans", and "fish don't feel like humans do". You are the
one
> > anthropomorphizing this conversation. Nobody else is making this
comparison.
>
> That is not anthropomorphizing. Do you even understand the meaning of the
word?
>
> anthropomorphize - to attribute human form or personality to things not
human.
>
> Your assumption that fish "suffer" is an anthropomorphization.

So are you saying only people can suffer? Do we need to step on your dogs
tail again? Me thinks it is YOU that does not understand the term. I will
admit, I do have trouble spelling it though. :)

> > My analogy using the dog was simply intended to point out the error in
your
> > logic. A less advanced creature does not by virtue of being less
advanced
> > deserve less respect, or lack of compassion. Human, Dog, fish, etc.
>
> I never said anything about not respecting other living creatures. That
you
> would think that I would do otherwise is disrespectful of me.

Saying you can just toss a fish on the ground because it doesn't feel pain
like a human is IMHO not respecting that creature.

> > The original thread was simply about minimizing the suffering of an
ailing
> > fish. You contend that fish are so less advanced then us, that simply
> > tossing it on the ground is adequate. I contend that any living being
should
> > be treated as important and as a pond owner I take that philosphy to a
> > degree whereby I do what I can to minize the suffering of every living
> > creature around me.
>
> I take it then, that you've never been fishing, or when you do, you have
someone
> else bait the hook. Am I close?

I fished once when I was child. Since then, I think maybe I have fished once
more after that. No bait. I am not comfortable with the practice, but don't
get me wrong, I am not saying no-one should fish, so don't go there.

> > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as we clearly have different
> > philosophies on the importance of lesser species.
> >
> > BV.
> >
> > P.S. I don't believe you can treate anything but humans, humanely. :)
> >
>
> Whatever that means.

It's a joke to try and lighten the mood.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:qgKvd.235012$HA.29767@attbi_s01...
<snip>
> This is not about whether one animal has more value than another, or
whether one
> animal deserves more consideration than another. And frankly, I am quite
> offended by your suggestion that I don't have consideration for other
animals.
> I've been raising fish for 35 years of my life: you cannot have such a
hobby
> for so long a time and not have emotional attachment to your animals. It
is
> about whether fish experience the human emotion of pain and suffering,
which, if
> certain people had paid attention in the science classes (or even taken
one)
> that some criticise me for taking, you would have discovered that they
don't.

There you go again making this connection between humans and fish. Nobody is
making this claim but you. Do you realize it is you making the
anthropomorphications (sp?) here?

> And my point is that we do know that they don't experience pain and
suffering.
> I've already posted the complete text, but I will, for your benefit, post
a link
> to an article, which talks in detail about whether fish can experience
pain and
> suffering:
>
> http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
>

We know? WE KNOW? This article ends with, "The facts about the neurological
processes that generate pain make it highly unlikely that fish experience
the emotional distress and suffering of pain."

WE KNOW?!?!?!?!?

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:%iKvd.235018$HA.74721@attbi_s01...
<snip>
> >
> > This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say. Thanks Ruth.
> >
> > BV.
> >
>
> My point is that we do know. And to suggest that I don't have compassion
for
> other creatures is quite insulting and untrue. I would have thought that
you
> two would have more sense that this. Please read the article at the
following
> link:
>
> http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
>

Yet the author sums up the article by saying, "The facts about the
neurological processes that generate pain make it highly unlikely that fish
experience the emotional distress and suffering of pain." So he KNOWS, yet
he only believes it to be unlikely. Can you say cop out boys and girls?

It's your opinion that fish don't feel pain and can be treated properly by
being tossed on the ground. It's the opinion of others that this is
insensitive. If you are troubled by that, that's in you, not us.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:ysKvd.186848$5K2.24832@attbi_s03...
>
> "Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
> ...
> > george wrote:
> >
> >> Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors,
> >> and do not have the peripheral or central nervous system to
> >> experience what we would experience as pain.
> >
> > Perhaps you are unfamiliar with work done at the Roslin Institute in
> > Scotland last year that demonstrated fish have a neurological response
> > that is remarkably similar to the pain response in humans.
> >
>
> Yes I am familiar with their work, and it has some major flaws. To quote
from
> their web site:
>
> "They carried out two types of experiment. In the first they anaesthetised
trout
> and used fine electrodes and sensitive recording equipment to capture the
> electrical signals that were passing from the lips to the brain. When bee
venom
> was placed on the fish's lips, the pattern of the electrical recordings
was
> typical of those from pain receptors in humans, strongly suggesting that
the
> lips of fish also contain pain receptors. Bee venom was used as a
convenient
> experimental test noxious stimulus.
>
> The second set of experiments was conducted on free swimming, hungry
trout. When
> food was provided the fish rapidly ate it up. If bee venom was applied to
their
> lips beforehand, the fish failed to eat the food and showed behaviours
> indicative of discomfort. These behaviours provided further evidence that
the
> fish found the venom painful."
>
>
> Now, read the article at the link below, and see if you can figure out
where the
> Roslin institute went wrong with their experiment.
>
> http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
>
>
> After you've read it, come back, and we'll discuss some more about why the
> Roslin experiments are so flawed.
<snip>

Oh yes, we get more and more Troll like with each post...now you want us to
do research to prove your point.

I eagerly await the name calling that usually follows in a thread like this.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:nXMvd.500557$wV.107640@attbi_s54...
>
> "Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
> ...
> > george wrote:
> >
> >>> repeating it over and over will not magically transform
> >>> opinion into fact.
> >
> >> It IS a fact, not my opinion.
> >
> > No, still not working. Try stamping your feet, see if that helps.
> >
> >
> >> Oh boy, here we go. If you are going to start throwing insults, and
> >> can't have a rational conversation about the subject, then it is very
> >> clear that the conversation is over.
> >
> > Why are you suddenly interested in having a rational converstaion?
> > You've been making extreme and irrational statments all along. For
> > example "Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage rights,
> > the right to drive a car, or buy a house" and "you can always deliver
> > 'last rights' after it expire". And let us not forget the bizarre
> > discussion of your mother's lingering death.
> >
> > As for throwing insults, does the phrase "you PETA dorks make me want
> > to throw up" ring a bell?
> >
> > That you're unwilling or unable to comprehend what I've been saying is
> > entirely your own problem. But if you want to declare the conversation
> > over, well, go ahead. Frankly, you should have bailed a long time ago.
>
> I understand completely what you are saying. You are saying that you
really
> don't want to discuss facts, but would rather stay ignorant because it
makes you
> feel better than knowing the cold, hard truth.
>
And the insults begin to fly...Here trolly trolly, here trolly trolly.

BV.

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

> Oh please. Indeed. If it was written by the Pope, no doubt you
> would find fault with it.

I simply consider it a good idea to view any information in the light
of the agenda of the organization publishing it.


> Well, obviously I'm wasting my time here. I've provided you with the
> facts based on the best scientific information available. If you
> choose to ignore them for whatever agenda you have, that is your
> choice.

You've provided a great deal of opinion, certainly, and no small amount
of emotionally charged commentary. So far, the level of 'fact' that
you've provided aren't exactly stellar.

As for my agenda, it's simple - minimize fish suffering.


> Let me rephrase that so you will feel better. "Or when a
> dying fish is "euthanized" by taking it out of the water and
> asphyxiating it.

Here's a new question for you - if, as you claim, fish cannot feel pain
and do not suffer, why do you bother euthanizing them at all? Why not
just let them die on their own?



--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

>> As for throwing insults, does the phrase "you PETA dorks make me
>> want to throw up" ring a bell?


> I understand completely what you are saying. You are saying that you
> really don't want to discuss facts, but would rather stay ignorant
> because it makes you feel better than knowing the cold, hard truth.

When you are prepared to replace your current tactics of emotionally
charged stories, absurdly extreme stretches, endless repetition of
opinion and occasional insult with facts, I'll be happy to discuss them.

Meanwhile, didn't you declare this conversation over?


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:4IJvd.655387$mD.411580@attbi_s02...
> <snip>
>> > You keep making the comparison of fish to humans. Nobody but you is
>> > suggesting fish are on par with humans from a nervous system standpoint.
>> > That does not change the fact that they may and probably do feel pain.
> That
>> > does not change the fact that anything we can do as fish owners to
> minimize
>> > this suffering is a good idea.
>> >
>> > Using your own faulted logic, and the story of your mother ailing from
> old
>> > age. Would you use a slow method of euthanasia on a loved one, simply
>> > because they are "in so dire shape...that it is unlikely to feel much"?
>> >
>> > BV.
>> >
>>
>> I certainly would not put her in a bag and smash her with a hammer. How's
> that
>> for an answer?
>
> I certainly hope not. LOL.
>
> BV.
>

Of course not. My mother got the death she wanted, but maybe not when she
expected it (who does?). That is perhaps the only consolation I have from the
entire ordeal, that and the fact that she live a long life, was a good woman who
worked her ass off for her family, and was loved by all who knew her.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:0PJvd.234897$HA.24792@attbi_s01...
> <snip>
>> > It is you that has repeatedly stated in this thread that "fish are not
> as
>> > complex as humans", and "fish don't feel like humans do". You are the
> one
>> > anthropomorphizing this conversation. Nobody else is making this
> comparison.
>>
>> That is not anthropomorphizing. Do you even understand the meaning of the
> word?
>>
>> anthropomorphize - to attribute human form or personality to things not
> human.
>>
>> Your assumption that fish "suffer" is an anthropomorphization.
>
> So are you saying only people can suffer? Do we need to step on your dogs
> tail again? Me thinks it is YOU that does not understand the term. I will
> admit, I do have trouble spelling it though. :)

I'm saying that fish can't experience pain and suffering because they aren't
physiologically built for it. Dogs and fish are not the same animal, at least
the last time I looked (there is a dogfish). Dogs do experience pain and
suffering, because they ARE built for it, as are we.

>> > My analogy using the dog was simply intended to point out the error in
> your
>> > logic. A less advanced creature does not by virtue of being less
> advanced
>> > deserve less respect, or lack of compassion. Human, Dog, fish, etc.
>>
>> I never said anything about not respecting other living creatures. That
> you
>> would think that I would do otherwise is disrespectful of me.
>
> Saying you can just toss a fish on the ground because it doesn't feel pain
> like a human is IMHO not respecting that creature.

On the contrary. Letting the fish languish in the pond until it dies, and/or
possibly infects the other fish is disrespectful.

>> > The original thread was simply about minimizing the suffering of an
> ailing
>> > fish. You contend that fish are so less advanced then us, that simply
>> > tossing it on the ground is adequate. I contend that any living being
> should
>> > be treated as important and as a pond owner I take that philosphy to a
>> > degree whereby I do what I can to minize the suffering of every living
>> > creature around me.
>>
>> I take it then, that you've never been fishing, or when you do, you have
> someone
>> else bait the hook. Am I close?
>
> I fished once when I was child. Since then, I think maybe I have fished once
> more after that. No bait. I am not comfortable with the practice, but don't
> get me wrong, I am not saying no-one should fish, so don't go there.

I am glad to hear that. I've raised fish for a very long time (mostly aquaria),
and have no problem with fishing, or with eating fish. Fish is by far more
healthy for you than just about any other animal food (as long as you don't eat
too much - who knows how much mercury is in the them these days?). Does that
make me a bad person, or disrespectful of the fish? I don't think so. I care
for my fish as well, if not better than most. Fish ponding is relatively new to
me, having built my pond only two and a half years ago (something that I've
worked towards for nearly 8 years). But in those two years, I've only lost one
fish (that jumped out, and wasn't found until it was too late) out of some 26
fish. My albino channel catfish has been sick twice, and I've been able to
bring him back to health both times. That's not a bad record, if I must say so.
And I've not lost an aquarium fish in more than five years.

>> > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as we clearly have different
>> > philosophies on the importance of lesser species.
>> >
>> > BV.
>> >
>> > P.S. I don't believe you can treate anything but humans, humanely. :)
>> >
>>
>> Whatever that means.
>
> It's a joke to try and lighten the mood.
>
> BV.

Ok. Oh, and if you or anyone else was offended by my PETA remark, my apologies
(only if you don't belong to them, though). I thik they do more harm than good.
It's just that they have been using some of the same arguments about fish having
"feelings" to justify harrassing fishermen, and wildlife officials. And that
doesn't sit well with me at all. Before too long, they will no doubt demand
that petshops and backyard ponds be banned.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:%iKvd.235018$HA.74721@attbi_s01...
> <snip>
>> >
>> > This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say. Thanks Ruth.
>> >
>> > BV.
>> >
>>
>> My point is that we do know. And to suggest that I don't have compassion
> for
>> other creatures is quite insulting and untrue. I would have thought that
> you
>> two would have more sense that this. Please read the article at the
> following
>> link:
>>
>> http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
>>
>
> Yet the author sums up the article by saying, "The facts about the
> neurological processes that generate pain make it highly unlikely that fish
> experience the emotional distress and suffering of pain." So he KNOWS, yet
> he only believes it to be unlikely. Can you say cop out boys and girls?

He is saying that as a for public consumption (in scientific terms, it's called
"covering oyur ass" - PETA has been after him because they obviously disagree
with him). I can guarantee that if you were to talk to the man in private, he
would not hesitate to say that they do not fell pain or emotional distress. He
has done more research on fish physiology than just about anyone alive today.
He's the experts' expert.

> It's your opinion that fish don't feel pain and can be treated properly by
> being tossed on the ground.

It's my opinion that a fish that is so close to death that one has to consider
euthanasia is so far gone that it doesn't matter if it once felt pain or not
(research shows that it doesn't), because no matter how you put it down, you are
doing it and the rest of the pond a favor. It is my opinion that nature just
doesn't give a damn about human emotional responses to death. Death is part of
the natural world. In nature, things die, then life recycles their bodies, and
no amount of our anthropomorphizing it will change that fact. We are, after
all, the only species that bury our dead in caskets (thus taking valuable
recyclable resources out of the natural world for generations to come). What
could be more unnatural than that?


> It's the opinion of others that this is
> insensitive. If you are troubled by that, that's in you, not us.
>
> BV.

I'm not troubled by the fact that others think my position is insensitive.
That's their problem, not mine. I know who I am, and am comfortable with being
me.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:qgKvd.235012$HA.29767@attbi_s01...
> <snip>
>> This is not about whether one animal has more value than another, or
> whether one
>> animal deserves more consideration than another. And frankly, I am quite
>> offended by your suggestion that I don't have consideration for other
> animals.
>> I've been raising fish for 35 years of my life: you cannot have such a
> hobby
>> for so long a time and not have emotional attachment to your animals. It
> is
>> about whether fish experience the human emotion of pain and suffering,
> which, if
>> certain people had paid attention in the science classes (or even taken
> one)
>> that some criticise me for taking, you would have discovered that they
> don't.
>
> There you go again making this connection between humans and fish. Nobody is
> making this claim but you.

No, actually you are. I just haven't convinced you that you are.

> Do you realize it is you making the
> anthropomorphications (sp?) here?

You guys say I'm insenstive to the "pain and suffering" of dying fish. I'm
saying believing that fish (not dogs) experience pain and suffering is attaching
human emotions to a non-human entity. That is an anthropomorphic attitude,
since it is abundantly clear from scientific research that they are
physiologically incapable of experiencing pain and suffering.

>> And my point is that we do know that they don't experience pain and
> suffering.
>> I've already posted the complete text, but I will, for your benefit, post
> a link
>> to an article, which talks in detail about whether fish can experience
> pain and
>> suffering:
>>
>> http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
>>
>
> We know? WE KNOW? This article ends with, "The facts about the neurological
> processes that generate pain make it highly unlikely that fish experience
> the emotional distress and suffering of pain."
>
> WE KNOW?!?!?!?!?
>
> BV.

Let me explain something about how scientists work. Science these days is
(unfortunately) as much about politics as it is science (even more so, some
would say). I am quite certain that he used the phrase "highly unlikely" simply
because PETA has been after him because they disagree with his work, and he
wants to keep them off his back. If you talk to him in private (and guarantee
that you are not from PETA) he would no tell you that he that research leaves no
doubt that fish do not experience pain and suffering. When the Roslin study was
published, they used it as ammunition to go after a whole lot of people,
including him. They even attacked people at sport fishing events. In recent
months, Dr. Rose has publically and in peer-reviewed work, refuted quite nicely
the Roslin study conclusions. I can provide more information if you care to
read it.

On the other hand, I'm have nothing to lose by saying what I have no doubt is
true.

[george]

"Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
...
> george wrote:
>
>> Oh please. Indeed. If it was written by the Pope, no doubt you
>> would find fault with it.
>
> I simply consider it a good idea to view any information in the light
> of the agenda of the organization publishing it.

That's fine. I have no problem with uninformed people keeping an open mind.
But I have worked with many scientists, and most are hard-working and very
honest people. Dr. Rose didn't get into his position by lying about his
research. He is well known and highly respected in his field. And you don't
publish false data with government funds and remain in business for long. It
might work in some fields, but not in aquatics research. There are too foo
jobs, and no one is going to jeapardize their job to disiminate that kind of
false information. We do have checks and balances, you know.

>
>> Well, obviously I'm wasting my time here. I've provided you with the
>> facts based on the best scientific information available. If you
>> choose to ignore them for whatever agenda you have, that is your
>> choice.
>
> You've provided a great deal of opinion, certainly, and no small amount
> of emotionally charged commentary. So far, the level of 'fact' that
> you've provided aren't exactly stellar.
>
> As for my agenda, it's simple - minimize fish suffering.

But that's the point. You expect me to provide proof that fish don't suffer,
which I have tried to provide (and can provide more, in you like). Yet you have
provided no evidence at all on which to base your argument that "fish suffer".
Well? What about it? Where's the beef?

>
>> Let me rephrase that so you will feel better. "Or when a
>> dying fish is "euthanized" by taking it out of the water and
>> asphyxiating it.
>
> Here's a new question for you - if, as you claim, fish cannot feel pain
> and do not suffer, why do you bother euthanizing them at all? Why not
> just let them die on their own?
>

Because if a fish is diseased and/or dying, I don't want it spreading infection
to the other fish in my pond. In fact, in my case, when I suspect that a fish
is sick, it is taken out of the pond immediately and quarantined. Does that
make sense to you?

[Eric Schreiber]

george wrote:

> you have provided no evidence at all on which to base
> your argument that "fish suffer". Well? What about it? Where's the
> beef?

I explained it already, but in your zeal I'm not surprised you missed
it.

I don't *know* if fish do or do not feel pain. Despite your enthusiasm
for one specific paper, which for reasons that are unclear equates pain
with emotion, the scientific community has been unable to conclusively
prove one way or another.

I do know that fish react to negative stimulus. I certainly don't
equate that with human perception of pain, but it is nevertheless clear
that fish experience distress of some sort.

Given the lack of objective scientific certainty, and my own
observations of fish responses, I choose to err on the side of caution.
When I decide that an ill or injured fish cannot be saved, I take the
responsibility to end the suffering (or misery, pain, distress,
biological response - call it what you will) as quickly as possible.

The logic is quite simple. Faced with a seriously ill fish, I have two
choices - let it die slowly on its own, or kill it quickly. One choice
may result in prolonged suffering, the other certainly does not.

Does that make sense to you?

--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:x5Kvd.655563$mD.524018@attbi_s02...
>>
>> "kc" wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the
> only
>> > things you own.
>> > The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how
> a
>> > living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
>> > Kirsten
>>
>> I am a scientist, girlfriend. But don't take my word for it. If you can
> set
>> aside your emotional reaction to the conversation for a moment, try to
> read
>> this, and then tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.
>>
>> http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
> <snip>
>
> Aside from the political aspects of that site, I am troubled by the article
> from the first paragraph. Why is it that when this topic arises, the jump to
> comparing fish and humans is always made.

The article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
researcher in the field. And the article was written for consumption by the
general public, not for scientists. The best way to get people to understand
this issue, and indeed many other issues about animals, is often by making such
comparisons, because that is what the most people can relate to. For instance,
many animals have a sense of sight. So do we, but our sense of sight is
different from most animals, as has been clearly demonstrated for many many
years. But even today, many people think other animals see things like we do.
So the best way to demostrate this is by comparing and contrasting traits of
other animals with those of people, and even among other animals. Some animals
(chimps, mice, even pigs) make great research anmimals for the very reason that
they share so many anatomical and physiological characteristics with us. In the
case of fish, pain and suffering are not one of them. In this sense (no pun
intended), fish are poor models for humans.

> If a fish feels pain, the fish is
> like a human. That is not accurate logic. Just because a person believes a
> fish feels pain, does not mean that they think fish are like humans.

If a fish felt pain like people do, researchers would jump at the chance to
study it because so many people are in so much pain, and it would make a good
animal model for human pain. What Dr. Rose suggested is that many people make
an unfounded assumption that fish feel pain. The key here is the many people
"believe" that a fish feels pain. His contention, and that of most scientists
working in the field, is that that belief can lead people to think of fish in
anthropomorphic terms. This attitude has increased as fish ponding and the
aqaurium hobby has grown. It is understandable because we as a society cherish
pets, and have an emotional need for them. And many fish enthusiasts are also
dog and cat owners. We all like to think of our fish as these cute, attractive
little harmless creatures, and even become emotionally attached to them (which
is true of most pet owners) when the fact is that in their world, they are top
predators. The top dogs. And viscious ones at that. They eat their own young,
and those of any other fish or animal they can get in their mouths without a
second thought about it. Many species being sold today are only a few
generations away from the wild streams, lakes, or the ocean from which they
came. They are not true domesticates. Some of the newer species being sold are
truly wild species. Hence, African cichlids, which have only been avaliable in
pet shops for a couple of decades are much more agressive than South American
cichids, which are relatively more docile and have been available (and bred) for
many years. In the wild, the difference nearly disappears.

Even cats are not fully domesticated and they've been with us for a couple of
thousand years. You have noticed how independant cats are, haven't you? They
are like that because they still have a lot of wild cat in them. Much of that
independance and agressiveness hasn't been bred out of them. Much recent
evidence has shown conclusively that dogs have been around human campfires for
many thousands of years, possibly since we first started building camp fires.
They have adapted to us, and us to them. By and large, the agressiveness of the
wolf has been bred out of them through thousands of years of selective breeding.

Ok, I went off on a tangent. Sorry. Back to the issue. Since people
experience pain and suffering, people tend to believe (or would like to believe)
that other animals share that experience. He is saying that a lot of scientific
evidence shows that, at least with respect to fish, this is not the case. Even
with the few receptors that were found in the Roslin study, the fact is that
those receptors are tied into the midbrain of the animal, a part of the brain
that only handles autonomic (or automatic, if you like) bodily functions, is a
clear indicator that they do not experience stimulus from those receptors as
"pain". A fish has no neocortex, which is where all pain in higher animals,
including humans, is registered. The receptors in the mouth of a fish trigger
the flight or fight response in fish, just like similar cels do in everything
from humans down to an amoeba. The difference is that higher organisms, like
humans, have a cerebral hemisphere, and enbedded in it is a neocortex. The
neocortex is where pain is assimilated and experienced in all mammals. Cut it
out of a person, and he/she could no more feel pain than could an amoeba.
Likewise, if you cut the spinal chord of a human, sensation stops below where it
is cut, even pain.

So fish, in this respect, are like someone who's had severe cortex damage and
can no longer feel pain. But their midbrain registers the signals, and triggers
the fight or flight response. But if a fish is near death, and you can reach
down and pick it up and it can't run away from your because it is so sick, it
certainly cannot sit in your hand and worry about any forthcoming pain it may
receive at your hands, since it has no cerebrum with which to form such though
processes. Certainly, it may twitch, and try to flip out of your hand, but that
is certainly the last gasp of a tiny dying nervous system. Is that pain? I
think not at all.

> This article starts off with a great big dose of anthropomorphication (sp?).
>
> BV.
>

Again, the article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
researcher in the field. And he is writing an article for consumption by the
general public. The best way to get people to understand this issue, and indeed
many other issues about animals, is often by making such comparisons, because
that is what the most people can relate to.

[george]

"RichToyBox" > wrote in message
...
> Fish may not feel pain by your definition of pain, but they feel discomfort,
> which is one of my definitions of pain. If you don't believe it, look at the
> actions of a fish with parasites, trying to scape them off, or jumping out of
> the water to loosen them. They react to a tummy ache or head ache or whatever
> by going and laying off by themselves, rather than swimming with the other
> fish and coming to eat. When taken out of water, they do a lot of flopping
> around trying to get back into the water, and I would say that was a reaction
> to the discomfort of being out of water.

Fight or flight response. Sorry. That is not pain. That is a midbrain
function, an involuntary response. Humans can express laughter and sadness.
Two very different emotional responses. The physiological process involved is
exactly the same. The difference is how your brain interprets the stimulus. It
is a very complex interaction between the nerves and senses of our bodies and
the higher functions of our brain, specifically the neocortex portion of the
cerebral hemisphere. Pain is nearly the exact same physiological response. The
difference between these emotions is in how our neocortex interpretes the
signals. We have it hardwired in our bodies to have those physiological
responses, and to distinguish between what the stimulus means (ever wonder why
people laugh when Dick Van Dyke stubs his toe?). So do other animals,
particularly mammalian predators. The difference in that how we experience
those sensations depend on how our our neocortex interprets the stimulus. We
can make the distinctions between laughter, sadness, and pain because we have
the hardware (and to an extent, the software) to make the distinction. Fish
have no such hardware. They have no neocortex, and very little memory. Our
existence is dominated by our cerebral hemispheres. The life of a fish is
dominated by its brainstem, which exlusively processes and sends out autonomic,
or involuntary responses to stimulus.

> Specific wording with specific definitions doesn't change what the respondents
> on this thread have been trying to say. Personnally I use the clove oil,
> because it is used for other treatments, such as abrasion treatments with
> iodine, parasite scrapings, and injections when needed. It may not be needed
> for pain, but it makes the fish much easier to handle during these procedures,
> and I "assume" much less "painful" for the fish. Seeing a fish out of water is
> painful for me, if not them.

Ah, that is the real issue, isn't it? How it makes us feel. Am I Right?
Again, anthropomorphization. It makes us feel bad at least in part, because we
sympathize with it and think that we wouldn't want to "feel" like what we think
the fish is feeling. No offense, but how we feel about the issue has no bearing
on what a fish is or is not feeling.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:ysKvd.186848$5K2.24832@attbi_s03...
>>
>> "Eric Schreiber" <eric at ericschreiber dot com> wrote in message
>> ...
>> > george wrote:
>> >
>> >> Take a comarative anatomy class. Fish have very few pain receptors,
>> >> and do not have the peripheral or central nervous system to
>> >> experience what we would experience as pain.
>> >
>> > Perhaps you are unfamiliar with work done at the Roslin Institute in
>> > Scotland last year that demonstrated fish have a neurological response
>> > that is remarkably similar to the pain response in humans.
>> >
>>
>> Yes I am familiar with their work, and it has some major flaws. To quote
> from
>> their web site:
>>
>> "They carried out two types of experiment. In the first they anaesthetised
> trout
>> and used fine electrodes and sensitive recording equipment to capture the
>> electrical signals that were passing from the lips to the brain. When bee
> venom
>> was placed on the fish's lips, the pattern of the electrical recordings
> was
>> typical of those from pain receptors in humans, strongly suggesting that
> the
>> lips of fish also contain pain receptors. Bee venom was used as a
> convenient
>> experimental test noxious stimulus.
>>
>> The second set of experiments was conducted on free swimming, hungry
> trout. When
>> food was provided the fish rapidly ate it up. If bee venom was applied to
> their
>> lips beforehand, the fish failed to eat the food and showed behaviours
>> indicative of discomfort. These behaviours provided further evidence that
> the
>> fish found the venom painful."
>>
>>
>> Now, read the article at the link below, and see if you can figure out
> where the
>> Roslin institute went wrong with their experiment.
>>
>> http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
>>
>>
>> After you've read it, come back, and we'll discuss some more about why the
>> Roslin experiments are so flawed.
> <snip>
>
> Oh yes, we get more and more Troll like with each post...now you want us to
> do research to prove your point.
>
> I eagerly await the name calling that usually follows in a thread like this.
>
> BV.
>

BV, please understand, you guys called me to task on the issue. I've provided
the information to back up what I've said. I can provide more, if you like.
You responded earlier to it, and I responded back with answers. I would have
thought that since you are raising fish, that you would be more interested in
learning how they are actually put together, and how the parts all work
together. It certainly makes for a more enlightened pet owner. Hence my
earlier frustration. Having said all of that, it's my turn to ask you to
provide the evidence for your belief that fish experience pain and suffering,
and exactly how they are able to do it. You expect me to see it your way, but I
require objective proof, the same kind of proof that you expected of me. It's
only fair.

[rtk]

george wrote:

You are saying that you really
> don't want to discuss facts, but would rather stay ignorant because it makes you
> feel better than knowing the cold, hard truth.

And there we get to the heart and soul of the problem. The truth need
not be cold or hard, nor facts brutal.

Ruth Kazez
kazez.com
>
>

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:teQvd.656190$mD.522271@attbi_s02...
<snip>
> On the other hand, I'm have nothing to lose by saying what I have no doubt
is
> true.

Well then I guess we just need to agree to disagree.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:BZRvd.656324$mD.54017@attbi_s02...
<snip>
> BV, please understand, you guys called me to task on the issue. I've
provided
> the information to back up what I've said. I can provide more, if you
like.
> You responded earlier to it, and I responded back with answers. I would
have
> thought that since you are raising fish, that you would be more interested
in
> learning how they are actually put together, and how the parts all work
> together. It certainly makes for a more enlightened pet owner. Hence my
> earlier frustration. Having said all of that, it's my turn to ask you to
> provide the evidence for your belief that fish experience pain and
suffering,
> and exactly how they are able to do it. You expect me to see it your way,
but I
> require objective proof, the same kind of proof that you expected of me.
It's
> only fair.

You have a valid point with one exception. I am not argueing that fish feel
pain, I am argueing that I do not know if they do or do not. So erroring on
the side of compassion, I feel it is safer to assume they feel pain, and as
such treat them with compassion. So you see I can't provide data to support
my claim, because my claim is I don't know. :)

As for fish anatomy, I'd love to discuss that...and as you seem
knowledgeable, I'd love to further those discussions. In fact, I am going to
run off now and start some new threads...

BV.

[george]

"rtk" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> george wrote:
>
> You are saying that you really
>> don't want to discuss facts, but would rather stay ignorant because it makes
>> you feel better than knowing the cold, hard truth.
>
> And there we get to the heart and soul of the problem. The truth need not be
> cold or hard, nor facts brutal.
>
> Ruth Kazez
> kazez.com
>>

Well, if you want to get philosophical, I must tell you I believe that the world
we live in is a wonderous, beautiful place, full of mystery. Yet within that
awesome beauty is a cold, stark truth, and that is that the universe is ever
moving towards chaos and absolute zero. The laws of thermodynamics demand it.
We see this fact in the mountains that rise up, only to erode onto the plains,
and eventually back into the sea, in the sun which is ever burning towards
extinction, and in an ever expanding universe that will eventually reach
absolute zero temperature because of its sheer expansiveness and ultimate
dispersion of energy.

A recent memoir by my paleontology professor contains a passage that, in my
opinion sums up what I'm trying to say. His name is Dr. James E. Conkin,
Professor Emeritus in the Geology department (now folded into the Geography
Department) at the University of Louiville. In his memoir, "A Geologist's
Ramblings Through The Labyrinths of Time", He states the following:

"These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background
"noise" to which nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or
punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear", for were it not so, Nature
itself would be destroyed by these same laws which it had ordained "in the
beginning" (if there were one) and must continue to operate in perpetuity (if
time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be an ending to the
cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never
returning to cosmos." The one constant that can not be doubted is the
inevidability of change. So all in all, death is an inescapable part of our
world, our universe. It is part of the very fabric, part of the engine that
drives the universe. But never fear. I'm not completely without a positive
outlook, for I am often reminded of Omar Khayyam's wish (he was a Persian
mathematician, philosopher, and astronomer in 1048 C.E.), that "my tomb shall be
in a spot where the north wind may scatter roses over it". It's something to
think about when you're sitting out by the pond throwing food at the fish. :-))

George

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:BZRvd.656324$mD.54017@attbi_s02...
> <snip>
>> BV, please understand, you guys called me to task on the issue. I've
> provided
>> the information to back up what I've said. I can provide more, if you
> like.
>> You responded earlier to it, and I responded back with answers. I would
> have
>> thought that since you are raising fish, that you would be more interested
> in
>> learning how they are actually put together, and how the parts all work
>> together. It certainly makes for a more enlightened pet owner. Hence my
>> earlier frustration. Having said all of that, it's my turn to ask you to
>> provide the evidence for your belief that fish experience pain and
> suffering,
>> and exactly how they are able to do it. You expect me to see it your way,
> but I
>> require objective proof, the same kind of proof that you expected of me.
> It's
>> only fair.
>
> You have a valid point with one exception. I am not argueing that fish feel
> pain, I am argueing that I do not know if they do or do not. So erroring on
> the side of compassion, I feel it is safer to assume they feel pain, and as
> such treat them with compassion. So you see I can't provide data to support
> my claim, because my claim is I don't know. :)
>
> As for fish anatomy, I'd love to discuss that...and as you seem
> knowledgeable, I'd love to further those discussions. In fact, I am going to
> run off now and start some new threads...
>
> BV.
>

Probably a good idea. I can be tiresome sometimes.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:5wPvd.656159$mD.341878@attbi_s02...
<snip>
> Of course not. My mother got the death she wanted, but maybe not when she
> expected it (who does?). That is perhaps the only consolation I have from
the
> entire ordeal, that and the fact that she live a long life, was a good
woman who
> worked her ass off for her family, and was loved by all who knew her.

I hope she didn't suffer, and offer my condolences for your loss.

BV.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:QORvd.758002$8_6.134000@attbi_s04...
<snip>
> (ever wonder why people laugh when Dick Van Dyke stubs his toe?). So do
other animals,
<snip>

I hate to off on a humorous angle, but other animals laugh when Dick Van
Dyke stubs his toe?

Sorry I couldn't resist

--
BV
Webporgmaster of iheartmypond.com
I'll be leaning on the bus stop post.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:QORvd.758002$8_6.134000@attbi_s04...
>
> "RichToyBox" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Fish may not feel pain by your definition of pain, but they feel
discomfort,
> > which is one of my definitions of pain. If you don't believe it, look
at the
> > actions of a fish with parasites, trying to scape them off, or jumping
out of
> > the water to loosen them. They react to a tummy ache or head ache or
whatever
> > by going and laying off by themselves, rather than swimming with the
other
> > fish and coming to eat. When taken out of water, they do a lot of
flopping
> > around trying to get back into the water, and I would say that was a
reaction
> > to the discomfort of being out of water.
>
> Fight or flight response. Sorry. That is not pain. That is a midbrain
> function, an involuntary response. Humans can express laughter and
sadness.
> Two very different emotional responses. The physiological process
involved is
> exactly the same. The difference is how your brain interprets the
stimulus. It
> is a very complex interaction between the nerves and senses of our bodies
and
> the higher functions of our brain, specifically the neocortex portion of
the
> cerebral hemisphere. Pain is nearly the exact same physiological
response. The
> difference between these emotions is in how our neocortex interpretes the
> signals. We have it hardwired in our bodies to have those physiological
> responses, and to distinguish between what the stimulus means (ever wonder
why
> people laugh when Dick Van Dyke stubs his toe?). So do other animals,
> particularly mammalian predators. The difference in that how we
experience
> those sensations depend on how our our neocortex interprets the stimulus.

Doesn't this assume that fish process the pain in the same manner as humans?
Isn't it possible that fish have a more simple thathurtsswimawaycortex? We
can distinguish between a pinch in the butt and a kick in the ass, because
we have the hardware/software. That doesn't mean that all pain processing is
so capable in all animals. Isn't that a valid possibility?

<snip>
> > Specific wording with specific definitions doesn't change what the
respondents
> > on this thread have been trying to say. Personnally I use the clove
oil,
> > because it is used for other treatments, such as abrasion treatments
with
> > iodine, parasite scrapings, and injections when needed. It may not be
needed
> > for pain, but it makes the fish much easier to handle during these
procedures,
> > and I "assume" much less "painful" for the fish. Seeing a fish out of
water is
> > painful for me, if not them.
>
> Ah, that is the real issue, isn't it? How it makes us feel. Am I Right?
> Again, anthropomorphization. It makes us feel bad at least in part,
because we
> sympathize with it and think that we wouldn't want to "feel" like what we
think
> the fish is feeling. No offense, but how we feel about the issue has no
bearing
> on what a fish is or is not feeling.

I disagree. I do not think it is anthropomorphizing the situation by
considering the fish's suffering. it would be anthropomorphizing the
situation if the fish gasped, grabbed it's chest, and then fell down
dramatically.

And I wish we could drop that concept, because that word is very difficult
to type.


--
BV
Webporgmaster of iheartmypond.com
I'll be leaning on the bus stop post.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:umYvd.759042$8_6.648558@attbi_s04...
<snip>
> > You have a valid point with one exception. I am not argueing that fish
feel
> > pain, I am argueing that I do not know if they do or do not. So erroring
on
> > the side of compassion, I feel it is safer to assume they feel pain, and
as
> > such treat them with compassion. So you see I can't provide data to
support
> > my claim, because my claim is I don't know. :)
> >
> > As for fish anatomy, I'd love to discuss that...and as you seem
> > knowledgeable, I'd love to further those discussions. In fact, I am
going to
> > run off now and start some new threads...
> >
> > BV.
> >
>
> Probably a good idea. I can be tiresome sometimes.
>

Clearly we are all very passionate about this topic. Passion is rarely
tiresome, tiring, but not tiresome.


--
BV
Webporgmaster of iheartmypond.com
I'll be leaning on the bus stop post.

[REBEL JOE]

I LOVE OUR ICE QUEEN LEAVE HER ALONE LOL. DON'T MIND HIM NEDRA



http://community.webtv.net/rebeljoe/POND

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:5wPvd.656159$mD.341878@attbi_s02...
> <snip>
>> Of course not. My mother got the death she wanted, but maybe not when she
>> expected it (who does?). That is perhaps the only consolation I have from
> the
>> entire ordeal, that and the fact that she live a long life, was a good
> woman who
>> worked her ass off for her family, and was loved by all who knew her.
>
> I hope she didn't suffer, and offer my condolences for your loss.
>
> BV.
>

Unfortunately, she did suffer a lot, but thankfully it didn't drag out for years
like it does for some. I had an aunt who had Alzheimer's, and who lingered for
12 years in a nursing home. I cannot imagine what her family went through.
Anyway, thanks for the sentiment.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:QORvd.758002$8_6.134000@attbi_s04...
>>
>> "RichToyBox" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Fish may not feel pain by your definition of pain, but they feel
> discomfort,
>> > which is one of my definitions of pain. If you don't believe it, look
> at the
>> > actions of a fish with parasites, trying to scape them off, or jumping
> out of
>> > the water to loosen them. They react to a tummy ache or head ache or
> whatever
>> > by going and laying off by themselves, rather than swimming with the
> other
>> > fish and coming to eat. When taken out of water, they do a lot of
> flopping
>> > around trying to get back into the water, and I would say that was a
> reaction
>> > to the discomfort of being out of water.
>>
>> Fight or flight response. Sorry. That is not pain. That is a midbrain
>> function, an involuntary response. Humans can express laughter and
> sadness.
>> Two very different emotional responses. The physiological process
> involved is
>> exactly the same. The difference is how your brain interprets the
> stimulus. It
>> is a very complex interaction between the nerves and senses of our bodies
> and
>> the higher functions of our brain, specifically the neocortex portion of
> the
>> cerebral hemisphere. Pain is nearly the exact same physiological
> response. The
>> difference between these emotions is in how our neocortex interpretes the
>> signals. We have it hardwired in our bodies to have those physiological
>> responses, and to distinguish between what the stimulus means (ever wonder
> why
>> people laugh when Dick Van Dyke stubs his toe?). So do other animals,
>> particularly mammalian predators. The difference in that how we
> experience
>> those sensations depend on how our our neocortex interprets the stimulus.
>
> Doesn't this assume that fish process the pain in the same manner as humans?

If by that you are asking if they process the stimulus in the same way, the
answer is no, because they process the stimulus in their brainstem, whereas we
take it a giant step further and filter it through our neocortex, which is an
organ fish don't have. THAT is a quantum leap from what fish do.

> Isn't it possible that fish have a more simple thathurtsswimawaycortex? We
> can distinguish between a pinch in the butt and a kick in the ass, because
> we have the hardware/software. That doesn't mean that all pain processing is
> so capable in all animals. Isn't that a valid possibility?

You are confusing pain with stimulus. Pain is an emotional reaction to harmful
stimulus, the reaction occurring in the neocortex of higher life forms. Fish do
not have a neocortex and so cannot form the emotional reaction that we call
pain. So their reaction is simply a fight or flight response originating from
their midbrain.

> <snip>
>> > Specific wording with specific definitions doesn't change what the
> respondents
>> > on this thread have been trying to say. Personnally I use the clove
> oil,
>> > because it is used for other treatments, such as abrasion treatments
> with
>> > iodine, parasite scrapings, and injections when needed. It may not be
> needed
>> > for pain, but it makes the fish much easier to handle during these
> procedures,
>> > and I "assume" much less "painful" for the fish. Seeing a fish out of
> water is
>> > painful for me, if not them.
>>
>> Ah, that is the real issue, isn't it? How it makes us feel. Am I Right?
>> Again, anthropomorphization. It makes us feel bad at least in part,
> because we
>> sympathize with it and think that we wouldn't want to "feel" like what we
> think
>> the fish is feeling. No offense, but how we feel about the issue has no
> bearing
>> on what a fish is or is not feeling.
>
> I disagree. I do not think it is anthropomorphizing the situation by
> considering the fish's suffering. it would be anthropomorphizing the
> situation if the fish gasped, grabbed it's chest, and then fell down
> dramatically.

If the fish gasped, grabbed it's chest, and then fell down dramatically, it
would certainly be considered anthropomorphizing - on the part of the fish!
Again, when a person attributes human form or personality to things not human,
that is anthropomorphizing. Attributing the emotion of suffering to an animal
that is incapble of said emotion IS the very essence of the definition of
anthropomorphizing.


> And I wish we could drop that concept, because that word is very difficult
> to type.

Fine. come up with a different term for it. Call it human-centered, if you
like.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:umYvd.759042$8_6.648558@attbi_s04...
> <snip>
>> > You have a valid point with one exception. I am not argueing that fish
> feel
>> > pain, I am argueing that I do not know if they do or do not. So erroring
> on
>> > the side of compassion, I feel it is safer to assume they feel pain, and
> as
>> > such treat them with compassion. So you see I can't provide data to
> support
>> > my claim, because my claim is I don't know. :)
>> >
>> > As for fish anatomy, I'd love to discuss that...and as you seem
>> > knowledgeable, I'd love to further those discussions. In fact, I am
> going to
>> > run off now and start some new threads...
>> >
>> > BV.
>> >
>>
>> Probably a good idea. I can be tiresome sometimes.
>>
>
> Clearly we are all very passionate about this topic. Passion is rarely
> tiresome, tiring, but not tiresome.
>

Well one result is that at least the group is still alive.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:_Q_vd.198222$V41.106219@attbi_s52...
<snip>
> > Doesn't this assume that fish process the pain in the same manner as
humans?
>
> If by that you are asking if they process the stimulus in the same way,
the
> answer is no, because they process the stimulus in their brainstem,
whereas we
> take it a giant step further and filter it through our neocortex, which is
an
> organ fish don't have. THAT is a quantum leap from what fish do.

Agreed, about the difference. (On a side note, I always giggle at the phrase
Quantum Leap. If it were a Quantum leap, the difference would be small, not
great. LOL) I don't however agree that pain can only be defined by what you
refer to as our emotional response. Just because humans respond to pain in
one way, does not mean that other species respond in the same manner.

> > Isn't it possible that fish have a more simple thathurtsswimawaycortex?
We
> > can distinguish between a pinch in the butt and a kick in the ass,
because
> > we have the hardware/software. That doesn't mean that all pain
processing is
> > so capable in all animals. Isn't that a valid possibility?
>
> You are confusing pain with stimulus. Pain is an emotional reaction to
harmful
> stimulus, the reaction occurring in the neocortex of higher life forms.
Fish do
> not have a neocortex and so cannot form the emotional reaction that we
call
> pain. So their reaction is simply a fight or flight response originating
from
> their midbrain.

It seems we need to come up with a definition of pain that we both agree is
correct. I'd venture to say we have two different definitions.

<snip>


--
BV
Webporgmaster of iheartmypond.com
I'll be leaning on the bus stop post.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:JR_vd.575185$D%.424645@attbi_s51...
<snip>
> >> > As for fish anatomy, I'd love to discuss that...and as you seem
> >> > knowledgeable, I'd love to further those discussions. In fact, I am
> > going to
> >> > run off now and start some new threads...
> >> >
> >> > BV.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Probably a good idea. I can be tiresome sometimes.
> >>
> >
> > Clearly we are all very passionate about this topic. Passion is rarely
> > tiresome, tiring, but not tiresome.
> >
>
> Well one result is that at least the group is still alive.
>

If the great salt battle of 2003-2004 can't kill this group, certainly the
fish/pain issue can't. LOL.


--
BV
Webporgmaster of iheartmypond.com
I'll be leaning on the bus stop post.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:DG_vd.503997$wV.248751@attbi_s54...
>
> "Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "george" > wrote in message
> > news:5wPvd.656159$mD.341878@attbi_s02...
> > <snip>
> >> Of course not. My mother got the death she wanted, but maybe not when
she
> >> expected it (who does?). That is perhaps the only consolation I have
from
> > the
> >> entire ordeal, that and the fact that she live a long life, was a good
> > woman who
> >> worked her ass off for her family, and was loved by all who knew her.
> >
> > I hope she didn't suffer, and offer my condolences for your loss.
> >
> > BV.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, she did suffer a lot, but thankfully it didn't drag out for
years
> like it does for some. I had an aunt who had Alzheimer's, and who
lingered for
> 12 years in a nursing home. I cannot imagine what her family went
through.
> Anyway, thanks for the sentiment.
>

My wife's grandmother is going through this now, and as of a week or so ago,
she has become quite bad from what I understand. I am getting a direct
exposure to it's effects, so I feel your pain.

I think you are a ninny when it comes to the fish/pain issue (tongue in
cheek, of course) but I can definately feel for you in regards to your
mother.

BV.

[Nedra]

OMGosh!!! Thanks for the boost up, Rebel Joe .... Whew - I feel ever so
much
better. Actually I was trying to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear ;-) LOL
Nedra

Lotus Garden:
http://community.webshots.com/user/nedra118
Backyard Pond:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/4836

"REBEL JOE" > wrote in message
...
> I LOVE OUR ICE QUEEN LEAVE HER ALONE LOL. DON'T MIND HIM NEDRA
>
>
>
> http://community.webtv.net/rebeljoe/POND
>

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:DG_vd.503997$wV.248751@attbi_s54...
>>
>> "Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "george" > wrote in message
>> > news:5wPvd.656159$mD.341878@attbi_s02...
>> > <snip>
>> >> Of course not. My mother got the death she wanted, but maybe not when
> she
>> >> expected it (who does?). That is perhaps the only consolation I have
> from
>> > the
>> >> entire ordeal, that and the fact that she live a long life, was a good
>> > woman who
>> >> worked her ass off for her family, and was loved by all who knew her.
>> >
>> > I hope she didn't suffer, and offer my condolences for your loss.
>> >
>> > BV.
>> >
>>
>> Unfortunately, she did suffer a lot, but thankfully it didn't drag out for
> years
>> like it does for some. I had an aunt who had Alzheimer's, and who
> lingered for
>> 12 years in a nursing home. I cannot imagine what her family went
> through.
>> Anyway, thanks for the sentiment.
>>
>
> My wife's grandmother is going through this now, and as of a week or so ago,
> she has become quite bad from what I understand. I am getting a direct
> exposure to it's effects, so I feel your pain.
>
> I think you are a ninny when it comes to the fish/pain issue (tongue in
> cheek, of course) but I can definately feel for you in regards to your
> mother.
>
> BV.

Well, we all have our quirks, do we not?

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:_Q_vd.198222$V41.106219@attbi_s52...
> <snip>
>> > Doesn't this assume that fish process the pain in the same manner as
> humans?
>>
>> If by that you are asking if they process the stimulus in the same way,
> the
>> answer is no, because they process the stimulus in their brainstem,
> whereas we
>> take it a giant step further and filter it through our neocortex, which is
> an
>> organ fish don't have. THAT is a quantum leap from what fish do.
>
> Agreed, about the difference. (On a side note, I always giggle at the phrase
> Quantum Leap. If it were a Quantum leap, the difference would be small, not
> great. LOL) I don't however agree that pain can only be defined by what you
> refer to as our emotional response. Just because humans respond to pain in
> one way, does not mean that other species respond in the same manner.

That's the way it is defined in the pyhsiology text books. Take it up with the
NSF.

>> > Isn't it possible that fish have a more simple thathurtsswimawaycortex?
> We
>> > can distinguish between a pinch in the butt and a kick in the ass,
> because
>> > we have the hardware/software. That doesn't mean that all pain
> processing is
>> > so capable in all animals. Isn't that a valid possibility?
>>
>> You are confusing pain with stimulus. Pain is an emotional reaction to
> harmful
>> stimulus, the reaction occurring in the neocortex of higher life forms.
> Fish do
>> not have a neocortex and so cannot form the emotional reaction that we
> call
>> pain. So their reaction is simply a fight or flight response originating
> from
>> their midbrain.
>
> It seems we need to come up with a definition of pain that we both agree is
> correct. I'd venture to say we have two different definitions.
>
> <snip>

I use the scientific definition. What are you using?

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:JR_vd.575185$D%.424645@attbi_s51...
> <snip>
>> >> > As for fish anatomy, I'd love to discuss that...and as you seem
>> >> > knowledgeable, I'd love to further those discussions. In fact, I am
>> > going to
>> >> > run off now and start some new threads...
>> >> >
>> >> > BV.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Probably a good idea. I can be tiresome sometimes.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Clearly we are all very passionate about this topic. Passion is rarely
>> > tiresome, tiring, but not tiresome.
>> >
>>
>> Well one result is that at least the group is still alive.
>>
>
> If the great salt battle of 2003-2004 can't kill this group, certainly the
> fish/pain issue can't. LOL.
>

agreed. Not to open up old wounds, but I used salt a little this summer, and
found that my catfish wasn't very tolerant of it. I have a lot of limestone and
dolomite rocks in my pond that act as a buffer, so I don't think it is an issue
with my pond.

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:jc5wd.760759$8_6.402731@attbi_s04...
<snip>
> > It seems we need to come up with a definition of pain that we both agree
is
> > correct. I'd venture to say we have two different definitions.
> >
> > <snip>
>
> I use the scientific definition. What are you using?
>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pain

BV,

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:jc5wd.760759$8_6.402731@attbi_s04...
> <snip>
>> > It seems we need to come up with a definition of pain that we both agree
> is
>> > correct. I'd venture to say we have two different definitions.
>> >
>> > <snip>
>>
>> I use the scientific definition. What are you using?
>>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pain
>
> BV,
>

From the National Academies:

The widely accepted definition of pain was developed by a taxonomy task force of
the International Association for the Study of Pain: "Pain is an unpleasant
sensory and emotional experience that is associated with actual or potential
tissue damage or described in such terms." A key feature of this definition is
that it goes on to say, "pain is always subjective. " This aspect of the
definition reflects on the issue Dr. Bayne raised when she commented about
interpretation of animal behavior and appearance by an observer based on
feelings of the observer. We naturally have the tendency, when we observe an
animal, to use our own past experiences to interpret and comment on what we
perceive or believe to be the animal's status relative to discomfort, pain, or
distress. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for our past personal
experiences to be meaningfully applied to an animal. Training and experience in
studying and observing animal behavior are required to interpret what we observe
in nonhuman animals.

[george]

"rtk" > wrote in message ...
> The subject is a sick fish lying on the kitchen counter, gasping and
> contorting and appearing to even the youngest child to be uncomfortable.

To you, maybe. I would never put a fish that was that alive in that situation.
The subject is a fish that is so sick that it can't swim, and just floats on
it's side and is incapable of fleeing when you put your hand around it.

> You look at the fish and you think of how the National Academies defines pain,
> what the researches at such and such institution have printed in 1000 words or
> more about the nervous systems of fish, about the relative tolerance for acute
> and chronic discomfort of the human animal, especially when closely related,
> to the small fish on the counter, and then you discuss these matters at length
> on a couple newsgroups.
>
> Meanwhile the little fish continues what you theorize is its non-miserable
> gasping and contortions.
>
> Is there something wrong with this picture? Am I detecting a peculiar lack of
> spontaneous response to a creature in need? Can we say *empathy?*
>
> Ruth Kazez
>

Yes, there is something wrong with this picture. What is wrong is that you've
placed a sick fish that might be savable on a kitchen counter. See above. You
can have empathy for an animal and still put it down. We do it for horses. We
can certainly do it for a goldfish.

[rtk]

george wrote:
You
> can have empathy for an animal and still put it down. We do it for horses. We
> can certainly do it for a goldfish.

Put it down, yes, quickly and what appears painlessly to our empathetic
eyes. And if we're wrong and there's no pain, what harm have we done?

Ruth Kazez
>
>

[Benign Vanilla]

"george" > wrote in message
news:8Ggwd.270267$R05.30763@attbi_s53...
>
> "rtk" > wrote in message
...
> > The subject is a sick fish lying on the kitchen counter, gasping and
> > contorting and appearing to even the youngest child to be uncomfortable.
>
> To you, maybe. I would never put a fish that was that alive in that
situation.
> The subject is a fish that is so sick that it can't swim, and just floats
on
> it's side and is incapable of fleeing when you put your hand around it.
>
> > You look at the fish and you think of how the National Academies defines
pain,
> > what the researches at such and such institution have printed in 1000
words or
> > more about the nervous systems of fish, about the relative tolerance for
acute
> > and chronic discomfort of the human animal, especially when closely
related,
> > to the small fish on the counter, and then you discuss these matters at
length
> > on a couple newsgroups.
> >
> > Meanwhile the little fish continues what you theorize is its
non-miserable
> > gasping and contortions.
> >
> > Is there something wrong with this picture? Am I detecting a peculiar
lack of
> > spontaneous response to a creature in need? Can we say *empathy?*
> >
> > Ruth Kazez
> >
>
> Yes, there is something wrong with this picture. What is wrong is that
you've
> placed a sick fish that might be savable on a kitchen counter. See above.
You
> can have empathy for an animal and still put it down. We do it for
horses. We
> can certainly do it for a goldfish.
>

Now I am really confused...George, haven't you been arguein that you would
put a sick fish on the ground and let it gasp for breath until dead?

BV.

[george]

"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> news:8Ggwd.270267$R05.30763@attbi_s53...
>>
>> "rtk" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > The subject is a sick fish lying on the kitchen counter, gasping and
>> > contorting and appearing to even the youngest child to be uncomfortable.
>>
>> To you, maybe. I would never put a fish that was that alive in that
> situation.
>> The subject is a fish that is so sick that it can't swim, and just floats
> on
>> it's side and is incapable of fleeing when you put your hand around it.
>>
>> > You look at the fish and you think of how the National Academies defines
> pain,
>> > what the researches at such and such institution have printed in 1000
> words or
>> > more about the nervous systems of fish, about the relative tolerance for
> acute
>> > and chronic discomfort of the human animal, especially when closely
> related,
>> > to the small fish on the counter, and then you discuss these matters at
> length
>> > on a couple newsgroups.
>> >
>> > Meanwhile the little fish continues what you theorize is its
> non-miserable
>> > gasping and contortions.
>> >
>> > Is there something wrong with this picture? Am I detecting a peculiar
> lack of
>> > spontaneous response to a creature in need? Can we say *empathy?*
>> >
>> > Ruth Kazez
>> >
>>
>> Yes, there is something wrong with this picture. What is wrong is that
> you've
>> placed a sick fish that might be savable on a kitchen counter. See above.
> You
>> can have empathy for an animal and still put it down. We do it for
> horses. We
>> can certainly do it for a goldfish.
>>
>
> Now I am really confused...George, haven't you been arguein that you would
> put a sick fish on the ground and let it gasp for breath until dead?
>
> BV.
>

A dying fish, BV. A dying fish. If it is just sick, why would I put it down if
I can do something to make it well? Ruth's statement was "The subject is a sick
fish lying on the kitchen counter, gasping and contorting and appearing to even
the youngest child to be uncomfortable." That has nothing to do with what we
are talking about. We are talking about a fish that is so sick that there is no
hope for it to recover. In other words, it would be on it's last leg. My
experience with treating fish is that those who aren't able to flop around and
contort "on the counter", as she puts it, are too sick to recover. Obviously if
a fish is able to do so, it may have enough energy left to be saved, and I would
do all I can to save it. If it is floating on it's side and is unable to swim
away or make any effort to do so when you try to catch it, obviously it is too
far gone to practically do anything for it. At that point, is is probably
already gasping even while still in the water.

[Yorkshire Pudding]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:26:58 GMT, "george"
> wrote:

>
>"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "george" > wrote in message
>> news:8Ggwd.270267$R05.30763@attbi_s53...
>>>
>>> "rtk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> > The subject is a sick fish lying on the kitchen counter, gasping and
>>> > contorting and appearing to even the youngest child to be uncomfortable.
>>>
>>> To you, maybe. I would never put a fish that was that alive in that
>> situation.
>>> The subject is a fish that is so sick that it can't swim, and just floats
>> on
>>> it's side and is incapable of fleeing when you put your hand around it.
>>>
>>> > You look at the fish and you think of how the National Academies defines
>> pain,
>>> > what the researches at such and such institution have printed in 1000
>> words or
>>> > more about the nervous systems of fish, about the relative tolerance for
>> acute
>>> > and chronic discomfort of the human animal, especially when closely
>> related,
>>> > to the small fish on the counter, and then you discuss these matters at
>> length
>>> > on a couple newsgroups.
>>> >
>>> > Meanwhile the little fish continues what you theorize is its
>> non-miserable
>>> > gasping and contortions.
>>> >
>>> > Is there something wrong with this picture? Am I detecting a peculiar
>> lack of
>>> > spontaneous response to a creature in need? Can we say *empathy?*
>>> >
>>> > Ruth Kazez
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yes, there is something wrong with this picture. What is wrong is that
>> you've
>>> placed a sick fish that might be savable on a kitchen counter. See above.
>> You
>>> can have empathy for an animal and still put it down. We do it for
>> horses. We
>>> can certainly do it for a goldfish.
>>>
>>
>> Now I am really confused...George, haven't you been arguein that you would
>> put a sick fish on the ground and let it gasp for breath until dead?
>>
>> BV.
>>
>
>A dying fish, BV. A dying fish. If it is just sick, why would I put it down if
>I can do something to make it well? Ruth's statement was "The subject is a sick
>fish lying on the kitchen counter, gasping and contorting and appearing to even
>the youngest child to be uncomfortable." That has nothing to do with what we
>are talking about. We are talking about a fish that is so sick that there is no
>hope for it to recover. In other words, it would be on it's last leg. My
>experience with treating fish is that those who aren't able to flop around and
>contort "on the counter", as she puts it, are too sick to recover. Obviously if
>a fish is able to do so, it may have enough energy left to be saved, and I would
>do all I can to save it. If it is floating on it's side and is unable to swim
>away or make any effort to do so when you try to catch it, obviously it is too
>far gone to practically do anything for it. At that point, is is probably
>already gasping even while still in the water.
>
FFS I think that everybody now has formed their own opinions about how
to treat an obviously dying organism. No matter what the species is,
if it's life has to be brought to an end, it's blatently obvious that
this act should be performed in as quick and painless a method as
possible. Please don't use the "anthy" word again as it seems not many
of the posters to this thread are fully aware of it's true definition.
Just coat the bugger in breadcrumbs and get it into the Deep Fat Fryer
as soon as possible.

YP

Howard
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/otters/Fish.htm

[Benign Vanilla]

"Yorkshire Pudding" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> FFS I think that everybody now has formed their own opinions about how
> to treat an obviously dying organism. No matter what the species is,
> if it's life has to be brought to an end, it's blatently obvious that
> this act should be performed in as quick and painless a method as
> possible. Please don't use the "anthy" word again as it seems not many
> of the posters to this thread are fully aware of it's true definition.
> Just coat the bugger in breadcrumbs and get it into the Deep Fat Fryer
> as soon as possible.
<snip>

Which reminds me of my recipe for Carp.

1. Baste the carp in butter, garlic, kosher salt and ground pepper. Add some
red pepper flakes if you like spicey.
2. Preheat the oven to 350.
3. Place the carp in a cardboard box and bake for 10 minutes.
4. Take the carp out of the box, throw it away and eat the box.

BV.

[Yorkshire Pudding]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:49:59 -0500, "Benign Vanilla"
> wrote:

>
>"Yorkshire Pudding" > wrote in message
...
><snip>
>> FFS I think that everybody now has formed their own opinions about how
>> to treat an obviously dying organism. No matter what the species is,
>> if it's life has to be brought to an end, it's blatently obvious that
>> this act should be performed in as quick and painless a method as
>> possible. Please don't use the "anthy" word again as it seems not many
>> of the posters to this thread are fully aware of it's true definition.
>> Just coat the bugger in breadcrumbs and get it into the Deep Fat Fryer
>> as soon as possible.
><snip>
>
>Which reminds me of my recipe for Carp.
>
>1. Baste the carp in butter, garlic, kosher salt and ground pepper. Add some
>red pepper flakes if you like spicey.
>2. Preheat the oven to 350.
>3. Place the carp in a cardboard box and bake for 10 minutes.
>4. Take the carp out of the box, throw it away and eat the box.
>
>BV.
>
LOL

YP

[Yorkshire Pudding]

On a more serious note, wouldn't the best person to consult be your
vet?

Howard
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/otters/Fish.htm

[Gale Pearce]

> Which reminds me of my recipe for Carp.
>
> 1. Baste the carp in butter, garlic, kosher salt and ground pepper. Add
some
> red pepper flakes if you like spicey.
> 2. Preheat the oven to 350.
> 3. Place the carp in a cardboard box and bake for 10 minutes.
> 4. Take the carp out of the box, throw it away and eat the box.
>
> BV.
I took the liberty to add another step to your recipe : :~>>>>>>>>
Hope you don't mind - some gourmet chefs are a little touchy about someone
messing with their recipes - no affront intended

1. Baste the carp in butter, garlic, kosher salt and ground pepper. Add some
red pepper flakes if you like spicey.
2. Preheat the oven to 350.
3. Place the carp in a cardboard box and bake for 10 minutes.
4. Take the carp out of the box, throw it away and eat the box.
5. Have your garden hose ready and possibly your Fire Dept # on speed dial
Gale :~)

[Ka30P]

And bringing the thread around full circle, or something like that...

HEADLINE: Polish Ecologists Want Better Deal for Xmas Carp

story
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/28572/story.htm








kathy

[~ jan JJsPond.us]

I know this thread has died, but my ISP finally got me out of lurker
purgatory so my posts could be seen again. To the statement below:

>> How do you think most pet shops deal
>> with dying fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable
>> treatements? Ask you pet shop owner what he does. I think you will
>> be surprised at the answer, if he/she will even give it to you.
>
I had replied several days ago:
IME, pet shops let them die in the tank. Why? The hope is some (choose your
adjective) soul might come by and buy the fish because they think they can
"save" it. Not to mention the 2 week guarantee, so the customer isn't out
any money even if it does die. Thus, pet store fish are usually quite dead
before they're tossed in the trash. ~ jan ;o)


~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

[george]

"~ jan JJsPond.us" > wrote in message
...
>I know this thread has died, but my ISP finally got me out of lurker
> purgatory so my posts could be seen again. To the statement below:
>
>>> How do you think most pet shops deal
>>> with dying fish that can no longer be saved by reasonable
>>> treatements? Ask you pet shop owner what he does. I think you will
>>> be surprised at the answer, if he/she will even give it to you.
>>
> I had replied several days ago:
> IME, pet shops let them die in the tank. Why? The hope is some (choose your
> adjective) soul might come by and buy the fish because they think they can
> "save" it. Not to mention the 2 week guarantee, so the customer isn't out
> any money even if it does die. Thus, pet store fish are usually quite dead
> before they're tossed in the trash. ~ jan ;o)
>
>
> ~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~
>

So I ask you, is this any more humane than my earlier suggestion?

[~ jan JJsPond.us]

>> IME, pet shops let them die in the tank. Why? The hope is some (choose your
>> adjective) soul might come by and buy the fish because they think they can
>> "save" it. Not to mention the 2 week guarantee, so the customer isn't out
>> any money even if it does die. Thus, pet store fish are usually quite dead
>> before they're tossed in the trash. ~ jan ;o)
>>
George replied:

>So I ask you, is this any more humane than my earlier suggestion?

Sorry George, I'm not going there.

My comment was only to the "what do pet shops do". I'm in the "knock 'em
down with Finquel and freeze" group, and if they're as big as a keeper
trout, whop them on top of the head, if you're talented enough to do so. I
could never just toss 'em on the ground, even if there was absolute proof
they were not suffering, as *I* would be suffering, why cause myself pain?
~ jan ;o)


~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

[george]

"~ jan JJsPond.us" > wrote in message
...
>>> IME, pet shops let them die in the tank. Why? The hope is some (choose your
>>> adjective) soul might come by and buy the fish because they think they can
>>> "save" it. Not to mention the 2 week guarantee, so the customer isn't out
>>> any money even if it does die. Thus, pet store fish are usually quite dead
>>> before they're tossed in the trash. ~ jan ;o)
>>>
> George replied:
>
>>So I ask you, is this any more humane than my earlier suggestion?
>
> Sorry George, I'm not going there.
>
> My comment was only to the "what do pet shops do". I'm in the "knock 'em
> down with Finquel and freeze" group, and if they're as big as a keeper
> trout, whop them on top of the head, if you're talented enough to do so. I
> could never just toss 'em on the ground, even if there was absolute proof
> they were not suffering, as *I* would be suffering, why cause myself pain?
> ~ jan ;o)

Good enough.

[asmith]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:01:29 GMT, "george"
> wrote:

>
>"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "george" > wrote in message
>> news:x5Kvd.655563$mD.524018@attbi_s02...
>>>
>>> "kc" wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the
>> only
>>> > things you own.
>>> > The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how
>> a
>>> > living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
>>> > Kirsten
>>>
>>> I am a scientist, girlfriend. But don't take my word for it. If you can
>> set
>>> aside your emotional reaction to the conversation for a moment, try to
>> read
>>> this, and then tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.
>>>
>>> http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
>> <snip>
>>
>> Aside from the political aspects of that site, I am troubled by the article
>> from the first paragraph. Why is it that when this topic arises, the jump to
>> comparing fish and humans is always made.
>
>The article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
>researcher in the field. And the article was written for consumption by the
>general public, not for scientists. The best way to get people to understand
>this issue, and indeed many other issues about animals, is often by making such
>comparisons, because that is what the most people can relate to. For instance,
>many animals have a sense of sight. So do we, but our sense of sight is
>different from most animals, as has been clearly demonstrated for many many
>years. But even today, many people think other animals see things like we do.
>So the best way to demostrate this is by comparing and contrasting traits of
>other animals with those of people, and even among other animals. Some animals
>(chimps, mice, even pigs) make great research anmimals for the very reason that
>they share so many anatomical and physiological characteristics with us. In the
>case of fish, pain and suffering are not one of them. In this sense (no pun
>intended), fish are poor models for humans.
>
>> If a fish feels pain, the fish is
>> like a human. That is not accurate logic. Just because a person believes a
>> fish feels pain, does not mean that they think fish are like humans.
>
>If a fish felt pain like people do, researchers would jump at the chance to
>study it because so many people are in so much pain, and it would make a good
>animal model for human pain. What Dr. Rose suggested is that many people make
>an unfounded assumption that fish feel pain. The key here is the many people
>"believe" that a fish feels pain. His contention, and that of most scientists
>working in the field, is that that belief can lead people to think of fish in
>anthropomorphic terms. This attitude has increased as fish ponding and the
>aqaurium hobby has grown. It is understandable because we as a society cherish
>pets, and have an emotional need for them. And many fish enthusiasts are also
>dog and cat owners. We all like to think of our fish as these cute, attractive
>little harmless creatures, and even become emotionally attached to them (which
>is true of most pet owners) when the fact is that in their world, they are top
>predators. The top dogs. And viscious ones at that. They eat their own young,
>and those of any other fish or animal they can get in their mouths without a
>second thought about it. Many species being sold today are only a few
>generations away from the wild streams, lakes, or the ocean from which they
>came. They are not true domesticates. Some of the newer species being sold are
>truly wild species. Hence, African cichlids, which have only been avaliable in
>pet shops for a couple of decades are much more agressive than South American
>cichids, which are relatively more docile and have been available (and bred) for
>many years. In the wild, the difference nearly disappears.
>
>Even cats are not fully domesticated and they've been with us for a couple of
>thousand years. You have noticed how independant cats are, haven't you? They
>are like that because they still have a lot of wild cat in them. Much of that
>independance and agressiveness hasn't been bred out of them. Much recent
>evidence has shown conclusively that dogs have been around human campfires for
>many thousands of years, possibly since we first started building camp fires.
>They have adapted to us, and us to them. By and large, the agressiveness of the
>wolf has been bred out of them through thousands of years of selective breeding.
>
>Ok, I went off on a tangent. Sorry. Back to the issue. Since people
>experience pain and suffering, people tend to believe (or would like to believe)
>that other animals share that experience. He is saying that a lot of scientific
>evidence shows that, at least with respect to fish, this is not the case. Even
>with the few receptors that were found in the Roslin study, the fact is that
>those receptors are tied into the midbrain of the animal, a part of the brain
>that only handles autonomic (or automatic, if you like) bodily functions, is a
>clear indicator that they do not experience stimulus from those receptors as
>"pain". A fish has no neocortex, which is where all pain in higher animals,
>including humans, is registered. The receptors in the mouth of a fish trigger
>the flight or fight response in fish, just like similar cels do in everything
>from humans down to an amoeba. The difference is that higher organisms, like
>humans, have a cerebral hemisphere, and enbedded in it is a neocortex. The
>neocortex is where pain is assimilated and experienced in all mammals. Cut it
>out of a person, and he/she could no more feel pain than could an amoeba.
>Likewise, if you cut the spinal chord of a human, sensation stops below where it
>is cut, even pain.
>
>So fish, in this respect, are like someone who's had severe cortex damage and
>can no longer feel pain. But their midbrain registers the signals, and triggers
>the fight or flight response. But if a fish is near death, and you can reach
>down and pick it up and it can't run away from your because it is so sick, it
>certainly cannot sit in your hand and worry about any forthcoming pain it may
>receive at your hands, since it has no cerebrum with which to form such though
>processes. Certainly, it may twitch, and try to flip out of your hand, but that
>is certainly the last gasp of a tiny dying nervous system. Is that pain? I
>think not at all.
>
>> This article starts off with a great big dose of anthropomorphication (sp?).
>>
>> BV.
>>
>
>Again, the article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
>researcher in the field. And he is writing an article for consumption by the
>general public. The best way to get people to understand this issue, and indeed
>many other issues about animals, is often by making such comparisons, because
>that is what the most people can relate to.
>

I can relate to this. You Rhodes Scholars sure know how to waste
bandwidth.

[Eric Schreiber]

asmith wrote:

> I can relate to this. You Rhodes Scholars sure know how to waste
> bandwidth.

I trust this was a poor attempt at irony?


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

[george]

"asmith" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:01:29 GMT, "george"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "george" > wrote in message
>>> news:x5Kvd.655563$mD.524018@attbi_s02...
>>>>
>>>> "kc" wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the
>>> only
>>>> > things you own.
>>>> > The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how
>>> a
>>>> > living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
>>>> > Kirsten
>>>>
>>>> I am a scientist, girlfriend. But don't take my word for it. If you can
>>> set
>>>> aside your emotional reaction to the conversation for a moment, try to
>>> read
>>>> this, and then tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Aside from the political aspects of that site, I am troubled by the article
>>> from the first paragraph. Why is it that when this topic arises, the jump to
>>> comparing fish and humans is always made.
>>
>>The article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
>>researcher in the field. And the article was written for consumption by the
>>general public, not for scientists. The best way to get people to understand
>>this issue, and indeed many other issues about animals, is often by making
>>such
>>comparisons, because that is what the most people can relate to. For instance,
>>many animals have a sense of sight. So do we, but our sense of sight is
>>different from most animals, as has been clearly demonstrated for many many
>>years. But even today, many people think other animals see things like we do.
>>So the best way to demostrate this is by comparing and contrasting traits of
>>other animals with those of people, and even among other animals. Some
>>animals
>>(chimps, mice, even pigs) make great research anmimals for the very reason
>>that
>>they share so many anatomical and physiological characteristics with us. In
>>the
>>case of fish, pain and suffering are not one of them. In this sense (no pun
>>intended), fish are poor models for humans.
>>
>>> If a fish feels pain, the fish is
>>> like a human. That is not accurate logic. Just because a person believes a
>>> fish feels pain, does not mean that they think fish are like humans.
>>
>>If a fish felt pain like people do, researchers would jump at the chance to
>>study it because so many people are in so much pain, and it would make a good
>>animal model for human pain. What Dr. Rose suggested is that many people make
>>an unfounded assumption that fish feel pain. The key here is the many people
>>"believe" that a fish feels pain. His contention, and that of most scientists
>>working in the field, is that that belief can lead people to think of fish in
>>anthropomorphic terms. This attitude has increased as fish ponding and the
>>aqaurium hobby has grown. It is understandable because we as a society
>>cherish
>>pets, and have an emotional need for them. And many fish enthusiasts are also
>>dog and cat owners. We all like to think of our fish as these cute,
>>attractive
>>little harmless creatures, and even become emotionally attached to them (which
>>is true of most pet owners) when the fact is that in their world, they are top
>>predators. The top dogs. And viscious ones at that. They eat their own
>>young,
>>and those of any other fish or animal they can get in their mouths without a
>>second thought about it. Many species being sold today are only a few
>>generations away from the wild streams, lakes, or the ocean from which they
>>came. They are not true domesticates. Some of the newer species being sold
>>are
>>truly wild species. Hence, African cichlids, which have only been avaliable
>>in
>>pet shops for a couple of decades are much more agressive than South American
>>cichids, which are relatively more docile and have been available (and bred)
>>for
>>many years. In the wild, the difference nearly disappears.
>>
>>Even cats are not fully domesticated and they've been with us for a couple of
>>thousand years. You have noticed how independant cats are, haven't you? They
>>are like that because they still have a lot of wild cat in them. Much of that
>>independance and agressiveness hasn't been bred out of them. Much recent
>>evidence has shown conclusively that dogs have been around human campfires for
>>many thousands of years, possibly since we first started building camp fires.
>>They have adapted to us, and us to them. By and large, the agressiveness of
>>the
>>wolf has been bred out of them through thousands of years of selective
>>breeding.
>>
>>Ok, I went off on a tangent. Sorry. Back to the issue. Since people
>>experience pain and suffering, people tend to believe (or would like to
>>believe)
>>that other animals share that experience. He is saying that a lot of
>>scientific
>>evidence shows that, at least with respect to fish, this is not the case.
>>Even
>>with the few receptors that were found in the Roslin study, the fact is that
>>those receptors are tied into the midbrain of the animal, a part of the brain
>>that only handles autonomic (or automatic, if you like) bodily functions, is a
>>clear indicator that they do not experience stimulus from those receptors as
>>"pain". A fish has no neocortex, which is where all pain in higher animals,
>>including humans, is registered. The receptors in the mouth of a fish trigger
>>the flight or fight response in fish, just like similar cels do in everything
>>from humans down to an amoeba. The difference is that higher organisms, like
>>humans, have a cerebral hemisphere, and enbedded in it is a neocortex. The
>>neocortex is where pain is assimilated and experienced in all mammals. Cut it
>>out of a person, and he/she could no more feel pain than could an amoeba.
>>Likewise, if you cut the spinal chord of a human, sensation stops below where
>>it
>>is cut, even pain.
>>
>>So fish, in this respect, are like someone who's had severe cortex damage and
>>can no longer feel pain. But their midbrain registers the signals, and
>>triggers
>>the fight or flight response. But if a fish is near death, and you can reach
>>down and pick it up and it can't run away from your because it is so sick, it
>>certainly cannot sit in your hand and worry about any forthcoming pain it may
>>receive at your hands, since it has no cerebrum with which to form such though
>>processes. Certainly, it may twitch, and try to flip out of your hand, but
>>that
>>is certainly the last gasp of a tiny dying nervous system. Is that pain? I
>>think not at all.
>>
>>> This article starts off with a great big dose of anthropomorphication (sp?).
>>>
>>> BV.
>>>
>>
>>Again, the article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
>>researcher in the field. And he is writing an article for consumption by the
>>general public. The best way to get people to understand this issue, and
>>indeed
>>many other issues about animals, is often by making such comparisons, because
>>that is what the most people can relate to.
>>
>
> I can relate to this. You Rhodes Scholars sure know how to waste
> bandwidth.

Cable modems tend to persuade one to make longer posts.

[Benign Vanilla]

"asmith" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> >Again, the article was written by one of the most respected (if not the
best)
> >researcher in the field. And he is writing an article for consumption by
the
> >general public. The best way to get people to understand this issue, and
indeed
> >many other issues about animals, is often by making such comparisons,
because
> >that is what the most people can relate to.
> >
>
> I can relate to this. You Rhodes Scholars sure know how to waste
> bandwidth.

As do people that reply to a post, and do no snippage. Thou shalt snip.


--
BV
Webporgmaster of iheartmypond.com
Check out the IHMP forums, ihmp.net/phpbb
I'll be leaning on the bus stop post.