"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.