fish euthanasia

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

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.