fish euthanasia

"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.

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.

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

"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.

"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" 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" 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.

"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" 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" 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.