fish euthanasia

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.

"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.