fish euthanasia

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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

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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.