fish euthanasia

"RichToyBox" wrote in message
...
Fish may not feel pain by your definition of pain, but they feel discomfort,
which is one of my definitions of pain. If you don't believe it, look at the
actions of a fish with parasites, trying to scape them off, or jumping out of
the water to loosen them. They react to a tummy ache or head ache or whatever
by going and laying off by themselves, rather than swimming with the other
fish and coming to eat. When taken out of water, they do a lot of flopping
around trying to get back into the water, and I would say that was a reaction
to the discomfort of being out of water.

Fight or flight response. Sorry. That is not pain. That is a midbrain
function, an involuntary response. Humans can express laughter and sadness.
Two very different emotional responses. The physiological process involved is
exactly the same. The difference is how your brain interprets the stimulus. It
is a very complex interaction between the nerves and senses of our bodies and
the higher functions of our brain, specifically the neocortex portion of the
cerebral hemisphere. Pain is nearly the exact same physiological response. The
difference between these emotions is in how our neocortex interpretes the
signals. We have it hardwired in our bodies to have those physiological
responses, and to distinguish between what the stimulus means (ever wonder why
people laugh when Dick Van Dyke stubs his toe?). So do other animals,
particularly mammalian predators. The difference in that how we experience
those sensations depend on how our our neocortex interprets the stimulus. We
can make the distinctions between laughter, sadness, and pain because we have
the hardware (and to an extent, the software) to make the distinction. Fish
have no such hardware. They have no neocortex, and very little memory. Our
existence is dominated by our cerebral hemispheres. The life of a fish is
dominated by its brainstem, which exlusively processes and sends out autonomic,
or involuntary responses to stimulus.

Specific wording with specific definitions doesn't change what the respondents
on this thread have been trying to say. Personnally I use the clove oil,
because it is used for other treatments, such as abrasion treatments with
iodine, parasite scrapings, and injections when needed. It may not be needed
for pain, but it makes the fish much easier to handle during these procedures,
and I "assume" much less "painful" for the fish. Seeing a fish out of water is
painful for me, if not them.

Ah, that is the real issue, isn't it? How it makes us feel. Am I Right?
Again, anthropomorphization. It makes us feel bad at least in part, because we
sympathize with it and think that we wouldn't want to "feel" like what we think
the fish is feeling. No offense, but how we feel about the issue has no bearing
on what a fish is or is not feeling.

"george" wrote in message
news:QORvd.758002$8_6.134000@attbi_s04...
snip
(ever wonder why people laugh when Dick Van Dyke stubs his toe?). So do
other animals,
snip

I hate to off on a humorous angle, but other animals laugh when Dick Van
Dyke stubs his toe?

Sorry I couldn't resist

--
BV
Webporgmaster of iheartmypond.com
I'll be leaning on the bus stop post.

"george" wrote in message
news:QORvd.758002$8_6.134000@attbi_s04...

"RichToyBox" wrote in message
...
Fish may not feel pain by your definition of pain, but they feel
discomfort,
which is one of my definitions of pain. If you don't believe it, look
at the
actions of a fish with parasites, trying to scape them off, or jumping
out of
the water to loosen them. They react to a tummy ache or head ache or
whatever
by going and laying off by themselves, rather than swimming with the
other
fish and coming to eat. When taken out of water, they do a lot of
flopping
around trying to get back into the water, and I would say that was a
reaction
to the discomfort of being out of water.

Fight or flight response. Sorry. That is not pain. That is a midbrain
function, an involuntary response. Humans can express laughter and
sadness.
Two very different emotional responses. The physiological process
involved is
exactly the same. The difference is how your brain interprets the
stimulus. It
is a very complex interaction between the nerves and senses of our bodies
and
the higher functions of our brain, specifically the neocortex portion of
the
cerebral hemisphere. Pain is nearly the exact same physiological
response. The
difference between these emotions is in how our neocortex interpretes the
signals. We have it hardwired in our bodies to have those physiological
responses, and to distinguish between what the stimulus means (ever wonder
why
people laugh when Dick Van Dyke stubs his toe?). So do other animals,
particularly mammalian predators. The difference in that how we
experience
those sensations depend on how our our neocortex interprets the stimulus.

Doesn't this assume that fish process the pain in the same manner as humans?
Isn't it possible that fish have a more simple thathurtsswimawaycortex? We
can distinguish between a pinch in the butt and a kick in the ass, because
we have the hardware/software. That doesn't mean that all pain processing is
so capable in all animals. Isn't that a valid possibility?

snip
Specific wording with specific definitions doesn't change what the
respondents
on this thread have been trying to say. Personnally I use the clove
oil,
because it is used for other treatments, such as abrasion treatments
with
iodine, parasite scrapings, and injections when needed. It may not be
needed
for pain, but it makes the fish much easier to handle during these
procedures,
and I "assume" much less "painful" for the fish. Seeing a fish out of
water is
painful for me, if not them.

Ah, that is the real issue, isn't it? How it makes us feel. Am I Right?
Again, anthropomorphization. It makes us feel bad at least in part,
because we
sympathize with it and think that we wouldn't want to "feel" like what we
think
the fish is feeling. No offense, but how we feel about the issue has no
bearing
on what a fish is or is not feeling.

I disagree. I do not think it is anthropomorphizing the situation by
considering the fish's suffering. it would be anthropomorphizing the
situation if the fish gasped, grabbed it's chest, and then fell down
dramatically.

And I wish we could drop that concept, because that word is very difficult
to type.


--
BV
Webporgmaster of iheartmypond.com
I'll be leaning on the bus stop post.

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:QORvd.758002$8_6.134000@attbi_s04...

"RichToyBox" wrote in message
...
Fish may not feel pain by your definition of pain, but they feel
discomfort,
which is one of my definitions of pain. If you don't believe it, look
at the
actions of a fish with parasites, trying to scape them off, or jumping
out of
the water to loosen them. They react to a tummy ache or head ache or
whatever
by going and laying off by themselves, rather than swimming with the
other
fish and coming to eat. When taken out of water, they do a lot of
flopping
around trying to get back into the water, and I would say that was a
reaction
to the discomfort of being out of water.

Fight or flight response. Sorry. That is not pain. That is a midbrain
function, an involuntary response. Humans can express laughter and
sadness.
Two very different emotional responses. The physiological process
involved is
exactly the same. The difference is how your brain interprets the
stimulus. It
is a very complex interaction between the nerves and senses of our bodies
and
the higher functions of our brain, specifically the neocortex portion of
the
cerebral hemisphere. Pain is nearly the exact same physiological
response. The
difference between these emotions is in how our neocortex interpretes the
signals. We have it hardwired in our bodies to have those physiological
responses, and to distinguish between what the stimulus means (ever wonder
why
people laugh when Dick Van Dyke stubs his toe?). So do other animals,
particularly mammalian predators. The difference in that how we
experience
those sensations depend on how our our neocortex interprets the stimulus.

Doesn't this assume that fish process the pain in the same manner as humans?

If by that you are asking if they process the stimulus in the same way, the
answer is no, because they process the stimulus in their brainstem, whereas we
take it a giant step further and filter it through our neocortex, which is an
organ fish don't have. THAT is a quantum leap from what fish do.

Isn't it possible that fish have a more simple thathurtsswimawaycortex? We
can distinguish between a pinch in the butt and a kick in the ass, because
we have the hardware/software. That doesn't mean that all pain processing is
so capable in all animals. Isn't that a valid possibility?

You are confusing pain with stimulus. Pain is an emotional reaction to harmful
stimulus, the reaction occurring in the neocortex of higher life forms. Fish do
not have a neocortex and so cannot form the emotional reaction that we call
pain. So their reaction is simply a fight or flight response originating from
their midbrain.

snip
Specific wording with specific definitions doesn't change what the
respondents
on this thread have been trying to say. Personnally I use the clove
oil,
because it is used for other treatments, such as abrasion treatments
with
iodine, parasite scrapings, and injections when needed. It may not be
needed
for pain, but it makes the fish much easier to handle during these
procedures,
and I "assume" much less "painful" for the fish. Seeing a fish out of
water is
painful for me, if not them.

Ah, that is the real issue, isn't it? How it makes us feel. Am I Right?
Again, anthropomorphization. It makes us feel bad at least in part,
because we
sympathize with it and think that we wouldn't want to "feel" like what we
think
the fish is feeling. No offense, but how we feel about the issue has no
bearing
on what a fish is or is not feeling.

I disagree. I do not think it is anthropomorphizing the situation by
considering the fish's suffering. it would be anthropomorphizing the
situation if the fish gasped, grabbed it's chest, and then fell down
dramatically.

If the fish gasped, grabbed it's chest, and then fell down dramatically, it
would certainly be considered anthropomorphizing - on the part of the fish!
Again, when a person attributes human form or personality to things not human,
that is anthropomorphizing. Attributing the emotion of suffering to an animal
that is incapble of said emotion IS the very essence of the definition of
anthropomorphizing.


And I wish we could drop that concept, because that word is very difficult
to type.

Fine. come up with a different term for it. Call it human-centered, if you
like.

"george" wrote in message
news:_Q_vd.198222$V41.106219@attbi_s52...
snip
Doesn't this assume that fish process the pain in the same manner as
humans?

If by that you are asking if they process the stimulus in the same way,
the
answer is no, because they process the stimulus in their brainstem,
whereas we
take it a giant step further and filter it through our neocortex, which is
an
organ fish don't have. THAT is a quantum leap from what fish do.

Agreed, about the difference. (On a side note, I always giggle at the phrase
Quantum Leap. If it were a Quantum leap, the difference would be small, not
great. LOL) I don't however agree that pain can only be defined by what you
refer to as our emotional response. Just because humans respond to pain in
one way, does not mean that other species respond in the same manner.

Isn't it possible that fish have a more simple thathurtsswimawaycortex?
We
can distinguish between a pinch in the butt and a kick in the ass,
because
we have the hardware/software. That doesn't mean that all pain
processing is
so capable in all animals. Isn't that a valid possibility?

You are confusing pain with stimulus. Pain is an emotional reaction to
harmful
stimulus, the reaction occurring in the neocortex of higher life forms.
Fish do
not have a neocortex and so cannot form the emotional reaction that we
call
pain. So their reaction is simply a fight or flight response originating
from
their midbrain.

It seems we need to come up with a definition of pain that we both agree is
correct. I'd venture to say we have two different definitions.

snip


--
BV
Webporgmaster of iheartmypond.com
I'll be leaning on the bus stop post.

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:_Q_vd.198222$V41.106219@attbi_s52...
snip
Doesn't this assume that fish process the pain in the same manner as
humans?

If by that you are asking if they process the stimulus in the same way,
the
answer is no, because they process the stimulus in their brainstem,
whereas we
take it a giant step further and filter it through our neocortex, which is
an
organ fish don't have. THAT is a quantum leap from what fish do.

Agreed, about the difference. (On a side note, I always giggle at the phrase
Quantum Leap. If it were a Quantum leap, the difference would be small, not
great. LOL) I don't however agree that pain can only be defined by what you
refer to as our emotional response. Just because humans respond to pain in
one way, does not mean that other species respond in the same manner.

That's the way it is defined in the pyhsiology text books. Take it up with the
NSF.

Isn't it possible that fish have a more simple thathurtsswimawaycortex?
We
can distinguish between a pinch in the butt and a kick in the ass,
because
we have the hardware/software. That doesn't mean that all pain
processing is
so capable in all animals. Isn't that a valid possibility?

You are confusing pain with stimulus. Pain is an emotional reaction to
harmful
stimulus, the reaction occurring in the neocortex of higher life forms.
Fish do
not have a neocortex and so cannot form the emotional reaction that we
call
pain. So their reaction is simply a fight or flight response originating
from
their midbrain.

It seems we need to come up with a definition of pain that we both agree is
correct. I'd venture to say we have two different definitions.

snip

I use the scientific definition. What are you using?

"george" wrote in message
news:jc5wd.760759$8_6.402731@attbi_s04...
snip
It seems we need to come up with a definition of pain that we both agree
is
correct. I'd venture to say we have two different definitions.

snip

I use the scientific definition. What are you using?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pain

BV,

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:jc5wd.760759$8_6.402731@attbi_s04...
snip
It seems we need to come up with a definition of pain that we both agree
is
correct. I'd venture to say we have two different definitions.

snip

I use the scientific definition. What are you using?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pain

BV,


From the National Academies:

The widely accepted definition of pain was developed by a taxonomy task force of
the International Association for the Study of Pain: "Pain is an unpleasant
sensory and emotional experience that is associated with actual or potential
tissue damage or described in such terms." A key feature of this definition is
that it goes on to say, "pain is always subjective. " This aspect of the
definition reflects on the issue Dr. Bayne raised when she commented about
interpretation of animal behavior and appearance by an observer based on
feelings of the observer. We naturally have the tendency, when we observe an
animal, to use our own past experiences to interpret and comment on what we
perceive or believe to be the animal's status relative to discomfort, pain, or
distress. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for our past personal
experiences to be meaningfully applied to an animal. Training and experience in
studying and observing animal behavior are required to interpret what we observe
in nonhuman animals.