fish euthanasia

"Eric Schreiber" eric at ericschreiber dot com wrote in message
...
george wrote:

So how would you euthanize a fish you know is dying?

The very fastest way that I can - crushing.

--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

It's your mess.

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:HR1vd.178532$5K2.125536@attbi_s03...

"kc" wrote in message
...
Why does it matter "how much" it suffers? It's a living, breathing
being.
It's moronic to decide how much you're going to care about something and
how
much it's life is worth by how smart you've decided it is...
Kirsten

Oh brother! Are you next going to call for fish to have marriage rights,
the
right to drive a car, or buy a house? And if so, how do you propose that
we
collect taxes from them? It's a fish, woman! Yeah, it's cute, and
playful, and
ocassionally aggressive. But it is still a fish. If it is past saving it
doesn't much matter how you put it out of its' misery as long as you do.
You
PETA dorks make me want to throw up.

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.

Bv.


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.

george wrote:
When it came to her last
week, she refused to eat, and her will did not allow a feeding tube nor an IV
for hydration after she had lost consciousness. All we could so was watch her
waste away. Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or allowing a
near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours? You tell me.


Let's see now if I got this straight. My fish is going belly up, full
of white fuzz and all the other fish are beginning to take bites at it.
Of course it doesn't feel a thing, doesn't mind because - you suggest
- it's small, like for example a little puppy which of course doesn't
feel pain because dogs are so much bigger. At this point I remove my
fish and I ask myself about my mother's health. I then balance the
possiblility of allowing the mother to waste away or of painlessly
killing the fish. Is this what you're suggesting? If I come out on the
side of my mother, then I take a bite out of the fish? Or what? I must
admit the quandary you propose doesn't lend itself to the decision
making process as I understand it. I thought we were discussing the
quickest, easiest on the fish, way to end its slow death, but you seem
to be saying that suffocation of the fish over a period of a few hours
will somehow prolong the lives of our mothers.

Ruth Kazez

"rtk" wrote in message ...


george wrote:
When it came to her last
week, she refused to eat, and her will did not allow a feeding tube nor an IV
for hydration after she had lost consciousness. All we could so was watch
her waste away. Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or
allowing a near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours? You tell me.
Let's see now if I got this straight. My fish is going belly up, full of
white fuzz and all the other fish are beginning to take bites at it. Of course
it doesn't feel a thing, doesn't mind because - you suggest - it's small, like
for example a little puppy which of course doesn't feel pain because dogs are
so much bigger. At this point I remove my fish and I ask myself about my
mother's health. I then balance the possiblility of allowing the mother to
waste away or of painlessly killing the fish. Is this what you're
suggesting? If I come out on the side of my mother, then I take a bite out of
the fish? Or what? I must admit the quandary you propose doesn't lend itself
to the decision making process as I understand it. I thought we were
discussing the quickest, easiest on the fish, way to end its slow death, but
you seem to be saying that suffocation of the fish over a period of a few
hours will somehow prolong the lives of our mothers.

Ruth Kazez

No, you don't have it straight. But then, I would never expect you to.
Obviously if you can't tell the difference between a dog, a puppy, a fish, and
your mother, then chances are you don't have any business caring for any of the
above.

george wrote:


No, you don't have it straight. But then, I would never expect you to.
Obviously if you can't tell the difference between a dog, a puppy, a fish, and
your mother, then chances are you don't have any business caring for any of the
above.


George, you said:
Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or
allowing a near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours? You tell me.

You were giving us an odd choice.

Ruth Kazez

Here's the deal -- y'all at alt.aquaria accept responsibility for the
drunken lord, and I will attempt to discourage cross-posting from the folks
at rec.ponds.

BUT, if I hear much more dissing of grandmothers from any of y'all, I will
not be happy!

Anne ("Do not mess with Granny") Lurie
Raleigh, NC


"The Drunken Lord" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:01:58 GMT, "Nedra"
wrote:

Of course you can, BV, cross dressing or no. The more the merrier??
LOL

We are used to higher quality postings on alt.aquaria than what you
have so far produced.

If you are most interested in flaming than in serious discussion of
aquaria, I humbly suggest that you go to alt.flames.******s.

Is that something they learn in home ec or what?

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"Eric Schreiber" eric at ericschreiber dot com wrote in message
...
Bill Oertell wrote:

one severe problem - your wife killing you for using her
blender that way.

Who said she had to find out?

Bill, Bill, Bill, don't you know that they *always* find out,
eventually?

They don't "find out" they just "know". LOL.
BV.

george wrote:

The very fastest way that I can - crushing.

It's your mess.

No mess at all if done properly. Fish comes out of the tank, goes into
a plastic bag, and whack. No prolonged suffering, no mess.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

george wrote:

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?

You really have a gift for inventiveness, don't you?

--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

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.

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.

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'.

I find it to be much preferable to smashing it or cutting
it's head off, as some have suggested.

Why? Are you squeamish?

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.


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com