most humane way to euthanize a fish

[Raskolnikov]

No sense posting the BBC article without also presenting at least one rebuttal.
http://www.eaa-europe.org/2003/PFCasework/FishPain-Rebuttal-JamesRose-EN.htm


gonefishin,

You're absolutely right. I should stop looking into scientific journals and similar literature and turn instead toward The Terminator movies as a more competent source of knowledge. I will indeed take that into consideration in the future.




All of the above being said, I still kill my fish as quickly as possible when the need arises.

 

[superjohnny]

Because modern understanding of neuroscience says fish do not have the capability to percieve pain.

I've actually heard this before, but I don't remember where. Do you have any linkage slip?

Thanks

 

[slipknottin]

I'm not talking emotional pain or the like.

Pain is emotional. It is not a physical feeling. We react to things before we feel pain. The process of taking some sort of stimuli, transmitting it to the brain, transforming it and releasing chemicals that cause pain, then reacting to those chemicals is far too long of a process. It needs to be far quicker. We like all animals react to stimuli directly, long before any emotions.

 

[slipknottin]

I've actually heard this before, but I don't remember where. Do you have any linkage slip?

Thanks

http://www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm

 

[slipknottin]

No sense posting the BBC article without also presenting at least one rebuttal.
http://www.eaa-europe.org/2003/PFCasework/FishPain-Rebuttal-JamesRose-EN.htm

"The improbability that fish can experience pain in no way diminishes our responsibility for concern about their welfare, because they are still capable of robust behavioral, physiological and hormonal responses to stressors, which, if sufficiently sustained, can be detrimental to fish health, but the idea that fish are capable of experiencing pain or suffering resembling our experiences is, on the basis of extensive factual evidence, extremely improbable."

I like that paragraph.

 

[gonefishin]

No sense posting the BBC article without also presenting at least one rebuttal.
http://www.eaa-europe.org/2003/PFCasework/FishPain-Rebuttal-JamesRose-EN.htm


gonefishin,

You're absolutely right. I should stop looking into scientific journals and similar literature and turn instead toward The Terminator movies as a more competent source of knowledge. I will indeed take that into consideration in the future..

That's just an example that pain can be describes as the realization of damage. Of course the movie was fictional, but the message is the same. Its all how you interpret the word. I think this article was ammusing. Years ago science proved that heavier than air flight was impossible. No airplane would ever make it into the sky. This article seemed to base pain on consciousness, and sites that fish most likely lack what is needed to be conscious. See the blerb I took out below, improbable does not mean impossible, it simply means science has not yet figured it out. And what if that slight improbable chance happened?It also states that we are still responsible for thier welfare, which pretty much says it all.

The improbability that fish can experience pain in no way diminishes our responsibility for concern about their welfare, because they are still capable of robust behavioral, physiological and hormonal responses to stressors, which, if sufficiently sustained, can be detrimental to fish health, but the idea that fish are capable of experiencing pain or suffering resembling our experiences is, on the basis of extensive factual evidence, extremely improbable.

 

[slipknottin]

But can they feel if they are beeing handled?

They are not conciously aware, so they do not 'feel' anything. They do react to stimuli, as any animal does.

 

[slipknottin]

And what if that slight improbable chance happened?It also states that we are still responsible for thier welfare, which pretty much says it all.

Considering their are mountains of evidence that they dont, and nearly none that they do, I find your argument rather flawed. Comparing this to flight is also rather ridiculous. It has nothing to do with wether science can figure this out. Science already has. You should make use of the knowledge provided to you, not immediatly try to argue it just because it doesnt fit into your view or understanding of the world. Heck, I doubt anyone here has taken any classes in neuroscience or neurobio, so its almost insane to believe we know better.


Personally I just find it amusing how upset people get when you tell them that maybe their animals arent just like them. Fish dont experience life like humans do, shocking....

 

[gonefishin]

Considering their are mountains of evidence that they dont, and nearly none that they do, I find your argument rather flawed.

I bet they told that to Orville and Wilbur as well.
And I'm not upset, just bored and debating,(remember the 1st day of debate class? thay ask you to go to one side of the room or the other depending on a point of view, then tell you you are to argue AGAINST your own POV) some might re-define that as arguing, But no I'll will here, just good fun I like to challenge science. Compairing it to flight is just another stupid example. While we may disagree on the definition of "pain" we still love our fishies!!!!!!!!!

 

[slipknottin]

I bet they told that to Orville and Wilbur as well.

Science had never proven that flight wasnt possible, in fact, science had proven quite the opposite, that flight was indeed possible, just maybe not with the technology of the day. Basic scientific theories of how flight could be attained were around far before the first flight. There goes your theory.


In any case, what you should be trying to do is prove how its possible fish feel pain. Not get hinged on a weak strawman argument of 'what ifs'.