IME, pet shops let them die in the tank. Why? The hope is some (choose your
adjective) soul might come by and buy the fish because they think they can
"save" it. Not to mention the 2 week guarantee, so the customer isn't out
any money even if it does die. Thus, pet store fish are usually quite dead
before they're tossed in the trash. ~ jan ;o)

George replied:

So I ask you, is this any more humane than my earlier suggestion?

Sorry George, I'm not going there.

My comment was only to the "what do pet shops do". I'm in the "knock 'em
down with Finquel and freeze" group, and if they're as big as a keeper
trout, whop them on top of the head, if you're talented enough to do so. I
could never just toss 'em on the ground, even if there was absolute proof
they were not suffering, as *I* would be suffering, why cause myself pain?
~ jan ;o)


~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

IME, pet shops let them die in the tank. Why? The hope is some (choose your
adjective) soul might come by and buy the fish because they think they can
"save" it. Not to mention the 2 week guarantee, so the customer isn't out
any money even if it does die. Thus, pet store fish are usually quite dead
before they're tossed in the trash. ~ jan ;o)

George replied:

So I ask you, is this any more humane than my earlier suggestion?

Sorry George, I'm not going there.

My comment was only to the "what do pet shops do". I'm in the "knock 'em
down with Finquel and freeze" group, and if they're as big as a keeper
trout, whop them on top of the head, if you're talented enough to do so. I
could never just toss 'em on the ground, even if there was absolute proof
they were not suffering, as *I* would be suffering, why cause myself pain?
~ jan ;o)


~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

"~ jan JJsPond.us" wrote in message
...
IME, pet shops let them die in the tank. Why? The hope is some (choose your
adjective) soul might come by and buy the fish because they think they can
"save" it. Not to mention the 2 week guarantee, so the customer isn't out
any money even if it does die. Thus, pet store fish are usually quite dead
before they're tossed in the trash. ~ jan ;o)

George replied:

So I ask you, is this any more humane than my earlier suggestion?

Sorry George, I'm not going there.

My comment was only to the "what do pet shops do". I'm in the "knock 'em
down with Finquel and freeze" group, and if they're as big as a keeper
trout, whop them on top of the head, if you're talented enough to do so. I
could never just toss 'em on the ground, even if there was absolute proof
they were not suffering, as *I* would be suffering, why cause myself pain?
~ jan ;o)

Good enough.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:01:29 GMT, "george"
wrote:


"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:x5Kvd.655563$mD.524018@attbi_s02...

"kc" wrote in message
...
Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the
only
things you own.
The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how
a
living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
Kirsten

I am a scientist, girlfriend. But don't take my word for it. If you can
set
aside your emotional reaction to the conversation for a moment, try to
read
this, and then tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

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

Aside from the political aspects of that site, I am troubled by the article
from the first paragraph. Why is it that when this topic arises, the jump to
comparing fish and humans is always made.

The article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
researcher in the field. And the article was written for consumption by the
general public, not for scientists. The best way to get people to understand
this issue, and indeed many other issues about animals, is often by making such
comparisons, because that is what the most people can relate to. For instance,
many animals have a sense of sight. So do we, but our sense of sight is
different from most animals, as has been clearly demonstrated for many many
years. But even today, many people think other animals see things like we do.
So the best way to demostrate this is by comparing and contrasting traits of
other animals with those of people, and even among other animals. Some animals
(chimps, mice, even pigs) make great research anmimals for the very reason that
they share so many anatomical and physiological characteristics with us. In the
case of fish, pain and suffering are not one of them. In this sense (no pun
intended), fish are poor models for humans.

If a fish feels pain, the fish is
like a human. That is not accurate logic. Just because a person believes a
fish feels pain, does not mean that they think fish are like humans.

If a fish felt pain like people do, researchers would jump at the chance to
study it because so many people are in so much pain, and it would make a good
animal model for human pain. What Dr. Rose suggested is that many people make
an unfounded assumption that fish feel pain. The key here is the many people
"believe" that a fish feels pain. His contention, and that of most scientists
working in the field, is that that belief can lead people to think of fish in
anthropomorphic terms. This attitude has increased as fish ponding and the
aqaurium hobby has grown. It is understandable because we as a society cherish
pets, and have an emotional need for them. And many fish enthusiasts are also
dog and cat owners. We all like to think of our fish as these cute, attractive
little harmless creatures, and even become emotionally attached to them (which
is true of most pet owners) when the fact is that in their world, they are top
predators. The top dogs. And viscious ones at that. They eat their own young,
and those of any other fish or animal they can get in their mouths without a
second thought about it. Many species being sold today are only a few
generations away from the wild streams, lakes, or the ocean from which they
came. They are not true domesticates. Some of the newer species being sold are
truly wild species. Hence, African cichlids, which have only been avaliable in
pet shops for a couple of decades are much more agressive than South American
cichids, which are relatively more docile and have been available (and bred) for
many years. In the wild, the difference nearly disappears.

Even cats are not fully domesticated and they've been with us for a couple of
thousand years. You have noticed how independant cats are, haven't you? They
are like that because they still have a lot of wild cat in them. Much of that
independance and agressiveness hasn't been bred out of them. Much recent
evidence has shown conclusively that dogs have been around human campfires for
many thousands of years, possibly since we first started building camp fires.
They have adapted to us, and us to them. By and large, the agressiveness of the
wolf has been bred out of them through thousands of years of selective breeding.

Ok, I went off on a tangent. Sorry. Back to the issue. Since people
experience pain and suffering, people tend to believe (or would like to believe)
that other animals share that experience. He is saying that a lot of scientific
evidence shows that, at least with respect to fish, this is not the case. Even
with the few receptors that were found in the Roslin study, the fact is that
those receptors are tied into the midbrain of the animal, a part of the brain
that only handles autonomic (or automatic, if you like) bodily functions, is a
clear indicator that they do not experience stimulus from those receptors as
"pain". A fish has no neocortex, which is where all pain in higher animals,
including humans, is registered. The receptors in the mouth of a fish trigger
the flight or fight response in fish, just like similar cels do in everything
from humans down to an amoeba. The difference is that higher organisms, like
humans, have a cerebral hemisphere, and enbedded in it is a neocortex. The
neocortex is where pain is assimilated and experienced in all mammals. Cut it
out of a person, and he/she could no more feel pain than could an amoeba.
Likewise, if you cut the spinal chord of a human, sensation stops below where it
is cut, even pain.

So fish, in this respect, are like someone who's had severe cortex damage and
can no longer feel pain. But their midbrain registers the signals, and triggers
the fight or flight response. But if a fish is near death, and you can reach
down and pick it up and it can't run away from your because it is so sick, it
certainly cannot sit in your hand and worry about any forthcoming pain it may
receive at your hands, since it has no cerebrum with which to form such though
processes. Certainly, it may twitch, and try to flip out of your hand, but that
is certainly the last gasp of a tiny dying nervous system. Is that pain? I
think not at all.

This article starts off with a great big dose of anthropomorphication (sp?).

BV.


Again, the article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
researcher in the field. And he is writing an article for consumption by the
general public. The best way to get people to understand this issue, and indeed
many other issues about animals, is often by making such comparisons, because
that is what the most people can relate to.


I can relate to this. You Rhodes Scholars sure know how to waste
bandwidth.

asmith wrote:

I can relate to this. You Rhodes Scholars sure know how to waste
bandwidth.

I trust this was a poor attempt at irony?


--
Eric Schreiber
www.ericschreiber.com

"asmith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:01:29 GMT, "george"
wrote:


"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"george" wrote in message
news:x5Kvd.655563$mD.524018@attbi_s02...

"kc" wrote in message
...
Oh, you just dig yourself in deeper and deeper....hopefully fish are the
only
things you own.
The only "illusions" you have are that you can tell anything about how
a
living being experiences pain from taking science classes....
Kirsten

I am a scientist, girlfriend. But don't take my word for it. If you can
set
aside your emotional reaction to the conversation for a moment, try to
read
this, and then tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

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

Aside from the political aspects of that site, I am troubled by the article
from the first paragraph. Why is it that when this topic arises, the jump to
comparing fish and humans is always made.

The article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
researcher in the field. And the article was written for consumption by the
general public, not for scientists. The best way to get people to understand
this issue, and indeed many other issues about animals, is often by making
such
comparisons, because that is what the most people can relate to. For instance,
many animals have a sense of sight. So do we, but our sense of sight is
different from most animals, as has been clearly demonstrated for many many
years. But even today, many people think other animals see things like we do.
So the best way to demostrate this is by comparing and contrasting traits of
other animals with those of people, and even among other animals. Some
animals
(chimps, mice, even pigs) make great research anmimals for the very reason
that
they share so many anatomical and physiological characteristics with us. In
the
case of fish, pain and suffering are not one of them. In this sense (no pun
intended), fish are poor models for humans.

If a fish feels pain, the fish is
like a human. That is not accurate logic. Just because a person believes a
fish feels pain, does not mean that they think fish are like humans.

If a fish felt pain like people do, researchers would jump at the chance to
study it because so many people are in so much pain, and it would make a good
animal model for human pain. What Dr. Rose suggested is that many people make
an unfounded assumption that fish feel pain. The key here is the many people
"believe" that a fish feels pain. His contention, and that of most scientists
working in the field, is that that belief can lead people to think of fish in
anthropomorphic terms. This attitude has increased as fish ponding and the
aqaurium hobby has grown. It is understandable because we as a society
cherish
pets, and have an emotional need for them. And many fish enthusiasts are also
dog and cat owners. We all like to think of our fish as these cute,
attractive
little harmless creatures, and even become emotionally attached to them (which
is true of most pet owners) when the fact is that in their world, they are top
predators. The top dogs. And viscious ones at that. They eat their own
young,
and those of any other fish or animal they can get in their mouths without a
second thought about it. Many species being sold today are only a few
generations away from the wild streams, lakes, or the ocean from which they
came. They are not true domesticates. Some of the newer species being sold
are
truly wild species. Hence, African cichlids, which have only been avaliable
in
pet shops for a couple of decades are much more agressive than South American
cichids, which are relatively more docile and have been available (and bred)
for
many years. In the wild, the difference nearly disappears.

Even cats are not fully domesticated and they've been with us for a couple of
thousand years. You have noticed how independant cats are, haven't you? They
are like that because they still have a lot of wild cat in them. Much of that
independance and agressiveness hasn't been bred out of them. Much recent
evidence has shown conclusively that dogs have been around human campfires for
many thousands of years, possibly since we first started building camp fires.
They have adapted to us, and us to them. By and large, the agressiveness of
the
wolf has been bred out of them through thousands of years of selective
breeding.

Ok, I went off on a tangent. Sorry. Back to the issue. Since people
experience pain and suffering, people tend to believe (or would like to
believe)
that other animals share that experience. He is saying that a lot of
scientific
evidence shows that, at least with respect to fish, this is not the case.
Even
with the few receptors that were found in the Roslin study, the fact is that
those receptors are tied into the midbrain of the animal, a part of the brain
that only handles autonomic (or automatic, if you like) bodily functions, is a
clear indicator that they do not experience stimulus from those receptors as
"pain". A fish has no neocortex, which is where all pain in higher animals,
including humans, is registered. The receptors in the mouth of a fish trigger
the flight or fight response in fish, just like similar cels do in everything
from humans down to an amoeba. The difference is that higher organisms, like
humans, have a cerebral hemisphere, and enbedded in it is a neocortex. The
neocortex is where pain is assimilated and experienced in all mammals. Cut it
out of a person, and he/she could no more feel pain than could an amoeba.
Likewise, if you cut the spinal chord of a human, sensation stops below where
it
is cut, even pain.

So fish, in this respect, are like someone who's had severe cortex damage and
can no longer feel pain. But their midbrain registers the signals, and
triggers
the fight or flight response. But if a fish is near death, and you can reach
down and pick it up and it can't run away from your because it is so sick, it
certainly cannot sit in your hand and worry about any forthcoming pain it may
receive at your hands, since it has no cerebrum with which to form such though
processes. Certainly, it may twitch, and try to flip out of your hand, but
that
is certainly the last gasp of a tiny dying nervous system. Is that pain? I
think not at all.

This article starts off with a great big dose of anthropomorphication (sp?).

BV.


Again, the article was written by one of the most respected (if not the best)
researcher in the field. And he is writing an article for consumption by the
general public. The best way to get people to understand this issue, and
indeed
many other issues about animals, is often by making such comparisons, because
that is what the most people can relate to.


I can relate to this. You Rhodes Scholars sure know how to waste
bandwidth.

Cable modems tend to persuade one to make longer posts.

"asmith" wrote in message
...
snip
Again, the article was written by one of the most respected (if not the
best)
researcher in the field. And he is writing an article for consumption by
the
general public. The best way to get people to understand this issue, and
indeed
many other issues about animals, is often by making such comparisons,
because
that is what the most people can relate to.


I can relate to this. You Rhodes Scholars sure know how to waste
bandwidth.

As do people that reply to a post, and do no snippage. Thou shalt snip.


--
BV
Webporgmaster of iheartmypond.com
Check out the IHMP forums, ihmp.net/phpbb
I'll be leaning on the bus stop post.