I just seen a shocking video

[endparenthesis]

I think that whether a fish consciously experiences pain or not is a moot point here, because the fact is that they do feel pain. Anyone who has seen a fish stress out over poor water conditions or an injury can see that they react to damaging stimuli, which could be interpreted as a form of pain, however primitive. I think that, in keeping a pet which requires live food, one takes on the moral obligation of making the death of said food as quick and painless as possible; and obligation which the person whom this thread is about obviously ignored.

Consciousness is absolutely relevant. Pain doesn't exist in any form that can be empathized with (in fact it's kind of silly to even use the word pain) if there's "no one home", so to speak, to receive it. Without consciousness, there's little to no difference between those biological stimulus responses and the actions of a mindless machine programmed to preserve itself. I can't think of anything more relevant than consciousness in this matter.

But I know I'm wasting my breathe about this stuff. I've written about it a few times before in more detail... and anthropomorphization always seems to win people over. We live in our heads so much it's hard to imagine such a foreign existence.

I agree with you about moral obligations. The main problem with the video isn't fish's "suffering"... it's the fishkeeper apparently dropping the ball in his duties to his pets.

 

[J-Money]

Maybe the guy was a jerk for feeding the oscar to the P's,maybe he wasn't....what about the guy who feeds bunnies to his boa? is he an ass too?

Excellent point, I used to always watch my burmese python eat mice/rats/guinea pigs/etc...because it was so facinating to watch nature. I didn't ever film it, but my friends would come over on feeding days to watch. A friend of mine still gets squeemish when we talk about the hunting of the guinea pigs.

 

[guppymonkey]

Consciousness is absolutely relevant. Pain doesn't exist in any form that can be empathized with (in fact it's kind of silly to even use the word pain) if there's "no one home", so to speak, to receive it. Without consciousness, there's little to no difference between those biological stimulus responses and the actions of a mindless machine programmed to preserve itself. I can't think of anything more relevant than consciousness in this matter.

I agree with you about moral obligations. The main problem with the video isn't fish's "suffering"... it's the fishkeeper apparently dropping the ball in his duties to his pets.

I don't see how consciousness is the determining factor in whether pain exists. What is used to determine what has consciousness and what doesn't? If they prove that some animals have problem solving skills does that give them consciousness? Would you consider a dog to be conscious? Dogs feel pain. Anyone who has seen an injured dog could testify that they seem to feel pain from their injury. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that fish don't feel pain or that pain is tied to having a superior thinking capacity.

Anyways back to the topic, I agree with you that the real problem is the person who taped the incident. They weren't making a documentary on the behavior of piranhas. Its not the same as a nature show with lions eating zebras because those shows were taped for the sake of knowledge. The person who made the oscar tape was taping the incident for their pleasure at seeing an animal harmed. Deriving pleasure from the incident is the real problem.

 

[bunjiweb]

Im not sure where the "Fish dont feel pain" hypothesis came from?!

Fish Do feel pain, every living organism feels "pain" which can be as simple as mass electrical stimulae of a damaged part of the body.

Anyone who is sick enough to fight fish on purpose, to the death is obviously mentally disabled, and possibly is even more numb to the pain than the fish itself.

And, the fact that he videoed it is even more disturbing.

I know what I'd do to this guy If I ever clapped eyes on him.

Ben

 

[NinjaSmurf]

*Hmmm, jump in the fray? Sure, why not?*

The guy puts a large oscar in with same-sized P's, then proceeds to tape it being eaten. For one, I don't understand what kind of person says "oops, I've run out of room for my fish, so I'll feed it to my other fish". I mean, did he not know how big these fish can get?

Now, here is the big debate on the feeding of other fish. I am not going to use any analogies between the (pitted matches, not natural) fighting of dogs, roosters, or anything else in here, because those fights have absolutely nothing to do with food, strictly for peoples pleasure. Should a person feed a fish to another fish for food? Because that is kind of what this comes down to, despite what some people might think. Normally we can agree to disagree, but in this case everything gets a little more tricker because the fish being eaten is not a little guppy or goldfish that is gone in a gulp, and 'that's the end of that' isn't what happened.

It took the fish a long time to die. And it went bit by bit. Did the guy make comments on how cool it was, or did he just think people would be interested in this kind of thing and decided to film it? Maybe it was even an experiment on his part on what would happen, and how long it would last. Obviously the P's were very hungry, so maybe he just wanted to feed them and hey, lets get this on tape!

I don't think I would have done the same thing, but since I've never been in that situation before I really can't say what I would do. A person never really knows what they're going to do until the critical moment. Would I report the guy for doing this? No. Would I condemn him for making a tape and putting it on the web? No. If you don't want to watch something like that, don't watch it. Simple as that. There are tapes at the local movie rental place (a chain store mind you, and I won't tell you which one either) that has a trio of tapes that show people (and animals) actually being killed. I think there is someone getting electrocuted, someone jumping off a building, and another of a monkey getting eaten by crocodiles if I remember correctly (plus a bunch of other ones, and that's just on one video). Now, if a person doesn't want to see this stuff, then don't rent the video.

Fish eat fish. Simple as that. Go to a lousy fish store and find the tank with a few dead fish in it. Ten bucks says you find one of it's tankmates nimbling on it. Not that same as feeding it live fish, but hey, close enough, because they were in the tank when that fish was dying, and they probably pecked at it too. Even guppies and all those other 'nice, community fish' eat other fish. Ask anyone in the livebearers section about getting the fry away from the adults before the parents eat them, a thing that most cichlids don't do . So not only do they eat fish, but a good bit of them are cannibals too. Wow, that blows a hole through that theory of nice fish, huh?

Now, what I really, desperately want to know is where are the people fighting for the rights of the brine shrimp? You know, 'Sea Monkeys'? Because they are cute, and fun, and small. They have little 'sea monkey families' too. Yet they are being massacred by the billions. This secret death ring is promoted by every lfs, every store that sells any kind of fish food, and all pet stores, yet no one fights to save these little sweet hearts from a painful death of being freezed alive for fish consumption, or dried, or being torn apart in front of the eager eyes of fish keepers everywhere.

Oh the inhumanity and injustice of it all!!!!
Someone call PETA!!!

 

[bunjiweb]

Theres a difference between the circle of life and purposly feeding a fish because you no longer have the space to house it.

AND videoing it for your own "pleasure"..

Ben

 

[MrMashashin]

One thing i dont get is when cruel things happen to fish or other aquatic creatures, you can report it and nothing happens to them.

 

[BlueIce]

So
did any of you speak personally to this person and hear him say
i am taping this because i'm a sick bastard?

hm
i thought not...

 

[David]

I am not going to voice an opinion on this topic, because I am not about to get into another long-winded argument with anyone. I will, however, make a comparison between what this person did and what is currently being done in Thailand and other Asian countries to bettas... basically people are making a conscientious decision to put together two organisms (that they are fully aware will not get along) in a constrained environment, in which neither has the opportunity to back down or flee and avoid getting hurt or killed. People are doing these things for their own sheer pleasure, sick enjoyment or other personal gain be it financial or other. Now as to whether this is morally acceptable or not, regardless of whether the animal can feel pain, I leave to you to decide.

 

[samsung-401]

Wats wrong with that guy, why couldn't he just give it away.

 

[samsung-401]

there is also a difference by feeding the fish feeder fish, they are so small that it is over in a second.

 

[Teelie]

Somehow, I knew this would be convienently ignored. What the heck, let's repost so no one can claim to have missed it twice.

http/www.cotrout.org/do_fish_feel_pain.htm

And I also see there are people still trying to grasp that the difference between feeding an Oscar to Pirhana is no different than feeding guppies to an Oscar, or rabbits and mice to snakes and other reptiles, or feeding live food to your fish is neglible...

 

[Synirr]

Consciousness is absolutely relevant. Pain doesn't exist in any form that can be empathized with (in fact it's kind of silly to even use the word pain) if there's "no one home", so to speak, to receive it. Without consciousness, there's little to no difference between those biological stimulus responses and the actions of a mindless machine programmed to preserve itself. I can't think of anything more relevant than consciousness in this matter.

But I know I'm wasting my breathe about this stuff. I've written about it a few times before in more detail... and anthropomorphization always seems to win people over. We live in our heads so much it's hard to imagine such a foreign existence.

I agree with you about moral obligations. The main problem with the video isn't fish's "suffering"... it's  the fishkeeper apparently dropping the ball in his duties to his pets.

For a long time it was believed that most types of fish (particularly goldfish) had no more than 10 seconds of memory, too, but lately the scientific community is moving away from that theory. It's hard to define consciousness, and even harder to determine what creatures have it and what creatures don't. Memory is a sign that someone "is home," if you ask me. One thing is for sure, though; pain has a definite effect on fish. They obviously respond to it. You can see when a fish is in distress. What gives us the right to prolong such a thing just because we as a species have decided that certain animals, such as fish, don't have the mental capacity to feel pain as we do? I'm certain they don't feel it as we do... that oscar probably wasn't thinking about how he'll never see his fishy family again... but I'm sure he was "aware," in some sense, that bits of his flesh were being ripped off, and I'm sure that what he experienced couldn't have been pleasant (just as pain is unpleasant for us, biologically speaking.)
As with most issues, I assure you that I am not basing my opinion about this solely on moral objections. I am a very scientifically minded person, and while I support such issues as abortion because a fetus under 24 weeks of age is physically incapable of feeling pain, I absolutely do not condone prolonging the suffering of an organism which is capable of that feeling. I couldn't care less that he fed his oscar to his piranhas... what I do care about was that it was being eaten alive, and died slowly. This sort of thing happens in nature all the time, but in nature, there are no glass walls to prevent the prey from attempting escape. If you're going to feed a large fish such as an oscar to a group of piranha in a contained environment, at least have the decency to make its death quick and hit it in the head before serving it up as lunch. Feeder fish are small for a reason.

Edit: In light of Teelie's post, feel free to replace "pain" in this post with "nociceptive stimulus".

 

[Teelie]

Feeder fish are small for a reason.

Yeah, it's hard for Oscars to swallow fish larger than themselves. Unlike Pirhana, or more correctly, Pirhana unlike most other fish, have teeth and can bite chunks from their prey, most other fish just swallow whole or nibble off of already dead bodies. This of course being the nonvegetarian ones. I assume though you find it reprehensible that Pirhana eat their prey alive like this (just like sharks and any other fish with teeth) and condemn their natural instincts for it.

 

[Synirr]

Unlike Pirhana, or more correctly, Pirhana unlike most other fish, have teeth and can bite chunks from their prey, most other fish just swallow whole or nibble off of already dead bodies. This of course being the nonvegetarian ones. I assume though you find it reprehensible that Pirhana eat their prey alive like this (just like sharks and any other fish with teeth) and condemn their natural instincts for it.

To assume makes an ass out of you and me
Like I said, I have no problem with this sort of thing in a natural environment... but I'd hardly describe an area of water surrounded by four glass walls and under controlled conditions as such.

Edit: quoted a bit too much. Cleaned it up for simplicity's sake