jackson6745
Yeah Yeah
Dude, don't hammer your dogs head:bigeyes:
the best way to kill a fish that is sick
- Thread starter firstsalt
- Start date
- Status
03sonicstang
Member
LOL; you know what I mean!!!
mesamech
New member
That is funny!:lol:
This is something everyone has to do sooner or later and should of course be done as humanely as possible.
The best way is to cut through the brain or upper spine (directly behind the eye) severing the head. This is the method recommended by the American Veterinarian Association and obviously makes the most sense.
it results in an instantaneous loss of consciousness. There may be reflex movements in the body, but the fish is already unconscious. Just make sure the knife is sharp, big enough, and well-positioned before making the cut.
Anesthetics would do the job but are not available. Clove Oil etc. are not reliable. Freezing causes pain and is slow (fish have cold (pain) receptors). The idea that the severed head continues to feel pain makes no sense, because the brain is destroyed and the fish is unconscious.
The best way is to cut through the brain or upper spine (directly behind the eye) severing the head. This is the method recommended by the American Veterinarian Association and obviously makes the most sense.
it results in an instantaneous loss of consciousness. There may be reflex movements in the body, but the fish is already unconscious. Just make sure the knife is sharp, big enough, and well-positioned before making the cut.
Anesthetics would do the job but are not available. Clove Oil etc. are not reliable. Freezing causes pain and is slow (fish have cold (pain) receptors). The idea that the severed head continues to feel pain makes no sense, because the brain is destroyed and the fish is unconscious.
Financial Panth
New member
tabwyo
Premium Member
I second this motion and move to have it written into law.....
Fish anesthetics are indeed readily available from several mail order places, both hobby suppliers and aquaculture suppliers. While I might order MS-222 in 1kg jars, it is also available in small hobby sized quantities as well
jordan3548
New member
Oh my goodness theres alot of painless ways to go. After reading this thread I am completely in aww of the extreme measures some people on here take just to kill a fish. Its a part of life to die you think they die instantly in the ocean? When your lionfish eats that pretty little goldfish or feeder fish it doesnt die instantly when swallowed but it suddenly becomes "humane" for that. But inhumane to run it over, hammer it. etc etc sorry but head=hammer= instant death. Most predator fish owners would agree I believe especially one that doesnt accept anything but live food. If you wanna be "humane" dont by fish that require live food because then that would be inhumane correct?
uhuru
New member
The AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia of Fish requires pithing in addition to decapitation, BECAUSE the fish can still remain conscious after decapitation. I already posted this earlier, but here is the link again:
http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf
see page 23
The fastest method is NOT always the most humane. It depends on the anatomy and physiology of the animal.
Grandreef 2
New member
I say just let nature take its corse. You never know, a miracle could happen. It has hapened a couple of times to me when I thought my fish was going to die
Mattmike
New member
vwmike
New member
One of my buddies says to leave them in the tank to die and let my clean up crew have them. Until I read this I would use the freezing method, now I'm not sure. It sounds like the knife is the fastest way, but I can just imagine my wife cringing over that one. Rather than ease my mind, this thread has made me think more about it. *sigh*
stealle
Premium Member
Sorry, but I think some of you guys are putting way to much thought into this subject. How many of you had a fish sandwich recently? Did that fish suffer? I really doubt they over-sedated the fish for a humane death.
Bottom line is, the quicker the better. The hammer method can not be refuted. It's death in millisecond (provided you have a good aim). So why is this technique considered bad by some? Because it "looks" bad or "looks" painful. Not because it is inhumane.
Bottom line, if you are too bothered to use a hammer, ask someone else to do it. Otherwise just try to make it quick and do whatever makes YOU feel comfortable. I do not think the slower methods of so called "anesthesia" are inhumane, however I do think those methods are for people who lack the somewhat callous nature it takes to use a hammer or for people who want to "play" with anesthetics.
Bottom line is, the quicker the better. The hammer method can not be refuted. It's death in millisecond (provided you have a good aim). So why is this technique considered bad by some? Because it "looks" bad or "looks" painful. Not because it is inhumane.
Bottom line, if you are too bothered to use a hammer, ask someone else to do it. Otherwise just try to make it quick and do whatever makes YOU feel comfortable. I do not think the slower methods of so called "anesthesia" are inhumane, however I do think those methods are for people who lack the somewhat callous nature it takes to use a hammer or for people who want to "play" with anesthetics.
uhuru
New member
You are partially correct. When someone spends a lot of money on a fish, provides the proper environment for it, cares for it, feeds it, etc, well you are now talking about that fish as a pet, not as food. Some people eat dogs yet keep them as pets too. Some people don't have a problem putting a bullet in their dog's head, most people do. If you do it right, is it humane? Yes.
The only thing I don't agree with you on is the off label use of anesthetics as a form of euthanasia. People did not choose this method simply because they don't have the "callous nature" it takes to use your method, or because they want to play with drugs. I assure you, these scientists have seen things much more gruesome than that and can probably eat a fish sandwich while watching it. It has to do with control, consistency, and being scientifically based. But, you are right in that for the public, do what you are comfortable with so long as you don't make the fish suffer more than necessary.
The only thing I don't agree with you on is the off label use of anesthetics as a form of euthanasia. People did not choose this method simply because they don't have the "callous nature" it takes to use your method, or because they want to play with drugs. I assure you, these scientists have seen things much more gruesome than that and can probably eat a fish sandwich while watching it. It has to do with control, consistency, and being scientifically based. But, you are right in that for the public, do what you are comfortable with so long as you don't make the fish suffer more than necessary.
mak3mydae
New member
Well saying something is "natural" is a pretty... weak point. Alot of things are natural, that doesnt mean its humane for us to force the fish to endure that process.
- Status
