Vegans & fish

[snaffler]

Fish are very pretty and intelligent creatures and very social thats why you get big scools of fish they like hanging out and doing the whole gang warfare thing, you know to be safe in numbers, incase that big old shark comes sniffin around for a spot of trouble from mr place and family.

Also they are meat - who has ever been to some non clued up food place and as you read the veggie options on the menu in the hope that you may spot a vegan dish some daft bugger has stuck prawns or something on their.....

Another good point the old fish is not to fussed on its hangouts you know sewer outlets poo pipes etc ekkkk and you still want to it eat them nooooooo don't do it....

Their are a few other reason not to eat fish, most of the other guys and gals have covered the cruelty issues.

[John]

Have you ever watched a fish die? They are feeling beings who live and suffer. Why hurt them and take their lives?

[Happiness]

I've seen a fish die...<hangs head>...I've acually been the murder of fish.
I used to be a avid fisherperson in my omni days but I would always release the fish (sick i know...to harm something then send it back out to slowly die). Once in Alaska I was fishing alone then I landed a beautiful, silvery, majestic Coho salmon. I realized I didn't have my pliers to remove the hook which was deeply lodged in the gills (my fault, i didn't set the hook quick enough ) so I couldn't remove it. Freaking out because I realized that I was killing this amazing animal I cut my line in hopes it would spit out the hook in its own. It didn't. It died right there. Floated down the river. I've never cried that hard. What right did I have to do that??? I get upset thinking about that even now. That was six years ago and I've been veggie ever since. Its my dark past but I've learned the greatest lesson from it. Without that I could possably still be an omni today.

Fish are amazing animals so are all marine creatures. They earn just as much respect as terrestrial animals do. In my book working hard to pretect the environment is just as important as maintaining a vegan diet. We can't really pick one or another, because they are all entwined. But I'm getting off the subject.

[spo]

Thanks for posting your experience, Happiness.
It could not have been an easy thing for you to do. I want you to know that I appreciated your doing it.
I cried, myself when I read it and I know that it is important for us to share with each other these deep and life changing events.
Many Thanks again to you...
spo

[littleTigercub]

@ Happiness
Was this the experience which made you go veggie (and stop fishing as well, I guess)?
Although it must have been a terrifying experience, you can still see it that way - that this one life which was taken saved loads of other lives. I am a firm believer that everything happens for a reason, cruel as it sometimes is.

littleTigercub

[eve]

How often one hears that phrase: "everything happens for a reason" - really? how do you make that out?

[Realfood Mary]

My son says "Fish are people!" Listen to the nine year old. He talks sense.

I haven't formed emotional attachments with most individuals on the planet. In fact there are some people I absolutely hate. However, I don't eat them. Whatever else, fish have feelings. They have lives, and enjoy them. Who are we to take away life when we don't have to?

[spo]

My son says "Fish are people!" Listen to the nine year old. He talks sense.

I haven't formed emotional attachments with most individuals on the planet. In fact there are some people I absolutely hate. However, I don't eat them. Whatever else, fish have feelings. They have lives, and enjoy them. Who are we to take away life when we don't have to?

Great point, RfM
spo

[Robin]

Fish are friends! Not food!

Sorry I just got thinking on Finding Nemo and you know, the sharks trying to stop eating fish? I love them ^^

[Mozbee]

I completely agree with your definition of veganism... I want to prevent suffering just as much as anyone else, but if a fish and an insect cannot consciously know pain and suffering, then why should we not eat fish.

Mikdez, I've not read all the responses to this quote you've made, but speaking hypothetically if an animal was deemed to be brain-dead at birth (ie could not feel pain or suffer) would you eat it?

Mozbee

[FR]

I really don't understand why everyone is more focused on how "fishy" my topic is as opposed to the topic at hand which is suffering. I think finding the right answers to these types of tough questions can strengthen a person's views on veganism. How can we ever learn and be better at what we do if we dont question things.

Buy organic.

[Mozbee]

I'm sure a lot of vegans get cravings or urges once in a while (we are all human), but can easily suppress it by thinking about the suffering of the animal, which is what I have done. However, this technique doesn't work if you dont know that the organism is actually suffering.

Really mikdez?

Well I think I am safe in saying, the vast majority of us vegans don't rely on picturing suffering animals before we chose what plant-based food to eat!

[Mozbee]

Here's another link, it is a comprehensive description of what being VEGAN is too.

[Realfood Mary]

Not had time to read this whole thread, just the first page, so forgive me if some of this is repeats.

One, about lobsters trying to claw their way out of boiling water "as if their lives depended on it." Well, yeah! Their lives do depend on it. Lobsters do feel pain - pain is a mechanism in animals to promote survival of the species. Not being able to mind meld with other individuals, human, let alone non human, I can't tell you how a lobster feels. But then I couldn't have told you how my baby felt the day he was born, or how my partner feels suffering from spina bifida, or how a guinea pig feels when she first gets to eat grass, or how a spider feels in a house fire when she can't get out in time.

Basically, if a being is sentient, it can suffer. If a being can suffer, and has a demonstrable instinct to stay alive, why kill it? Even if all a being can perceive is a dim light and nothing else, who are we to turn out that light? We have only one life, it is all that anyone, human or non human owns. We should not take life unecessarily. (Which is why my garden lawn looks the way it does, but that is another story!)

Secondly, insects being killed so we can eat plants. Yes, that is a huge shame. It is less likely to happen in certain forms of sustainable farming, but there will always be individuals dying in nature. We all die, that is part of life. The point is not to kill deliberately, unecessarily. And what on earth do you think we are feeding all the cows and chickens and pigs that people eat. Even fish are factory farmed these days and fed crops to fatten them up. A cow by the time she is killed has eaten nine times more grain than her flesh yields for human animal consumers to eat. Ninety percent of that grain comes from the developing world. So you kill more insects in crops as a meat eater than you do as a vegan, as well as killing the animals you consume, as well as contributing to human starvation.

Third. B12. B12 grows in soil, and is found in spring water, etc. Unfortunately the soil is so depleted, so full of toxins, etc, that these days we overwash our fruit and vegetables, meaning that we consume no earth, and therefore no B12. This is why we have to supplement, not a deficency in the vegan diet, but in the denatured world we have created around us. Hindu vegans living in India have no problems with B12. Problems arise only when they move to the West.

Some of the stories you cite (lobsters feeling no pain, etc) were funded by people with a vested interest in you continuing to eat animals. Two independant reports have come out with the definitive answer that hard shelled non vertabrates (lobsters, crabs, etc) do feel pain when being boiled alive, and can be heard to be screaming. Why do we need proof anyway, when common sense should show us the way? My partner's veganism came about purely from common sense, and observing the world. He didn't read pro or anti tracts - he just looked about him and made his mind up based on what he saw.

It will probably help you if you stop believing reports put out by vivisectors etc. Keep reading, but constantly question the source.

Hope this answers your questions. Any others, feel free to ask.

[Realfood Mary]

Oh aye. I should give you our website details! www.realfood.org.uk
www.veganfestivals.org.uk www.isitivegan.info

We run a vegan buddies scheme if you are interested.

[bittersweet]

So on Saturday I was at a friend's house, where most of the people present claim to be veggie (mosof those actually aren't, since they consume fish and sometimes gelatine, but hey, at least they're cutting down meat consumption and accept our vegan lifestyle - don't mind being fed by us either!).

And I was talking to one who is a stricter veggie than the others, along with his partner, and he was saying "oh, she's looking forward to being pregnant, since she'll have an excuse to eat fish!"

I was horrified, and told him so. We then got into a debate about long chain fatty acids, and brain shrinkage in pregnancy etc (which is true, btw), and I was offering up alternate sources of essential fatty acids (hemp, flax etc). I also raised the mercury issue - to which he replied "oh well it wouldn't be sea stuff".

Now, (moral issues about eating fish aside) my research suggests that farmed fish actually have very little fatty acid benefit, because their artificial diet leads them to be "skewed" towards omega 6 fats (as with most modern animal foods, and many processed vegetable ones), rather than the Omega 3s that fish is famous for!

Does anyone have any solid research concerning this. Ethical arguments won't do the job here - I need science please!

[gertvegan]

If you haven't seen it already, there may be something to help in the Fishing for Facts report on the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation website, hopefully.

[bittersweet]

Looks good - thank you!

[DianeVegan]

As always, Gert has found a great link! I wish I could give you a link as well, but I only have info from a recent conference.

On May 21st, I attended a conference intended for health professionals entitled Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Recommedations for Therapeutics and Prevention, at Columbia University in New York. This conference was presented by the Institute of Human Nutrition and sponsored, in part, by Martek (producers of algae derived DHA). According to the program objectives, it was to "explain current gaps in knowledge of and intake of DHA that affect the health of the developing fetus, and infant" and "appreciate the bases of recommendations for DHA/ALA supplementation formula-fed infants and DHA dosage for nursing mothers." Whew.

Craig L. Jensen, MD gave a talk on the Impact of Omega-3 Fatty Acids on Pregnancy Outcomes. First, there have not been many studies, some of them are flawed, and some are either inconclusive or conflicting in interpretation. I am going to try to break it all down into layman's terms for you. Please remember that this is not the last word on Omega-3's.

DHA is found in high concentrations in the brain and retina, therefor is essential for adequate visual and neurological development during early life. DHA is NOT found the the brain until approximately 24 weeks of fetal life. The concentration of DHA in human milk is related to maternal DHA status and is affected much more by maternal DHA intake than ALA intake (i.e. flaxseed).

What does this mean? In the third trimester, especially, a pregnant woman should get adequated DNA intake and continue until she is finished breast feeding. How much DNA? Current recommendations range from 200-300 mg per day. If an infant is being formula-fed, check the amount of DHA in the formula as different brands carry different amounts.

Where to get the DHA? The presenters definitely did not push any Martek products, but this was not necessarily a good thing because they DID push fish consumption without ever discussing the dangers of fish consumption in depth. Certainly, your friend can get her DHA in the form of fish, however, she will also be passing on mercury, dioxin, PCBs and all of the new chemicals we haven't yet studied. Many of these chemicals are hormone-mimicking and we don't know what they may do to the next generation of humans. We do know what mercury does.
Flaxseeds or oil? Sounds good, however, Omega-6 fatty acids are in direct competition for the enzyme that breaks down ALA (omega-3) to DHA. So, your friend would have to be extremely careful to keep her balance of Omega-6:Omega-3 no more than 4:1. AND, because everyone converts at different rates, this isn't an exact science.
So, possibly the best insurance for adequate and uncontaminated DHA consumption is a DHA supplement. Martek is the only company I know of that currently produces vegan DHA. They sell this DHA to many other companies so you have to do some research into who has vegan capsules.

Susan Carlson, Ph.D. also presented on the impact of DHA levels concerning visual and cognitive function of infants. The problem with her studies is that we will not see the impact of cognitive development until these children reach their teens. So what to do now? We can only make an educated guess. Dr. Carlson's recommendations:
Infants should receive DHA in the range of worldwide median human milk DHA
- Formulas should contain at least 0.3 to 0.4% DHA
- Breastfeeding women should consider a supplement to increase human milk to this range, especially if she is consuming much Omega-6 fatty acids (this applies to the US, Canada, Australia and England especially)
- Arachidonic acid(omega-6) should be added to infant formula, also in a median range for human milk, 0.4 to 0.6%

Sorry that this information was not in an easy to read format, but it was taken from ongoing and recent research. As you know, government recommedations are usually years behind the research and are not always reliable (think of all the transfat in margarine that was supposed to better for you than butter or tropical oils). And most obstetricians and family doctors are not going to conferences (or even reading their journals) to get this information. They wait for the recommedations that come from their medical associations and the government. Each of us really needs to research these nutritional topics ourselves, becuase we are responsible only for ourselves in the end.

So, the solid research you asked for? There isn't much but what is out there points more to DHA supplementation than fish consumption. If I were pregnant I would certainly want to give my child non-contaminated sources of Omega-3's and DHA (flax seeds and supplements). Also, if DHA and omega-3's are so important, why don't we put fish oil in infant formula? Why is it DHA? If I wouldn't feed fish to my infant then I wouldn't feed it to my fetus. The lag time between consumption and discovery that something in our food supply is bad for us is just long enough for our children to already be harmed.

I hope this helps in your arguement.

[eve]

Gertvegan, that's a great website. Thank you.

[Korn]

Some people think to believe or think that fish are not as important as animals, like pseudo-vegetarians who don't eat red meat, but are OK with eating fish. Some people seem to be against hunting, but pro fishing.

If someone would try to legalize a way of hunting animals the way fish are caught, I think they would have gotten problems even in the most conservative governments.

Imagine this: put some animal food somewhere in a forest. Place something sharp inside it, with a long string attached to it. The sharp hook will damage the mouth of the wild animal, and in the other end a human would be pulling in the string (and the mouth of the animal) until it has come close enough to beat it to death with a stone or tear off it's head. How can this way of killing another being be any 'better' than other ways of killing animals? I don't get it.

[Mozbee]

Imagine this: put some animal food somewhere in a forest. Place something sharp inside it, with a long string attached to it. The sharp hook will damage the mouth of the wild animal, and in the other end a human would be pulling in the string (and the mouth of the animal) until it has come close enough to beat it to death with a stone or tear off it's head. How can this way of killing another being be any 'better' than other ways of killing animals? I don't get it.

Exactly Korn, fishing whether for the leisure or work still when it comes down to the bare facts is a bloodsport! Any non-vegans reading please take a look at this Fishing Hurts.

[Vegantastic]

Hi everyone,

I just recently turned vegan about 3 weeks ago, and I'm really surprised at how smoothly my transition has been. However, I have recently been craving sushi, especially sea urchin, and I was wondering if anyone knew whether or not sea urchin is considered an animal that experiences suffering.

I also was wondering if anyone knows in depth about the differences between conscious suffering and just feeling pain. I have read some articles saying that some animals such as a lobster do not have pain receptors and a cerebral cortex, but if you try to boil one, they start clawing their way out like their life depended on it. The other article I read explained that some animals have pain receptors and natural reactions to pain but may lack the ability to consciously suffer.

I'm pretty confused about how I should define my new found veganism, if someone could help me out, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks,
Miki

A vegan does not eat any animals. I looked up some pictures of the sea urchin, because I didn't know what kind of life it was. I saw the pictures, so I now know what it is (I didn't know the translation to dutch). But this creature is also 'animal' (so far I know), so it is not correct to eat it as a vegan.
Vegans not eat any animal, so also this creature not. It is not the question if it got more brains or something, but if it is an animal, which is living.
For me veganism goes beyond it also. Doing good to animals, showing them respect, but also be respectfull to all other living beings.

[Korn]

From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...559820,00.html :

A team of scientists in the US discuss the problems salmon consumption poses, particularly farmed salmon, with regards to contaminated with organic toxins such as dioxin.* They point out that although attention has been given to the carcinogenicity of such chemicals, exposure may also lead to a number of other diseases of equal or perhaps greater public health importance.* The team point out that the risks from consumption of such toxins may outweigh the health benefits of consuming certain types of seafood.

[SeaSiren]

I learned about this back when I was a Pescatarian. Farm raised fish are filled with toxins as they swim in thier own feces etc, and are pumped full of unnatural food, They have to add color to the fish to give them the color. I have read (can't remember where I read it) that the raising of farm raised fish is also very bad for the environment.

Of course now I am Vegan so I don't consume any fish, but if you have loved one's who still do this information is very important.

[DianeVegan]

I wish everyone who consumes fish would understand this! I was at an Omega-3 Fatty Acid conference last weekend and only ONCE did someone mention "some health risks" associated with eating fish. A few researchers discussed supplements but the majority stressed eating fish twice a week, especially salmon!

[Mozbee]

Vegantastic that was vegantastic!

[Vegantastic]

Thanks

[tasha]

I know that this thread is old, but I had to put in my two cents.

I completly see the argument as far as insects go. They do have defence mechanisms when faced with danger.

Insects do die because of us! However, we can't save the world, we can only improve it...for me, that includes trying to stop or at least minimize the raising and imprisonment of animals for food.

I can't speak for an insect, who knows, maybe they do feel pain--but, they are not forced to live a life they have not chosen, fed food they really don't want to eat, filled with drugs, and killed when it is time to ea

As for fish, I suppose it is just the thought of purposely looking for, hooking or netting , and killing them for our pleasure.

Sure we kill insects as we drive, as we walk, and for vegetables...but it is not intentional...I think that is the point...no one has ever planted a garden and said, "Excellent, now I'll kill a bunch of bugs!".

It is like driving in your car, there is a chance that you'll get hit by another car--but it is never intentional!

[Korn]

From http://www.vegansworldnetwork.org/he...2005-0511.html

ABC Newsonline



Women are being warned to avoid eating certain types of fish during pregnancy because of concerns about mercury levels.

A recent survey carried out by the New South Wales Food Authority suggests that thousands of pregnant women either stop eating fish or dramatically cut their consumption, because of concerns about the effect of mercury levels on their baby's central nervous system.

Fisheries Minister Ian Macdonald says women should limit their intake of only some sorts of fish, including shark, swordfish, marlin, orange roughy and deep sea perch.

He says all other species are safe.

"Educational wallet cards will be available through doctor's offices, midwives, dietitians, and fish outlets across the state - this will give women the proper facts to choose," he said.

Reference: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...5/s1365143.htm



Editor's Note: * If mercury effects the central nervous system, why not warn everyone to avoid eating "certain types of fish"? Sounds like another good reason to adopt a Vegan diet! - Ed.

[Kevster]

'Up to half of ocean species lost to overfishing
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 29 July 2005

Half of all sea fish species have disappeared from the major fishing grounds of the world, according to a study that shows how ocean life has declined rapidly in the past 50 years.

The dramatic fall in the diversity of fish is blamed on overfishing rather than pollution or climate change, the scientists behind the study said yesterday.'

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...icle302275.ece

[The_Lincoln_Imp]

Purely dietary question, disregarding the ultimate ethical and environmental problems with fishing. While all other meats can claim is protein, fish seems to have a cult around "it" regarding essential oils. As I believe it these oils are the omegas easily available fully and equally in nuts and seeds? If so that would make even the "poor world communities who rely on fishing to eat" excuse meaningless seeing as they'd have the perfect climate for seed and nut production.

[Seaside]

Are these people eating their fish raw? Omega 3 oils are destroyed by cooking, so if they don't eat their fish raw, they're not getting any!

[FR]

Fish provide plenty of yummy mercury.

[Kumem]

Mmm fresh battered mercury and chips. How can one resist?
I even keep my cats away from that crap.

[DianeVegan]

Fish provide plenty of yummy mercury.

And don't forget those PCB's and dioxin!

[Ideologue]

I too have wondered about this issue. I have heard the possibility exists that omega oils derived from fish are more easily absorbed by the body (very slightly, by an insignificant amount), but that is all.



I have argued against fish consumption previously on the grounds of mercury, no fibre in fish (whereas flax and hemp seed are both complete protein sources, contain omega 3 and are high in fibre, etc.) and of course environmental, ecological and ethical reasons.



Although I knew that mercury is present in many murdered fish, are the levels in most murdered fish as high as some of the posts in this thread indicate?

[DianeVegan]

I haven't heard about flax or hemp seeds being "complete" proteins before - I would question that source. Regarding mercury, higher levels are found in the largest, oldest and most fatty fish (tuna, mackeral (sp?), whale, bluefish, etc). There are numerous websites that will tell you which fish has the highest levels of mercury.

[Free_Tibet]

WHAT FISH FEEL

Researcher Stephanie Yue of the University of Guelph in Canada
shares her team's surprising findings on fish sentience and
ponders the ethical implications.

It is not uncommon to find a variety of whole fish displayed on ice
at any average grocery store. Yet practically every other type of
meat is cut into portions and wrapped in clean packages that
bear no physical semblance to the animal from whom they
came. While most people in our Western culture would find it
disturbing to see whole cows and pigs on sale for meat, most
have no problem with the sight of a large salmon laid out in a
similar manner.

Our emotional distance from fish may stem from the general
feeling that they fall below the phylogenetic line where sentience
begins. This may be because our present knowledge of
assessing suffering in fish is inadequate - in part because fish
do not typically display traditional and obvious signs we are
familiar with in other animals. They are not capable of facial
expression, nor can most species of fish vocalize; given their
general anatomical structure, changes in body posture are
extremely limited. Consequently, their use in scientific
experimentation, in place of birds and mammals, is seen as
ethically acceptable.

OVERCOMING TABOO

It's not surprising then to see that, according to statistics
provided by the Canadian Council on Animal Care, there is a
rising trend in the use of fish in research. In Canada, there was a
463 percent increase between 1975 and 2002, resulting in over
600,000 fish used for scientific research in 2002. Fish
consumption has also risen steadily, mostly due to increased
interest in a healthy alternative to traditional protein sources
such as beef, chicken and pork. Huge numbers of fish are used
by humans on a regular basis.

However, recent anatomical, physiological,
neuropharmacological and behavioral studies suggest fish can
suffer in ways similar to "higher" vertebrate animals.
Considering the large numbers of fish we use, these findings
should be enough of a reason for us to consider their welfare as
a serious matter. In addition, animal welfare should be defined
by how an animal "feels" - not just by how well it physically copes
with environmental conditions such as absence of disease, lack
of injury and good growth. Since sentient creatures have the
capacity to subjectively and consciously experience things, it
makes sense to investigate the fish's capacity to suffer.

This is the project our fish welfare group at the University of
Guelph is currently undertaking. It is not a trivial endeavor, for
whether fish even possess the neuroanatomical structures that
generate the phenomenon of consciousness is still a subject up
for debate. The topic of consciousness has had a tumultuous
history itself, and it has been less than a couple decades since
words like "consciousness" and "sentience" have reappeared in
scientific animal literature. We are only slowly overcoming the
taboo of studying conscious thought processes and voluntary
behavior.

From our studies on highly domesticated rainbow trout, we have
seen these fish show behavior that is much more flexible and
complex than was previously acknowledged. We have found that
trout have some cognitive capacity that rivals that of mammalian
laboratory animals, like rats. They not only show the ability to
learn, but they also have memory of the things they learned - so
they can anticipate events and adjust their behavior accordingly.
This means some of their behavioral repertoire is "purposeful"
and lends evidence toward "conscious" behavior.

ANALYZING FEAR

Most of our experiments delve into the phenomenon of fear. We
try to tease apart which responses to negative stimuli (in our
case, an oncoming dip net) are likely to be reflexive and which
are deliberate. These experiments often require fish to be
trained in tasks ranging from simply swimming away from an
area where an aversive stimulus resides, to highly artificial and
relatively sophisticated tasks such as pressing a lever in order to
obtain a reward.

We found that trout follow similar behavioral patterns when
frightened, as do other animals like mice. Mice show avoidance,
fleeing, freezing, and scanning of their environment and general
decrease in activity followed by gradual resumption of normal
behavior. Mice are deemed sentient animals with the capacity for
a range of subjective experiences. Why then should these same
behavioral patterns, when seen under similar experimental
paradigms, not be employed as evidence toward the possibility
of subjective experiences in fish?

There is more evidence that fish do have some level of
consciousness than there is evidence against it, and it is
logically more likely that fish are sentient animals than they are
not. What level of consciousness they possess, however,
remains to be determined. We still have much to learn before we
can properly generate guidelines specifically tailored to the
needs of different species of fish kept in captivity. Yet we are
moving in the right direction by entertaining the notion that fish
may indeed be worthy of more moral consideration than they
have had in the past.

This research project was made possible through a grant from
Animal Welfare Institute and the Center for Alternatives to Animal
Testing.

http://www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarte...05_54_4p19.htm

[Free_Tibet]

Please write to your local Seafood Shop pointing out issues below
regarding lobsters & fish:

According to University of Pennsylvania neurobiologist Tom Abrams,
lobsters have "a full array of senses." And Dr. Jaren Horsley, an
invertebrate zoologist at the National Zoo, has found that lobsters
have a "sophisticated nervous system," which allows them to feel and
suffer pain.

Lobsters are commonly boiled alive, though for some dishes living
crabs or lobsters are cut up, and for lobster mousse, the flesh is
scraped out of the live animal. Perhaps most people see shellfish as
cold-blooded creatures that cannot feel pain. This cannot be taken
for granted.

Crabs and lobsters in particular have complex nervous systems and
there is a body of scientific research which suggests that they do
feel pain and distress. Oxford University zoologist Dr. John Baker,
found that lobsters dropped into boiling water, showed "powerful
struggling movements" for up to two minutes and he concluded that
these were not reflex actions but indications of pain.Lobsters carry
their young for 9 months and have a long childhood and awkward
adolescence. Lobsters use complicated signals to establish social
relationships. Some of them are right handed, some are left handed.
They have been observed walking hand in hand, the old leading the
young.

Compared with other animal welfare issues, the treatment of
shellfish has aroused very little effective opposition. Alternative
cooking methods, claimed to be humane, have been put forward by
animal welfare organizations. They involve precise techniques of
piercing, cutting or freezing which quickly kills the animals, or
stun them so that they allegedly feel no pain, immediately before
boiling or chopping up.


But even if these methods - which some experts do not accept as
humane were universally adopted, shellfish would still have endure
often cruel forms of trapping, transport and storage. Traps lost on
the seabed or washed ashore onto inaccessible beaches leave their
victims trapped indefinitely. Crabs and lobsters are often
transported in densely packed containers and stored in overcrowded
tanks with their claws tied.

In regards to fish intelligence and pain:

Scientists are starting to learn more and more about our finned
friends, and their discoveries are fascinating:

A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries, devoted to learning, cited
more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving that
fish are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have
impressive long-term memories and sophisticated social structures.
The introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social
intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation,
punishment and reconciliation" exhibiting stable cultural traditions
and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food."

Culum Brown, a University of Edinburgh biologist who is studying the
evolution of cognition in fish, says, "Fish are more intelligent
than they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive
powers match or exceed those of 'higher' vertebrates, including non-
human primates." Their long-term memories help fish keep track of
complex social relationships. Their spatial memory?"equal in all
respects to any other vertebrate"allows them to create cognitive
maps that guide them through their watery homes, using cues such as
polarized light, sounds, smells, and visual landmarks

Dr. Phil Gee, a psychologist from the University of Plymouth, says
that fish can tell what time of day it is, and he trained fish to
collect food by pressing a lever at specific times. He says "fish
have a memory span of at least three months," and they "are probably
able to adapt to changes in their circumstances, like any other
small animals and birds."

"We're now finding that [fish] are very capable of learning and
remembering, and possess a range of cognitive skills that would
surprise many people." Dr. Theresa Burt de Perera, Oxford University

"Australian crimson spotted rainbowfish, which learnt to escape from
a net in their tank, remembered how they did it 11 months later.
This is equivalent to a human recalling a lesson learnt 40 years
ago.".................Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 3, 2004

[DianeVegan]

If you are having a difficult time giving up fish for "health" reasons, you may be interested in this report about the dangers of eating salmon.

[kriz]

I often hear that the health risk by eating fish depends on where it comes from. Hmm...somehow I don't think people in general will ever find out or be completely sure where the fish they consume comes from, unless they catch it themselves. But even then, they would probably not know the mercury level in that particular body of water. Better to stay away alltogether if you ask me.

[eclectic_one]

Some people seem to be against hunting, but pro fishing.

I just saw this when I went to my family's house for Thanksgiving. My mom was telling a story about how upsetting it was when her relatives talk about hunting. My nephew asked how it was different than fishing, but she just said, "oh, I need to send you guys [talking about my nephew and his parents] on another fishing trip." Then she started on hunting again...how the animal is in "its" habitat, minding its own business b4 it gets killed. I'm totally against hunting, but I asked her if the animals they just ate (pig and turkey) weren't worse off since they're treated horribly for their whole lives and then killed? She just ignored me and the whole family seemed annoyed by my "radicalism."

[Suedehead]

'killing fish ain't as bad as killing other animals' - doh!

So put your hand up omni, or whoever said that originally, if you fancy being rapidly depressurised and suffocated simultaneously to the point where your vital organs may rupture and your eyeballs pop out of their sockets - nice

[Cherry]

, but I asked her if the animals they just ate (pig and turkey) weren't worse off since they're treated horribly for their whole lives and then killed? She just ignored me and the whole family seemed annoyed by my "radicalism."

I suspect she ignored you because she didn't have a good counter-argument for that one. She knows it's true! Maybe your 'radical' comments will affect them more than you think

[eclectic_one]

I suspect she ignored you because she didn't have a good counter-argument for that one. She knows it's true! Maybe your 'radical' comments will affect them more than you think

Well, my mom has a tendency to "deny" anything she doesn't want to think about...if I try to tell her about animal suffering, she just says I'm listening to "extremists" who aren't telling the truth

[Pilaf]

Regardless of health, many of us feel it's simply unethical to prey on fish when we live such comfortable lives.

And it's never been proven that "fish oils" are essential.

[Troub]

I eat Tuna-Safe Tuna.

<3

[Tigerlily]

I eat Tuna-Safe Tuna.

<3

Hahaha, awesome. I think it's so funny seeing "Dolphin safe tuna".

[Kevster]

'Deep sea fish face extinction

&#183; Species netted by accident play key role in ecosystem
&#183; Call to put vast areas out of bounds to trawlers

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday January 5, 2006
The Guardian

The oceans are emptying. In a single generation, once thriving populations of deep sea fish have been driven to the brink of extinction by expanding fisheries, researchers say today.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...678031,00.html