Wayne Harrison wrote:

that you are so concerned about
the pain of fish in times that thousands of human beings are dying, day by
day, in iraq, and other places, simply overwhelms my ability to relate to
you, on a rational level.

I think the safe answer would be for me to just say that it's easy to
prevent some of the suffering of fish by telling people the relatively
simple way to prevent, or at least reduce the suffering, or by creating
the appropriate regulations. It's worth a shot anyway. It's pretty fast
cheap to just post a message here, and I think it's worth the trouble
even if you can't compare the fish problem to the human problem. An
equivalent effort in time and money to help people in Iraq, by myself
or by the government, wouldn't do very much.

But screw the "safe" answer. One reason it bothers me so much is that I
have no reason to believe that the daily suffering of fish is any less
than the daily suffering of people.

what do you think about the pain that fish feel when they are eaten by
other fish, or birds, or otters, or old age, for that matter?

I think about that too, and it's pretty damn horrible (I usually think
of more furry creatures though). I heard about some animal that's
something like 90% likely to die by a predator attack, and it's not
always a quick kill from a bite to the neck. Because of that, I'm not
an animal conservationist, or whatever they're called. I'd rather not
be born if I knew I was likely to die like that. Maybe it's better to
suffocate on a boat, or die by a hunter, or maybe it's all the same,
but the less painful it is, the better.

i suggest that you grab a syringe full of demerol, and patrol the streams in your
locality, searching for fish in pain. inject those who you conclude are in
pain, and move on, comforted by your unctious efforts.

I'll take the blame for not doing that if everyone else takes the blame
for not even cleaning their own catch humanely.