# Painful Choice



## LongTimeAquarist (Jan 16, 2014)

I was forced to make a painful choice for my Male Betta, which was to flush him after he appeared to be nearing his end. Something I hate to do, but also I hate to see a fish suffering. He was healthy one day, and I've been noticing him struggling hard to swim, while floating more and more pretty much approaching his end, and I didn't want to wait for his number to come up, because it would be too painful by then. Sad thing is that he was that one betta that proved to last longer and get along with the other fish better than my last one, and also I bought him from walmart, so it'll be a while until I have the same luck.


----------



## SuperStork (May 25, 2014)

Sorry. Hard to see them at their end. My one betta is sick and I'm worried about her.


----------



## Mercury (Feb 2, 2014)

Sorry for your loss.


----------



## MattsBettas (Dec 18, 2012)

Sorry for your loss.

I do, however, have to add (for future reference and for other readers) that flushing is not an acceptable method of euthanizing or disposing a fish. There are multiple methods of euthanasia that are quick and generally recognized as humane (such as clove oil, ice-shock, and maceration); none of which involve the fish spending their final hours in chlorinated (or worse) water or going through the pipes. I realize that flushing gives a sense of security to the owner... Out of sight, out of mind... But it really isn't something that should ever be done. 

Please don't be offended by the above paragraph, take it as advice. Once again, I'm sorry for your loss.


----------



## LongTimeAquarist (Jan 16, 2014)

yeah, well, for me flushing is more humane because I could never be the one to administer the final blow to any animal. just the way I am.


----------



## MattsBettas (Dec 18, 2012)

Flushing in never humane. Quite honestly, allowing the fish to live out its life and die naturally would be more humane. I completely understand wanting to get rid of the fish quickly and as easily as possible... But when dealing with situations like these it is the animal we have to think about first, before our own emotions and feelings. 

It's really hard to talk about this and not come across as confrontational, and I'm sure I did a little bit. I'm sorry for that. I understand that we are always learning new things, and I just want to make sure that you and all of the people reading this know what to do in the future! I hope you understand. 

Once again, I'm sorry for the loss.


----------



## LongTimeAquarist (Jan 16, 2014)

Well he only seemed to have barely an hour to live and I don't think I could have handled seeing his corpse floating.


----------



## DBanana (Nov 20, 2013)

Ice-shock is instantaneous and humane. The fish, I'm fairly sure, feels nothing. Water that has been in the freezer to the point of ice-shards in it (but not fully frozen) and the fish is placed in it. 

An option, if one is flushing, is to have a cup of the water ready, place the fish in it with your hand over the top (and opaque sides so you can't see in) and carry it to the toilet. Flush the toilet, pour the cup in as it flushes and don't look at the bowl. The fish don't splash or spasm in this process and you don't have to worry about the emotional impact on you as much if you aren't looking directly at the cup. 

It's a sad choice to have to make, but as hard as it is for us the pain of the animal must be considered at the forefront. I'm someone who is attached to my fish and I must say that I think this is the easiest method to take consideration of the fish and myself at the same time. Please consider it in the future. As MattsBettas said, flushing (I know now) should never, ever be done to a live fish.


----------



## LongTimeAquarist (Jan 16, 2014)

Yeah well, chances are the rest of the fish I have will probably just drop dead like it usually is most of the time. Either I wake up to find one floating or one of my tetras getting eaten by my shrimp after it croaked.


----------



## DBanana (Nov 20, 2013)

I've been there. Woke up to find a girl wedged herself in and drowned. The others had taken the opportunity to eat her organs. 

...That was not a good day.


----------



## Bloodfire (May 2, 2014)

I got really attached to a fish that I had for a short while, and I had to euthanize him. As tempting as it is to flush, it's not worth it, because you know the fish suffered til the end.

Sorry to re-iterate what everyone is saying, but I felt the pain of having to deliver that final blow, but at the same time, I made sure his death was quick and painless as possible.


----------



## LongTimeAquarist (Jan 16, 2014)

Well, no matter what anybody says, I can never deliver the final blow. My heart would never be in it. I've seen enough fish dying to where I can tell how long they have until the grim reaper shows up.


----------



## Bloodfire (May 2, 2014)

Then just don't flush. Anything BUT that.

http://freshaquarium.about.com/cs/disease/a/noflush.htm

"Flushing a live fish is little more humane than dumping an unwanted kitten or puppy down an outhouse pit."


----------



## DBanana (Nov 20, 2013)

Either let them die in the aquarium, or kill and flush. Flushing is not something that should be done to any still living (no matter how close to death it may seem) creature that someone claims to have emotions for.


----------



## Fenghuang (Dec 28, 2012)

My condolences. It always hurts to see them fall ill like that. Especially when it is so easy for them to steal your heart.

Hate to sound insensitive, but I also have to agree with the others. Even if the fish is on its way out, death from chlorine exposure is horrifically slow. I'd also like to add that flushing a fish down the toilet, whether dead or alive, can potentially lead to water contimination. Some places have even made flushing fish illegal because of that. What is done is done and I hope you never have to face a choice like that again, but if you do, please consider another method.


----------



## LongTimeAquarist (Jan 16, 2014)

It was the city that made the local water lethal to fish in the first place by dumping a bunch of chlorine into it. And since what I've been doing for so long might be considered illegal, looks like I'll have to stock up on plastic storage bags and start tossing the dead fish into the dumpster.


----------



## MattsBettas (Dec 18, 2012)

> It was the city that made the local water lethal to fish in the first place by dumping a bunch of chlorine into it. And since what I've been doing for so long might be considered illegal, looks like I'll have to stock up on plastic storage bags and start tossing the dead fish into the dumpster.


While it sounds like you are poking fun with the "dumpster" comment, that is actually the best way to dispose of deceased fish, and is generally recommended by the people who know what they're doing. There is a highly decreased risk of water contamination when compared to flushing. This is how I dispose of fish. 

Keep in mind that in flushing the fish down the toilet you _did_ "deliver the final blow", you just didn't have to watch it happen. At risk of sounding insensitive or becoming annoyed I'm probably going to back off at this point. 

My condolences.


----------



## LongTimeAquarist (Jan 16, 2014)

Maybe so, but I'm not joking about the city part. A few years ago there was a big salmonella scare that the city officials decided to dump a bunch of chlorine to counter it. I might be delivering the finishing blow by flushing them, but at least I don't have to see them suffering or get eaten.


----------



## Bloodfire (May 2, 2014)

I agree with MattsBettas, and the last thing I want to mention is I threw my dead fish in the compost... mostly for poetical reasons... I grew really attached to that fish (he'd come to me when I spoke to him, didn't matter where at the aquarium I was, etc), and the idea of his life continuing in another form spoke to me. I thought he'd like to become another living thing.

:edit:

Whoa, you ninja'd me. 

And that is exactly the point. All you did is "not see it". If what you truly want to accomplish is not to administer suffering, then flushing them is the opposite.
If all you want to do is pretend nothing happened (I can't see you, you can't see me?) then flushing is, I guess, the way to go... but then you may as well just chuck the fish out the window, into some bushes, or into the dumpster directly... different type of suffering.

If you want to look at it from a utilitarian perspective....

flushing: fish gets banged around in pipes, getting physically damaged.
Fish gets disoriented, confused, scared.
Fish gets overloaded with chlorine, burning his skin (under his scales), damaging his labyrinth, burning his gills.
Fish suffocates to death while in constant pain.

Throwing fish in dumpster:
Fish gets single impact, causing momentary pain.
Fish suffocates (not in water).
Potential chemicals in dumpster may burn him, or he may not experience any further pain.


----------



## jaysee (Dec 9, 2009)

In case anyone doesn't know what happens when you flush the toilet...


----------



## LongTimeAquarist (Jan 16, 2014)

So either way, it's still bad for them.


----------



## Bloodfire (May 2, 2014)

Was the point really lost? I felt it was quite apparent how the magnitude of suffering differed. I'm done replying to this thread. You say you don't have the "heart" to deal the final blow, and yet you have the lack of courage to let them suffer... But that's OK because then you don't have to see it... 

No, the arguments for flushing fish are non existent, and there are many ways that are relatively out of sight and cause less to no suffering, such as the cold shock method suggested.


----------



## charliegill110 (May 19, 2014)

i thought the ice bath wasn't considered humane anymore? i swear i just read an article about that...


----------



## jaysee (Dec 9, 2009)

charliegill110 said:


> i thought the ice bath wasn't considered humane anymore? i swear i just read an article about that...



According to the AVMA guidelines it is.


----------



## charliegill110 (May 19, 2014)

jaysee said:


> According to the AVMA guidelines it is.


i guess not anymore. page 71 paragraph s6.2.4 unacceptable methods 
https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf

i will add on page 74 s6.3.2.2 it says freezing is humane if part of a 2 step process. the fish must be under anesthesia first.


----------



## jaysee (Dec 9, 2009)

charliegill110 said:


> i guess not anymore. page 71 paragraph s6.2.4 unacceptable methods
> https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf
> 
> i will add on page 74 s6.3.2.2 it says freezing is humane if part of a 2 step process. the fish must be under anesthesia first.



In S6.2.2, physical methods, it is number 6, described in detail on page 71.


----------



## charliegill110 (May 19, 2014)

jaysee said:


> In S6.2.2, physical methods, it is number 6, described in detail on page 71.


ah you are right, i saw that but didn't realize how many centimeters are in an inch.


----------



## jaysee (Dec 9, 2009)

Yeah, 5 inches covers the great majority of aquarium fish one might keep. And even then they say they are waiting on research regarding fish larger than that.


----------



## LongTimeAquarist (Jan 16, 2014)

Okay, even though I've started the thread, I think I'll step out because with all the debates going on now, I feel like I've opened up Pandora's Box.


----------

