Conundrum
 

Dazza has a student doing her thesis on ways of managing the levels of carp in freshwater rivers in Australia. Carp are a huge problem here and are causing a lot of decay to the habitat of some of our native fish. They are also contributing to the silting up of many rivers because they suck the mud from the river banks which causes them to collapse which then obviously makes the river shallower and wider etc. Anyway, the thesis topic is very relevant as far as her environmental management degree is concerned.

The problem she has is this.

The university policy is that any animals used for experiments may not have death as an 'end point'. While this seems fair and rational, the problem is that the student has had to harvest carp from rivers (good for the environment and totally legal because they're considered to be a noxious pest) but she can't release them back into the rivers alive because they're considered to be a noxious pest.

So you see the conundrum she is in.

The only good solution Dazza and I have been able to think of is that perhaps she could give the carp to someone as 'pets' and then that person could let them die.

What do you think?

Can carp be eaten? Or does being food still count as generic "death?"

It still counts as death. Carp taste like crap in general too, although some people seem to think they can make them taste good. My opinion is that making them taste good generally means you totally hide the flavour of the fish with other strong flavours.

skeet shooting ???

Maybe a school classroom would like a few? How many does she have to get rid of?

There's about 200 or so. Might need a few schools to participate, but that's a great idea.

Keep them coming!

turn them over to fish and game , let them deal with them

That's a good idea too Zippy. It'll need to be looked into because it might not be possible, in fact the student may be liable to be fined for keeping them alive. Still not a bad idea though and worth a bit of investigation.

she could be fined for keeping them ???

Tag and release them ,

Just tag them with a brick

well depending on how pedantic the government body is, they may consider her to be cultivating them if they happen to breed while she has them etc.

Dazza would advise her to do a reasonable amount of research on that one, but still thinks it's a good option to look into.

He likes the brick idea too but thinks it might not fall within the parameters of 'legal' for this problem.

OH I have it !!!!

Take them out on your boat and release them with a hook in the as bait !!!!

Hmmmm...don't think that'll work mate. Nice try though.

In what way?

...in the way that killing animals is wrong?

In no way is it wrong.
They are not indigenous to that ecosystem and are harmful, they should all just be wiped-out as efficiently as possible.
On our ranch we shoot all feral cats and pigs on sight.
If you work on our property it is part of your job.
Even if you are vegan the glue that holds your shoes together, your make-up, car parts and the celluloid the film is made of when you go to the movies is made of animal parts.
Eggs are used to make your vaccinations and animals are used, and killed, to save your loved-ones every day.
I hunted for years to control populations of animals so those left would not starve or get ill due to declining space and/or predators.
I take it you don't kill the mosquito or biting fly on your arm, roaches in your home? Of course not, that would be "wrong".
It is not wrong and there is no conundrum... kill the pests.
If research is being done it should be on how to kill all of them.

Dumbass.
Your quoted section is not discussing carp.
Your quoted section is discussing university policy regarding animal experimentation.

And, since you asked, no, I don't swat mosquitoes or kill roaches. Through the lens of my buddhist philosophy, I feel I shouldn't. But that is not anyone else's business, and it isn't my business to tell anyone else to kill or not to kill. While I can council against it, I can't tell them not to.
However, if i was, say, the administrator of a university, I would say that nobody performing an animal experiment for the university can have death as the end result of that experiment.

The conundrum is not an ethical one; it is a regulatory one.

And I am stating it is a ridiculous one in regards to this instance.
Lay Buddhists are not required to be vegetarians, much less to do no harm to animals in any way.
The removal of introduced species in the most expedient way is what is best for the the whole.
I have read monks clearly stating that those with diabetes should take the medicine derived from animals. A clear choice.

The university policy is that no experiment using live animals may have an end point which equals death for the animal. That is to say that the university believes it is morally wrong to kill the animals simply because the experiment is over and you have no further use for the animal.

That's why this situation is unique and certainly not a situation the university would have forseen when making this rule.

Just a further point.

If the student ignores the university rule and destroys the carp, even on the basis that it is considered a noxious pest, the university would have the right to withhold all graduation honours for the student on the grounds that the student has broken with university guidelines for ethical behaviour.

I am saying, overtly, that it is a stupid, nearsighted, moronic, policy.
Get it?
What if the purpose of the experiment is to kill the animal?
The policy makes no sense.
How does a researcher determine the farthest aspect of anything if they are worried that their grant will be taken away?
Obviously not a major science university.

As ever, reduced to childish name calling so readily.
Pathetic and beneath me.
Buddhist my ass. LOL!!!

No shit!

Yes, it's a major science university Rkz. A G8 uni in fact.

Drat this foolish bureaucracy.

I'm a (less than strict) vegetarian, and in general consider that animals have * some * rights - not to be tormented with gratuitous pain, for example - but that sometimes using animals for research can be justified.

I think the carp should be killed. They cannot legally be released and shouldn't be. Nor does it make any sense to keep them indefinitely until they die of old age. Waste of resources and they die anyway. The best thing to do is kill them humanely.

I think, therefore, that the best course is to find a loophole in the uni regulations which allows the carp to be humanely killed. I've been deep inside several Australian Unis, and almost every regulation has a clause to the effect of "except where authorized by the appropriate authority". Find this loophole and train the fish to swim through it.

I reckon there must be some clause like this - the idea that a uni would never kill any animals seems impossible. Don't they do biopsies? dissections?

Here are some more creative ideas:
* get the biology 101 professor to get the first year students to dissect carp. All gone.
* arrange an "accident" involving the carp tank and say, some cyanide.
* stage a courier mistake and send the lot to the kitchens of one of the colleges. Yum yum.
* drop them down the back of the filing cabinet like bureaucrats always do with problems they can't handle.
* devise an experiment involving the carp and crocodiles. Can they cohabit? ooops, apparently not.
* test their aerodynamic properties with a giant catapult.
* get the philosophy department to argue that the carp were never living animals in the first place, and/or will not actually die as they continue to exist in some new form (crocodile dinner/the Great River in the Sky).

Seriously, find the loophole. I cannot imagine being able to give away 200 carp as pets.
Maybe the loophole will be selling them (say, for one cent) to someone else who can legally kill them. I have heard of a fertilizer called "Charlie Carp". They might be interested.

My only other idea is to find another student who is willing to do research on carp, and pass them on. Hot potato the little buggers.

Also, who approved this research program without planning what to do with the fish afterwards? Put them all in big plastic bags full of water, put the bags in styrofoam boxes ... and deliver the lot to the office of this person. Here ya go, your problem now.

DPI approved the program.

using them for an anatomy class is a good idea (even 'the boss' thinks so), that one definitely has some merit.

You're right about university beauracracy Zen. It's precisely the reason Dazza has had enough of it and is moving on to private industry rather than keep on pushing shit uphill with a pointy stick.

Actually it is easy.
Do her experiments then just kill the carp and state clearly she killed it because she wanted to and it had nothing to do with the experiment.
End of issue.

that is not a real world solution rkz...no matter how sensible it might seem.

You're talking about a students' future here. Keep that in mind if you want to make suggestions. If she goes against the university policy in an overt manner, she's likely to fuck herself up and achieve nothing.

Better to avoid it, then write a paper about it after she has the degree.

My solution is not against policy.
In no way are the fish dying in relation to anything to do with any experiment.
She does not even have to kill them, just throw them on the lawn, if they die on their own it is not her fault, she was not even there.
Of course I would write those who's job it is to make these decisions and tell them exactly what I think and what it is doing to real research.
I did the equivalent in college and published the letter on the school website with some others the same day I sent it.
It had to do with sexual content in a play that was being suppressed by the dean.
I brought up two shows he had done while he was in school.
The play went on.
Logic and facts are always the strongest allies in a fight.

You're a hero rkz. What more can I say?

I had thought of "passive killing" (like the thawing of frozen embryos) but if you're going to kill the fish, make it quick and humane. Although I don't know how to kill a fish quickly and humanely, I don't think throwing them on the lawn would do it. Also, that would be littering.

But I think these solutions are against university policy - it does state that
So arguing that the experiment is over won't work. As I read this small part, the regulations still govern what you do with the animals after the experiment.
Flaunting this may mean the university refusing to give her the degree.

Ali, does the DPI have a carp eradication program? can they step in here? "Here, give the little darlings to us, we'll give them a good home ... "

It's possible Zen. One of the previous posts had something about handing them over to the governing body which in this case would be the DPI who have a vested interest in the research, so it's definitely a good option to investigate.

Ah-hah! Loophole!
The reason for killing the carp is NOT "simply because the experiment is over and you have no further use for the animal".
It's because they are noxious pests.
Argue that to the ethics committee.

Her research involves having native fish such as golden pearch eat the carp fingerlings. If the theory works out in practice, this would obviously be a great argument for restocking creeks and rivers with native fish which would have more than one benefit. Obviously the main one being killing off the carp, but the secondary benefit of there being more sport for amature anglers etc.

Dazza says that while the option is definitely logical and would be put before the committee, it's unlikely to to work because the bottom line is the fact that the experiment has brought about the death of the animal.

Silly me, trying to use logic to deal with a bureaucracy. :headshake

I know. I have to tell myself the same thing when D brings home these problems for me to think about.

Killing the carp is not part of the experiment, right? What's the problem?

The problem is, you can't put them back in the river because they're a noxious pest.

Carp is a main ingredient in Eastern European Jewish cooking. Most gefilte fish, is made from carp (other freshwater fishes have been used).

She should check with a food bank. As long as they were alive when handed off there shouldn't be an issue. Is she sure that the 'alive' rule applies to 'pests'? If she were studying tapeworms, would she have to find new hosts for them?

Besides, almost any fish tastes good battered and fried. Fish and chips, anyone?

Seriously, one way of managing a 'pest' is to find an economical way to exploit it. Finding ways to make carp an attractive food source might allow the public to solve the problem. An eatable fish with no fishing limits? Mankind has a tendency to overfish fish that are edible.

Yep, it applies even to pests apparently. Hence the need to think of ways around the rule. I suppose the answer to the tapeworm question would have to be yes.

There's a restaraunt in SA that 'specializes' in making carp taste good. It's not high on my list of places to eat. Aside from the taste being in my mind very unpleasant, the texture is also pretty yuck.

I had look at that link too. It hasn't improved my desire to eat carp. ;)

I've got it!
Build a giant wooden ship with about five decks. Fill each deck with nice fish tanks, put the carp in, and set it adrift out at sea.
I'm sure uni admin would approve of a multi-story carp ark ....

Why not call them?

I'm not sure that it'd be ok to give the fish to a restaraunt. It'd be pretty hard to argue that you didn't think they'd kill them. lol

Sell them on e-bay

Mmmmmm...stinky fish...Mmmmmm...

Adopt -a-Carp !!!!

now you're just trying to make me laugh again zippy! (it's working btw)

What is the penalty for putting them back in the river? Perhaps that is an acceptable cost of doing the research, the fine, the .... whatever. Include it as part of the whole bill.

You just can't put them back in the river. That's not an option, especially to an environmental management student. Aside from the fine etc, it's morally wrong.

A Fish store may take them, or she could send them to be fed to animals at a shelter, or like I said before -
Sell them on E-bay.

Bury them in a long underground passageway. You know, a carpal tunnel.

Morally wrong? To put fish back in the river? By who's standards? Not the fish's, I'm guessing.

You have a problem here, Ali, certainly. It appears the problem is choosing which unavoidable unacceptable conclusion to aim for. Do the research, get the fish, hold the fish indefinitely. Can't kill them. Can't return them. Which set of rules must be broken? IF. If the student persists in following this line of study. Given the parameters you describe, why is this even a question? It appears that this line of study is unacceptable. I reckon you're (the student, actually) only considering it (this course of study) since there's some remnant of a sensibility that the two plain options (killing them or returning them) used to be acceptable. Now they're not. So no study. Easy.

I'm not being glib. If the one part of the study involved some other more readily identifiably *unacceptable* part, there would be no question--no study. This is not an indictment of the student's judgment. I applaud their desire to learn and their desire to obey the rules. But the rules have changed to preclude this avenue.

It seems the answer is do not do this at all.

Why is releasing them morally wrong though?
She isn't breeding them, she isn't increasing the number. Her actions are effectively neutral and she is able to pursue research that in future may prevent this problem long term.

Short term pain, long term gain.

If you bend down to pick up a piece of paper on the path in the park because you thought it was a dollar, and find it is trash instead, what do you do?

Do you pocket the paper until you're walking past the next trash can? Do you throw it back on the ground? Where is the moral path here?

Argh - sadly I am so anti litter I wouldn't drop it again. If I go to sit down at a station and there is something on the seat I bin it, rather than just move it along to the next seat. Same with on the bus - if a can or bottle is rolling round (and they make a right racket if they find the stairs) I take it with me.

Good point though.

BigV: It is morally wrong for her to release them because she's an environmental management student. Aside from that it's illegal.

The reason she wants to do the research is because it's a valid topic and it's important research.

I posed the question because there will be a way around it and I wanted to gather information to help her.

If people didn't do research, we'd still be sitting in caves eating berries and raw meat. This research is vital for anyone who relies on fresh water river systems in Australia, even more so now that we're in a severe drought and knowing that the wider and shallower a river gets, the faster it will evaporate.

Not doing the study is not a great suggestion, and she's already decided to go ahead with it, so that's the reason for asking for ideas.

Thankfully, there have been a couple of good ones which definitely look like they'll have some merit.

SG: It is inevitable that they'll probably breed during the course of the study. When you lock them up in a tank, fish get pretty horny you know. ;)

I think giving them to Fish and Game (or your equivalent) is the best idea... as she does not have to worry about what happens to them and they will get destroyed.

Yeah...that is a front runner along with the 'donating them to science' for disection (within the university).

:sniff: So I can't buy one on e-bay :sniff:

lol...nope, but you can go pull one out of a creek if you like.

long walk/ride/flight to there from here. I'm like 3/4 of the way around the world.