Talk:Fish slaughter

Problematic introduction & phrasings
While the rest of the article seems slightly better phrased, the introduction has problematic parts: "Some relatively humane slaughter methods have been developed, including percussive and electric stunning. However, most fish harvesting continues to use methods like suffocation in air, carbon-dioxide stunning, or ice chilling that may not optimise fish welfare in some instances."

The first issue is the lack of critical awareness on whether the supposedly "relatively humane slaughter methods" are actually humane and a lack of critical perspective on whether there can even be 'humane' (understand, 'kind/compassionate') slaughter at all. Thankfully that is briefly mentioned under the 'Inhumane methods' section, but I think 1-2 sentences including why 'some ethicists' believe there is no humane slaughter method would be warranted.

The second issue that is even more concerning is the ending of the last sentence: "that may not optimise fish welfare in some instances". Both "may not" and "in some instances" are highly problematic given that no animal farming practices ever optimise welfare. They are profit-driven practices that will at best include some concern for welfare (usually out of regulatory or public image pressure), but they do not optimise that welfare, they optimise profit. So it is not "may not" but "do not", and it is not "in some instances", it is always. This issue is made worse by the fact that this sentence is commenting on the methods that are not even the supposedly "relatively humane" ones… and even the "relatively humane" ones do not optimise welfare.

Later in the article, it also seems problematic how various forms of intense pain have been described merely as being "stressful", such as "however, if the operator misses the brain, the results may be stressful for the fish". Having one's body pierced or suffocating to death and so on is likely far more harmful than "being stressed" would suggest. The reason why those phrasings are problematic is that they undermine the extent of harm being done and thus are not an accurate resource for a reader seeking to understand what is involved in fish slaughter. Zacharie Chiron (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I've made an attempt at improving the opening a little bit. I think the edit I made can still be improved, but made a start at it if you want to look at it, give feedback, and or edit it
 * (didn't write any of the original introduction that was there before; I just wanted to improve it). TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I also found this section of the article to be a bit subjective, so I altered the introduction a bit to reference both the "inhumane" and "humane" methods more neutrally. Brisaintedits (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Brisaintedits

Wiki Education assignment: Engl 221 Introduction to Technical and Professional Communication
— Assignment last updated by EMEEdits (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Fish Sentience Section
I thought it might be beneficial to add a section on fish sentience with a little bit of background on studies of pain within fish to add more background as to why people raise concerns about fish slaughter. Brisaintedits Brisaintedits (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)