Is A Goldfish An Animal?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/regional/11418731.Ross_on_Wye_man_avoids_prison_sentence_after_drinking_four_fish_in_Neck_Nomination_dare/

Yes the question could be "is this person an animal"?

But I don't want to discuss the disgusting drinking 'game' called 'Neck Nomination', but what I need to ask is "was the RSPC going a little over the top over this?

The court heard that this idiot will be able to keep his pet goldfish as Magistrates declined to disqualify him from owning animals. He could have also faced a six month jail sentence, and under the Animal Welfare Act, 'torturing or killing' the fish - each several centimetres in length - carries the same weight as killing four horses.

Do we make it a criminal offence to hook fish in angling, or allowing them to die out of water during commercial fishing, or even boiling a lobster alive.

/// Wooding was sentenced to an 18-month conditional discharge for two offences under the Animal Welfare Act; causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal and failing to ensure the welfare of an animal of which we was responsible for. ///

[ToraToraTora]

Yes.

[jomifl]

Yes, it is a fish animal.

[jomifl]

Acn't see that swallowing live goldfish is any different to swallowing live oysters. At least he didn't drench them with citric acid first.

[jim360]

Well obviously a goldfish is an animal, and so are all other fish, and eating them alive is pretty disgusting. I personally object to boiling lobsters alive in particular, if it comes to that, although I believe that the argument over whether lobsters feel pain in the same way that humans do is an ongoing one so perhaps it's my own squeamishness.

I think the sentence received is the right one because this looks like a one-off stupid act rather than part of a pattern of cruelty to animals.

[Retrochic]

jomilf -exactly! Crabs,prawns,lobster all boiled alive. Oysters quaffed down while still moving - not nice but not illegal. Totally over the top but typical RSPCA -publicity stunt.

[jno]

it's not a vegetable or a mineral, so yes. Some fish crawled out of the sea and became humans, others stayed where they were. So we are still related to them.

Come to that, it seems we share about 75% of our DNA with pumpkins.

[Canary42]

/// Come to that, it seems we share about 75% of our DNA with pumpkins.///

Reading some contributions to AB I can easily accept that :)

[Canary42]

P.S. ... and no, I don't exclude my own :(

[anotheoldgit]

jno

/// Some fish crawled out of the sea and became humans, others stayed where they were. ///

And it has been said, "some humans crawled from under rocks".

[belrec]

I particularly like this bit

"If I'd know there was a law against it I wouldn't have done it."

Tha'ts the only reason he wouldn't have done it because it was against the law not because it might be cruel to the fish hahaha. What an idiot but its OK because he:

"He was stupid, he was irresponsible, but he has learned the error of his ways."

[Old_Geezer]

Clearly a fish is not a vegetable nor a mineral, so yes, obviously it is an animal.

For sure one must define what is permissible as animal rights for each species. I assume a pet is given more rights than an animal breed for food. Neither are allowed to be made to suffer unnecessarily. I suspect food animals probably aren't to be eaten alive for that reason but I'm not an expert. Being cooked alive is usually allowed if the animal is not believed to feel pain during the process, a claim that seems on shakier ground these days.

I'd suspect the RSPCA would be right to prosecute this case regarding pets, or else they are tacitly saying it is ok to have these sorts of drinking games.

[woofgang]

yes a goldfish is an animal. Yes the RSPCA should have prosecuted.

[Retrochic]

The question should be is a goldfish a protected animal as in protected under the Animal Welfare Act, and it is. An Oyster is an animal but not protected under the Act so you can sprinkle them with Tabasco and quaff them alive without fear of prosecution.

[jomifl]

Sandeels (a species of fish ) are used as live bait to catch bass (another species of fish). A hook is passed throught the sandeel's body via the mouth so that the hook protrudes from the sandeel's anus. This is then drawn through the water to catch the bass. I cannot see how swallowing a goldfish or four live is any worse yet this method of fishing is carried out with no prosecution.

[Retrochic]

jomilf -because the sand eel is not protected under the Animal Welfare Act.

[New Judge]

Yes. Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (which deals with unnecessary suffering) only applies to "protected animals":

An animal is a “protected animal” for the purposes of this Act if—

(a)it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,

(b)it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or

(c)it is not living in a wild state.

It is doubtful indeed that the sandeel meets this definition but a captive goldfish most certainly does. This also explains why hauling a wild fish from the water by a hook in its mouth to either die of suffocation or to be sodded about with before being returned to the drink (in short, angling) is similarly not likely to fall foul of the Act.

[jomifl]

Curious, I have always thought that a golfish was simply a wild fish kept in a tank. Does it have any 'domestic' attributes other than allowing itself to be fed? Are feral cats protected, or pheasants? what a crock of ....nonsense the law is.

[Retrochic]

jomilf -goldfish don't exist in the wild but if one escaped and you caught it by mistake on your fishing line then I doubt you'd be prosecuted -and I totally agree with you about the Law.

[viv38]

Agree with the RSPCA for prosecuting him and aog I WISH boiling a lobster alive was illegal.

[jomifl]

retro, goldfish kind of do and don't exist in the wild, as they are basically a variety of carp they breed with wild carp when they escape as they often do, and their offspring are wild carp.