Betta fish fighting ring where do u stand?

[RandomWiktor]

Exactly how much have you read in terms of peer reviewed scientific journals regarding the cognition and ethology of fish? Your opinion of them as being set so far apart from other animals seems ill-informed to me by its very nature, as modern research of the minds of fish increasingly demonstrates that many species are extremely high functioning and complex, cognitively, behaviorally, etc.

Either way, pain is not a function of emotion as your post suggests; it is sensed pysiologically and outwardly demonstrated through behavioral responses. And there have been numerous studies indicating that fish show pain behaviors. Perhaps you've never had the misfortune of dealing with a badly wounded fish first hand, but the stress and pain behaviors are extremely blatant and comparable to those seen in other vertebrates, and research backs anectdotal evidence of this. That being said, since the issue here is the suffering of the animal, I reiterate that issues like the intelligence and emotions of the fish is a moot point when it comes to determining if fighting fish is cruel and should be illegal.

As I said, I don't think it warrants the same penalty as dog fighting necessarily because the surrounding sociological issues, but why on earth should any form of animal fighting be legal? Really, please offer one rational reason for why it ought to be legal. And don't bother saying "enforcement issues," because honestly, what law IS well enforced in this country.

I find it pretty tragic that a forum full of fish enthusiasts has such a low opinion of the species they keep, to the point of thinking they don't even warrant legal protection. And for the record, all captivity is selfish and involves breeding and confining animals for our amusement, so if you wish to have a debate on the ethics of fishkeeping - which really isn't the topic of the thread - you'd have to open that argument to all captivity. Including the dogs and cats that are given such (IME unwarranted) higher regard. Even still, I find it funny that the ethics of fishkeeping is being questioned if fish matter so little that they apparently don't even deserve legal protection from the most pointless and brutal forms of exploitation.

 

[Delhezi222]

Exactly how much have you read in terms of peer reviewed scientific journals regarding the cognition and ethology of fish? Your opinion of them as being set so far apart from other animals seems ill-informed to me by its very nature, as modern research of the minds of fish increasingly demonstrates that many species are extremely high functioning and complex, cognitively, behaviorally, etc.

Either way, pain is not a function of emotion as your post suggests; it is sensed pysiologically and outwardly demonstrated through behavioral responses. And there have been numerous studies indicating that fish show pain behaviors. Perhaps you've never had the misfortune of dealing with a badly wounded fish first hand, but the stress and pain behaviors are extremely blatant and comparable to those seen in other vertebrates, and research backs anectdotal evidence of this. That being said, since the issue here is the suffering of the animal, I reiterate that issues like the intelligence and emotions of the fish is a moot point when it comes to determining if fighting fish is cruel and should be illegal.

I'm not saying that pain has anything to do with emotions, nor am I saying that fish do not feel pain. I'm saying that because fish do not show emotion and beacause we can't easily pick up on their pain, human beings as a whole will most likely never feel sympathetic towards fish. I'm not saying it's right, that's just the way it is.

As I said, I don't think it warrants the same penalty as dog fighting necessarily because the surrounding sociological issues, but why on earth should any form of animal fighting be legal? Really, please offer one rational reason for why it ought to be legal. And don't bother saying "enforcement issues," because honestly, what law IS well enforced in this country.

Because the time and money required to actually punish the people who commit the crimes is not worth it. I'm not saying it's morally right that a $2 fish is held in less regard than a much more expensive dog, but monetarily it's just not logical to waste money in pursuit of small crimes when there are much bigger problems at hand. Also, because it is much harder to prove that people are fighting fish than fighting dogs. Dogs don't normally get injuries just from being kept with other dogs. There are fish that will injure other fish, whether on purpose or not. And really, there aren't that many people out there fighting fish.

I find it pretty tragic that a forum full of fish enthusiasts has such a low opinion of the species they keep, to the point of thinking they don't even warrant legal protection. And for the record, all captivity is selfish and involves breeding and confining animals for our amusement, so if you wish to have a debate on the ethics of fishkeeping - which really isn't the topic of the thread - you'd have to open that argument to all captivity. Including the dogs and cats that are given such (IME unwarranted) higher regard. Even still, I find it funny that the ethics of fishkeeping is being questioned if fish matter so little that they apparently don't even deserve legal protection from the most pointless and brutal forms of exploitation.

I don't know about all people, but I disagree that all captivity is selfish. I keep fish for amusement, yes. But I have a dog for companionship, not amusement. I view my dog as more of a friend, which is why she is given higher regard than my fish. I have never been given the gift of friendship by a fish. Do you know how loyal cats and dogs are? Yuo can't say the same about fish. And no, no fishkeeping is ethical. And yes, people are selfish to keep fish in aquariums. Yet, a lot of people do that. So why is that not a crime? Obviously, fish will never be held in as high regard as other animals, so what's the point in trying to change that. There are some things that can be changed, I don't believe this is one of them.

Mine are in red...

 

[RandomWiktor]

I am just interested to know where you draw the line for which crimes are "worth" pursuing and which aren't. We pursue petty theft, graffiti, downloading music, etc. all of which could be seen as a waste of taxpayer dollars depending on your stance. The damage done by these activities is marginal at best, yet we still pursue them.

Animal fighting, on the other hand, results in the injury and/or death of a living thing for a rather depraved reason. Most states have laws that protect against less egregious forms of cruelty such as neglect; you're more apt to get in trouble for having a dog with matted fur than killing a fish. Are the existing animal protection laws frivolous in your opinion? As far as I can see, behaviors that result in something being harmed and killed warrant consideration, especially given the correlation between animal abuse and crimes against humans.

Most laws act more as a deterrent; the majority are poorly enforced at best. While some individuals will break the law regardless of how it stands, I'd think the chance of a heavy fine and a permenant record would be enough to deter at least some teenaged suburban ****heads from fighting their fish and posting the videos on YouTube or throwing two bettas in a cup at WalMart.

And while you make a valid point about it being harder to prove fish fighting than dog fighting, are you aware that most animal fighting laws require a MOUNTAIN of evidence for a successful prosecution? It's not like you'll get prosecuted for having a scarred up dog. Generally the fight needs to be observed in progress, the person must have a heap of fighting paraphernalia, or videos/pictures of them participating? I don't see as it would be any different were fish given the same protection.

I don't feel like derailing the thread with an argument about the ethics of keeping pets - because I could probably spit you a novel back about that one - but I will tell you that if we agree on one thing, it's that fishkeeping is an ethical trainwreck. That would be why all of my fish are "second hand" and rescue animals from folks who couldn't keep them any more or intended to cull them off. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I rescue bettas, several of whom were fought. That's part of why I feel so strongly on this issue.

As a final point - because it is abundantly clear to me that neither of us will change the other's mind on the issue - I just wanted to point out that our atitudes towards fish are already gradually changing as a society, so I would not write off their ethical consideration so hastily. Cultural perspectives are dynamic, not static. Remember that it was not long ago in our history that people of different races were inhuman. Far more recently, we were claiming that dogs and cats - now ridiculously anthropomorphised to the point of being considered little furry humans - were nothing but furry little machines. Recall the experiments of nailing dogs to boards and claiming their cries of pain were just the sounds of a malfunctioning machine. What changed these perspectives was the spread of knowledge and advocacy for these species. I for one strongly advocate for the humane treatment of fish because I refuse to throw my hands up and say "oh well, it will never change." Some countries already DO have laws protecting fish, and I am confident that as our knowledge of them and their needs expands, they will eventually be afforded greater consideration.

 

[Delhezi222]

I am just interested to know where you draw the line for which crimes are "worth" pursuing and which aren't. We pursue petty theft, graffiti, downloading music, etc. all of which could be seen as a waste of taxpayer dollars depending on your stance. The damage done by these activities is marginal at best, yet we still pursue them.

The difference between those and fighting fish is the prevalence in society. Not enough people even fight fish for it to be pursuable, but tons of those crimes happen every day.

Animal fighting, on the other hand, results in the injury and/or death of a living thing for a rather depraved reason. Most states have laws that protect against less egregious forms of cruelty such as neglect; you're more apt to get in trouble for having a dog with matted fur than killing a fish. Are the existing animal protection laws frivolous in your opinion? As far as I can see, behaviors that result in something being harmed and killed warrant consideration, especially given the correlation between animal abuse and crimes against humans.

In no way do I think that the laws currently in place regarding dogs are unnecessary. I've already stated my beliefs on the difference between dogs and fish, don't think I need to go back to that.

Most laws act more as a deterrent; the majority are poorly enforced at best. While some individuals will break the law regardless of how it stands, I'd think the chance of a heavy fine and a permenant record would be enough to deter at least some teenaged suburban ****heads from fighting their fish and posting the videos on YouTube or throwing two bettas in a cup at WalMart.

A heavy fine? Do you really think that even if there was a law protecting fish that there would be a heavy fine for it? The fish cost a few dollars each, the fine would not be that much.

And while you make a valid point about it being harder to prove fish fighting than dog fighting, are you aware that most animal fighting laws require a MOUNTAIN of evidence for a successful prosecution? It's not like you'll get prosecuted for having a scarred up dog. Generally the fight needs to be observed in progress, the person must have a heap of fighting paraphernalia, or videos/pictures of them participating? I don't see as it would be any different were fish given the same protection.

Because for fish it would be even more difficult than dogs. You'd have to almost have to hear the people involved admit to fighting fish. I could put two bettas in a cup, and then claim that I was just experimenting to see if they would live together. If a couple of experienced fishkeepers put two extremely aggressive fish in a properly sized tank and one ends up killing the other and then in another case two people purposely put two aggressive fish in a small tank, the end result would be the same. Unless the people who fought the fish admitted to it, there would be no way to tell the difference.

I don't feel like derailing the thread with an argument about the ethics of keeping pets - because I could probably spit you a novel back about that one - but I will tell you that if we agree on one thing, it's that fishkeeping is an ethical trainwreck. That would be why all of my fish are "second hand" and rescue animals from folks who couldn't keep them any more or intended to cull them off. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I rescue bettas, several of whom were fought. That's part of why I feel so strongly on this issue.

I definitely commend you for that then, I've tried to do the same in the past. Rescuing fish is a good thing, just as it would be to rescue any other animals.

As a final point - because it is abundantly clear to me that neither of us will change the other's mind on the issue - I just wanted to point out that our atitudes towards fish are already gradually changing as a society, so I would not write off their ethical consideration so hastily. Cultural perspectives are dynamic, not static. Remember that it was not long ago in our history that people of different races were inhuman. Far more recently, we were claiming that dogs and cats - now ridiculously anthropomorphised to the point of being considered little furry humans - were nothing but furry little machines. Recall the experiments of nailing dogs to boards and claiming their cries of pain were just the sounds of a malfunctioning machine. What changed these perspectives was the spread of knowledge and advocacy for these species. I for one strongly advocate for the humane treatment of fish because I refuse to throw my hands up and say "oh well, it will never change." Some countries already DO have laws protecting fish, and I am confident that as our knowledge of them and their needs expands, they will eventually be afforded greater consideration.

Yeah, it appears that both of us are steadfast in our beliefs. Which, at least from my point of view, is a good thing. I enjoy a good debate, especially one where it's obvious that there won't be a winner. Usually they make you think quite a bit and sometimes even question your beliefs. And if some day fish do gain more respect and laws do get put in place, then that's fine in my eyes. I know I certainly won't complain, they won't do any harm to me.

Well, this was fun. Good to see there are still mature people out there that can have an argument without turning to personal insult.

 

[danalito]

I see everyones points....I understand the feelings of "it's just a fish"..vs a dog when my rotty died of cancer it was like losing a member of the family! I have lost many fish over the years and only grieved from the time they went from the tank [or floor] to the toilet, [or trash].....HOWEVER, I actually fully agree with what RandomWiktor said in his first sentence...."Exactly what on earth does a fish's intelligence or bond to humans have to do with it's ability to experience pain and suffering?"

And yes I too feel {SOME WHAT} the penalty should be different for a dog over a fish, however, I have to even question myself---What is the line?....dogs, horses, cock fights, etc....vs fish, beetle, rats, etc...what animal is the one that gets a heavier fine or jail time, and what animal is the cut off point for penalties?
Of course I know enforcement wise I've never seen a fish, bug, or beetle ring, like I've seen dog, cock, and horse fighting rings. I'm no lawyer , but I know the law protects animals as Animals are allocated as “property” of the owner. As property, the owner may do what they wish with their pet except, abuse or neglect the health and well-being of the animal. The problem is in prosecuting someone for the handling of their own property. States have different laws there are states that protect certain insects as well. A few states [not many] dont protect fish, crustaceans, or invertebrates.
In my state of Texas..."Wild" animals are not fully protected from abuse Texas Animal Cruelty Laws mainly apply to any “domesticated living creature or any wild living creature previously captured.” What this means is that criminal cruelty laws protect livestock and animals that are in custody, like everyday household pets, but they do not provide the same protection for animals that fall outside this narrow definition. Wild animals include deer, rabbits, squirrels, birds, or any other animal over which no one has custody. There have been cases here where a persons animal [cats and dogs got lose, and was abused by someone in one way or another. In one case the teens beat a cat with a baseball bat. Although the cat had been named and cared for by a woman, the court deemed the cat wild, and thus unprotected by the criminal statutes, because he had not been technically captured.

Most states have the simple rule of---- as your property whatever the animal may be, you may not abuse or neglect the health and well-being of the animal! Therefore you have a dog, cat, FISH, it is now your property and under the protection of animal cruelty laws across the board. [and thus the interpretations and proof of intent] Otherwise how would anyone say, dog ok, rat no, rooster, no cat ok, etc etc. That law keeps it broad a simple.

Wild animal cruelty many states still need to work on those laws!

 

[mgk]

A heavy fine? Do you really think that even if there was a law protecting fish that there would be a heavy fine for it? The fish cost a few dollars each, the fine would not be that much.

Not necessarily true. A song costs 99 cents online, if you were to be taken to court for pirating that one song could cost thousands of dollars.

There would probably be less of a penalty if I went to Walmart punched the cashier in the face and stole a cd.

 

[crisper]

Whats wrong about it, is that it is done for human enjoyment. It has nothing at all to do with what goes on in nature. It is cowardly and inhumane.

 

[hmoobvwj]

I did not read the thread so forgive me if someone already mentioned it or what not......
Where I stand is in the middle...I mean I fight my betta like once a month but not to death...I usually do it with friends to see who has the best fighter.

But in my eyes, fish fighting or animal fighting in general (not the ones where you fight them to death) is just like a sport of some sort in the animal kingdom. I mean we humans fight too like in UFC and stuff, and I know they don't fight to death but I'm also saying it can never happen. Now isn't UFC and stuff cruelty too? It is also for our own entertainment too if I'm not mistaken. Just my $0.02.

 

[Delhezi222]

Whats wrong about it, is that it is done for human enjoyment. It has nothing at all to do with what goes on in nature. It is cowardly and inhumane.

Don't think anyone ever said it wasn't wrong.

 

[crisper]

I did not read the thread so forgive me if someone already mentioned it or what not......
Where I stand is in the middle...I mean I fight my betta like once a month but not to death...I usually do it with friends to see who has the best fighter.

But in my eyes, fish fighting or animal fighting in general (not the ones where you fight them to death) is just like a sport of some sort in the animal kingdom. I mean we humans fight too like in UFC and stuff, and I know they don't fight to death but I'm also saying it can never happen. Now isn't UFC and stuff cruelty too? It is also for our own entertainment too if I'm not mistaken. Just my $0.02.

Fighting in the ufc is a sport and is done by choice no one is forced into. I think alot of people really dont get it.