Who makes the decision what constitutes a "pet"?

[Red Devil]

Someday maybe the fish will have the same rights and protection act as other pet animals ..but for now i do not think think they are acknowledged as pets.. of course they are our "pets" To almost every one who has them ..they are concidered your pet fish..naming them has nothing to do with it really.. it is how you take care of them that counts.. and just like any prize collection they mean enough to you to keep them safe and healthy.

 

[señor_pescados_felices]

Now if you went and did something deliberatly cruel to a fish (like worse than catching it and eating it ) then you could be prosecuted for sure.

Cheers

Ian

in a perfect world..... but there are so many videos on youtube that suggest otherwise

I never saw the deal with the oscar and I don't know the details but I dont believe it to be a prime example of what happens when you are cruel to fish.

I believe that in order to actually be charged with animal cruelty on a fish several things all have to line up perfectly.That or if the case is brought to the attention of the general public someone somewhere along the line will feel the pressure and someone will be charged in order to set an example.

As mentioned a peak at some of the vids on youtube lead me to believe that being charged with animal cruelty for an inhumane act against a fish is not commonplace.

But the focus of the thread:
I was just wondering,views of us MFK'ers as individuals and as aquarists aside,who makes the actual laws,decisions,or whatever that define what technically is and isn't a pet?

The suggestion that the decision is made at a state level sounds valid to me....

 

[Rakie]

are you positive of this?I have seen many things that show otherwise.We have seen an arowana fed to P's in a clear display of "animal cruelty".Betta fighting is animal cruelty and I know of no laws against it,and they fight to the death.

yes, were positive... There was a thread on it awhile back. Feeding p's an Arowana isn't animal cruelty in the laws eye's I think. Seeing as it could happen in nature, however a guy doesn't pull a fish out and kill it with a rock in nature.

Honestly... Feeding P's an arowanan is no worse then feeding a snake a rabbit. If you wanna feed your P's fish that are more then feeders, then fine... its a waste of a fish but o well.

 

[señor_pescados_felices]

Feeding p's an Arowana isn't animal cruelty in the laws eye's I think. Seeing as it could happen in nature, however a guy doesn't pull a fish out and kill it with a rock in nature.

see above statement

Honestly... Feeding P's an arowanan is no worse then feeding a snake a rabbit. If you wanna feed your P's fish that are more then feeders, then fine... its a waste of a fish but o well.

there was a long thread on this as well and you will find that train of thought is representative of a vast minority of the opinions expressed.

edit:also I will note that while I have a 98% pure Timber wolf that would eat a small deer in nature,doesn't mean I could film it tearing one to shreds in my backyard and put it on you tube as being "no worse than feeding a snake a rabbit"....

 

[Sturgeon]

It has been many hundreds of years since man has domesticated a new animal- and no, I dont mean domesticating a new breed of a species. fish have been kept as pets for thousands of years and humans understand what is required to keep fish successfully, so IMHO it clearly classifies as a pet

 

[Rakie]

also I will note that while I have a 98% pure Timber wolf that would eat a small deer in nature,doesn't mean I could film it tearing one to shreds in my backyard and put it on you tube as being "no worse than feeding a snake a rabbit"

First and foremost, just because you saw something on youtube doesn't mean cops are going to pursue it. Has that stuff been filmed ? Yes, have people gotten away with it ? yes... Have people been arrested for it ? Yes. They have, there was a thread on that in our OT a few months back, where a man pulled an Oscar out of a tank (his GF's) and stomped it to death. He got animal cruelty charges.


Second, about the wolf/deer... Why not ? its nature. Things eat other things. There's not much difference from a wolf eating a deer and what i've said, aside from gore. And if gore is what you're talking about, then that makes P's eating fish even more mild then a snake eating a rabbit, most people aren't stunned by fish being ripped apart and this discussion is tailored towards all people, not just fish keepers.

In the end I just disagree. Any animal killing any animal isn't that bad. If they were animals that would never meet in the wild, ok thats different.

 

[Liam]

, And what I don't get is, Why can't we eat the fish we catch? Seems stupid, We're natural predators of fish, It's like saying we can't eat beef or lamb. Why are fish any different from any other animal? I've seen frogs eat mice, P's eat mice, Nothing wrong about it, they're natural predators of mice, who gives a flying @#$%.

 

[Wolf3101]

This is WAY out of hand...I know of people who feed mice..rats...rabbits and even live chickens to snakes and still others who keep them as pets. This is an age old debate between the two camps.

This is really a question that each and every one of us has to answer in his or her own heart. As far as a leagal context goes...just how much more government control do we really need in our lives?
No mater how hard you try you can never legislate morality...nor should you even try.

Granted cruelty laws exist for other animals but in the eye of the law...when all's said and done...Animals are little more than property.

Do you WANT the fish police crusing the net for pictures and showing up on your doorstep with a bucket because in thier opinion your fish is in too small of a tank?

Personally..I'm happy with things the way they are...

Next thing you know we'll have PETA pushing for a ban on all fishkeeping.

 

[señor_pescados_felices]

First and foremost, just because you saw something on youtube doesn't mean cops are going to pursue it. Has that stuff been filmed ? Yes, have people gotten away with it ? yes... Have people been arrested for it ? Yes. They have, there was a thread on that in our OT a few months back, where a man pulled an Oscar out of a tank (his GF's) and stomped it to death. He got animal cruelty charges.


Second, about the wolf/deer... Why not ? its nature. Things eat other things. There's not much difference from a wolf eating a deer and what i've said, aside from gore. And if gore is what you're talking about, then that makes P's eating fish even more mild then a snake eating a rabbit, most people aren't stunned by fish being ripped apart and this discussion is tailored towards all people, not just fish keepers.

In the end I just disagree. Any animal killing any animal isn't that bad. If they were animals that would never meet in the wild, ok thats different.

You are not reading my statements thoroughly, and it is making it somewhat pointless to debate with you,esp. since the subject of the debate itself is somewhat off topic.

You have brought up this oscar video before and I say again to you "read above statement" (now 6 or 7 up) where I stated that I had not heard of the oscar thing but had expressed my feeling on the matter.

I am not so much trying to get into the discussion of morality,which is mainly personal opinion, I only wanted to know who made the official legal decisions as to what constitutes a pet.Nobody is against the statement that the decision is made at a state level,and it sounds good to me to.

My point with the wolf statement was that,regardless of the fact that my wolf might eat a fawn or a calf (as civilization is ever encroaching on their territory) in the wild, I cannot film him killing and eating one in the fenced in confines of my own backyard.I would be hunted down and brought up on charges within days at max.

I am not saying it is a totally different thing I am saying that letting my wolf do that in my backyard ind letting P's tear up an aro in a tank are much the same thing so who decides (again,legally,not morally) that one person is prosecutable by law and the other is recreating an act of nature?

I also don't know what is this "just because you see it on you tube doesnt mean the police are going to pursue it".If officials believe they have a good case that might possibly be worth their time they will pursue anything.

Post a video of your dogfighting ranch and you will be caught with a quickness and an ease unheard of....post a video of your betta fighting ranch and people will maybe post nasty comments,damaging your sense of self worth at worst.

This leads me to believe that being prosecuted for animal cruelty on a fish is far from commonplace.

Wolf I am sorry but you too misunderstand my statements,which I had believed to be clear,well thought out,and to the point.

I am not trying to be an advocate for fish rights,nor am I pushing for harsher fish keeping laws.

I am just asking:

ON WHAT OFFICIAL LEVEL IS IT DECIDED THAT FISH ARE JUST PROPERTY NOT PETS?

 

[guppy]

"Pet" is an individual judgement call, there are those who keep pigs and even cattle as pets.
Do you love the animal? Are you emotionally invested in it? Then it is a pet, even if it does not return the affection. When Scooter, my cat was hit by a car and killed I sat and cried for at least an hour, I am not talking about "manly" tears here, I sobbed and wailed. He was my best friend for 15 years and I wake up several times a week just because I realize he is not next to me. That is a pet (admitedly a bit of an extreme example). But when my pike minnow died yesterday because the stupid thing tried to eat an 8" crayfish and choked on it overnight, well my reaction was annoyance (it is now food for my bass and bluegill), this was not a pet.