Guppy Fry As Feeder Fish...

[andywg]

Ok, time for facts on this.

It is NOT illegal to use feeder fish in the UK. End of. There is no law in any way shape or form that explicitly states one cannot feed a fish to another fish.

The recent law (Animal Welfare Act 2006) does not in any refer to the feeding of one fish to another fish. I know because I have read the entire statute:

You can too, here.

I have commented on this before and for the sake of brevity I shall reproduce an earlier response below, but if anyone ever tries to tell you it is illegal, ask them to provide the section number and the act under which it is illegal, I bet pound to a penny they can't.

Repeated post starts here:

There is a statutory defence to anyone feeding a predator feeder fish, especially if the predator is not eating frozen yet, by using s. 4(3) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (in particular note my bold):

4(3) The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for
the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include:

(a) whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced;
​

(B) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment;
​

(c ) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as -
​

(i) the purpose of benefiting the animal, or
​

(ii) the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal;
​

(d) whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned;
​

(e) whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.​

​

You are preventing a predator from having a long, drawn out death from starvation by giving it a meal. The death of the prey is swift and there is no unnecessary suffering so long as you have some basic ethics about using feeder fish.


It is interesting to note that there is nothing that I can see in the entire act and appended schedules that even mentions the term "feeding". There are no provisions made for the inclusion or exclusion of it in the actions made illegal by the act. Suffering is described as:

"suffering" means physical or mental suffering and related expressions
shall be construed accordingly;

s. 62(1) Animal Welfare Act 2006

Edit---

Forgot to add, there were rumours that the might ban live feeding (causing some concern among the reptile and snake communities) but it was decided not to make the feeding of live vertebrates illegal in the case where failing to do so would result in a longer and unnatural death for the predator. There is mention in Hansard of them debating this in one of the houses (I think it's the commons, but may be wrong).

Also, there is absolutely no control relating to suffering when caring for inverts at all, be they snails or octopus.

Cheers

Andy

 

[nmonks]

While Andy is absolutely correct about the law as framed, within the UK, it's important to note that the law was drafted (among other things) to deal with animal fights. In theory, you could use the law to prosecute someone who set two bettas against each other for the purposes of sport (Section 8).

In other words, and I say this without being a lawyer, you could potentially bring a case against someone who puts a goldfish into a tank with a red-tail catfish on the basis that what the defendant was doing was setting up a fight between two animals. Admittedly, a very one-sided fight, but I don't see anything in the law that says the fight has to between two matched individuals (8/1/a "Causes an animal fight to take place, or attempts to do so").

On the other hand, a defence might be found in 9/2/c, where the owner must allow an animal "its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns". That said, 9/2/d explicitly states the owner must also accommodate "any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals". Surely a feeder guppy or goldfish definitely need to be housed apart from a predatory catfish!

In other words, I think this law is still undefined with regard to feeder fish. It hasn't been tested. Until such time as it has, then commentaries as to the legality or illegality are still provisional. English law is heavily based on precedent, and we don't have any precedents here yet.

Of course, there are so few situations where feeder fish are truly required that precisely what this law means and doesn't mean is academic for most fishkeepers. For aquarists keeping pike cichlids, oscars, bagrid catfish, etc there's simply no need to use feeder fish. River shrimp and earthworms are safer and healthier live foods, and frozen foods are cheaper and easier to use.

Cheers, Neale

 

[andywg]

While Andy is absolutely correct about the law as framed, within the UK, it's important to note that the law was drafted (among other things) to deal with animal fights. In theory, you could use the law to prosecute someone who set two bettas against each other for the purposes of sport (Section 8).

Indeed one could, but then fighting bettas is placing two fish in a situation where none is truly benfitting from the encounter. The winning betta does not (or at least will rarely) gain sustenance from defeating its opponent. A predator eating prey will gain energy, and as such, while it has been fatal for one, there is a gain from feeding.

In other words, and I say this without being a lawyer, you could potentially bring a case against someone who puts a goldfish into a tank with a red-tail catfish on the basis that what the defendant was doing was setting up a fight between two animals. Admittedly, a very one-sided fight, but I don't see anything in the law that says the fight has to between two matched individuals (8/1/a "Causes an animal fight to take place, or attempts to do so").

And any half decent barrister would shoot that argument down in flames. If you bought an animal purely with the intention to feed it to another to keep it alive then how will someone prove it is a fight? The language of s. 8 is very different from s. 4. S. 8 states that you have to cause or attempt to cause a fight. You have to have the intent for the fight to take place, and proving criminal intent is not a fun job, it used to be part of my job. Compare to s. 4 with talk like "knew, or ought reasonably to have known" where actually predicting or aiming for the outcome is not necessary.

I would wager that almost all animal cruelty cases regarding pet owners will be brought under s. 4, and there one has the help of s. 4(3)©, (d) and (e)

On the other hand, a defence might be found in 9/2/c, where the owner must allow an animal "its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns". That said, 9/2/d explicitly states the owner must also accommodate "any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals". Surely a feeder guppy or goldfish definitely need to be housed apart from a predatory catfish!

But if you are using the fish for feeding then providing when you are not feeding the fish (saving them for later) they are housed apart you have a good defence, and that is one of legal defnitions. At the time you are feeding a feeder to another fish then you can argue that you are no longer housing the fish.

Furthermore, the point in s. 9(4) can be raised, especially with such prolific breeders as guppies. One can claim that the fish would be put down and that this way is swift and better than many other methods employed by people.

In other words, I think this law is still undefined with regard to feeder fish. It hasn't been tested. Until such time as it has, then commentaries as to the legality or illegality are still provisional. English law is heavily based on precedent, and we don't have any precedents here yet.

While English law is heavily dependant on precedent, when deciding the first cases the judge will look to the intentions behind the law. Any judge will look at the debates in the Houses of Parliament and see that the government explicitly chose not to put anything about banning live feeding in the statute.

The important points came out in the standing comittee stage:

Although I understand that it may on rare occasions be considered necessary to feed a live vertebrate to a predator to encourage it to eat, the Government believe that the Bill provides the necessary balance for the courts to decide whether an offence of suffering or poor welfare has been committed. The practice of feeding animals in that way is not something that the Government wish to condone, and in fact I believe that it is extremely rare. But we would not wish to offer a blanket exemption to the practice, as it could be used as a loophole to cause suffering.

The offences in the Bill are drafted in such a way that where suffering is inflicted on a live vertebrate by feeding to a predator, the court can take that circumstance into account. It could be a ''legitimate purpose'' under subsection (3) or a circumstance to which the courts would have regard in determining whether reasonable steps were taken to meet the animal's welfare needs under clause 8(1).

So essentially, the government took a very deliberate step not to include the feeding of animals as blanketly banned. One would have to consider what suffering (if indeed any) was inflicted upon the prey.

Then one can look at the wider picture and appeal on a point of humanity in the wider sense. Consider how most sea caught fish are killed: by suffocating on land or being frozen before suffocating. Is that truly more humane than using live feeders? No, but it removes the cruelty of death away from the end consumer and as a result it is considered more desirable to the general public.

Plus, all of the above is undertaken without any ruling over whether being eaten is truly "suffering" (described unhelpfully as ‘physical or mental suffering' by the Act- oh how I love circular law). Next consider an animal that is ripped to shreds in seconds. That death, while violent, will be over extremely quicker, almost certainly quicker than slowly suffocating in the gut of a frogfish.

The final point to consider here is the public interest. Is it in the public interest to prosecute someone for feeding guppies to a predator? No. The chances of any prosecution taking place in relation to this Act are slim at best. As a result of teh above I would still state that there is no law preventing the feeding of feeders to suitably sized predators. As to feeding full sized oscars to adult RBP... then you might need a good QC.

 

[fourthtimelucky]

Wow. I knew oscars got pretty big, but I didn't know they could eat a whole QC