Animal Cruelty Laws: Do They Include Fish?

Despite irrefutable scientific evidence that fish feel pain, many animal cruelty laws don't apply to fish. This is because fish are often excluded from the definition of animal in legislation. In the US, the Animal Welfare Act was initially designed to protect a limited category of animals used in laboratory research and focused on warm-blooded mammals. The definition has expanded somewhat, but it continues to exclude most aquatic animals. A number of US states explicitly exclude fish from the definition of animal in their anti-cruelty statutes. This means that there are many instances in which there is no regulation protecting aquatic animals. While some countries are working to change this, fish are still widely abused and killed by the trillions in the food sector, the pet trade, laboratories, and blood sports.

Do animal cruelty laws consider fish as animals?

The question of whether animal cruelty laws consider fish as animals is a complex one, with varying responses across different regions and legal systems. While fish are often excluded from animal protection legislation, there are some instances where they are afforded legal protection.

The Exclusion of Fish from Animal Cruelty Laws

In many countries, fish are not included in the definition of "animal" used in legislation. This exclusion can be intentional or unintentional, indicating a potential lack of consideration for the protection of aquatic animals by legislators. As a result, protective provisions in relevant laws that apply to animals may not extend to fish.

The federal Animal Welfare Act in the United States, for example, does not protect fish, birds, farm animals, rats, mice bred for labs, or reptiles. Fish are also not included in the Humane Slaughter Act or federal laws governing the treatment of animals used in research. Additionally, some states in the US explicitly exclude fish from the definition of "animal" in their anti-cruely statutes, such as Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, and the Virgin Islands.

Arguments for the Inclusion of Fish in Animal Cruelty Laws

However, there are strong arguments for including fish in animal cruelty laws. Scientific evidence suggests that fish do feel pain, and they are subjected to cruel practices in the food sector, pet trade, laboratories, and blood sports. Fish are killed by the trillions each year, and their exclusion from animal cruelty laws means that this abuse often goes unprosecuted.

In addition, the treatment of aquatic animals, including fish, differs from that of terrestrial animals. This disparity in treatment may be based on their species, context of use (pet, food, entertainment, etc.), jurisdiction, or the value placed on them.

Efforts to Protect Fish

Despite the exclusions in many laws, there are some instances where fish are afforded legal protection. For example, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in the US offers coverage for certain aquatic animals, such as polar bears, dolphins, and whales. The Endangered Species Act also protects certain species of aquatic animals based on their threatened or endangered status.

Furthermore, some states in the US, such as Oregon and Oklahoma, explicitly include fish in their statutory definition of "animal." This provides a stronger basis for advocating for the protection of fish and other aquatic animals under animal cruelty laws.

What are the economic factors influencing animal cruelty laws for fish?

The economic factors influencing animal cruelty laws for fish are multifaceted and complex. One key factor is the classification of fish as food, which differs from the classification of livestock. Fish are often categorized similarly to vegetables or other food products, and therefore, cruelty laws that apply to livestock may not extend to fish. This classification has significant implications for the fishing industry, which treats fish as commodities.

The fishing industry, particularly commercial fishing operations, plays a crucial role in the economic landscape of many countries. These operations generate substantial revenue and contribute to economic development, especially in coastal regions. However, the industry has come under scrutiny for its cruel and unsustainable practices, including the use of longlining and gill nets, which cause immense suffering and death among fish.

The economic dependence on the fishing industry can influence the implementation and enforcement of animal cruelty laws for fish. In states or countries with significant fishing industries, there may be a conflict between economic interests and animal welfare. For example, Florida, which prides itself as the "fishing capital of the world," has animal cruelty statutes that neither specifically include nor exclude fish, reflecting the importance of the industry to the state's economy.

Additionally, the cost of implementing and enforcing animal cruelty laws for fish can be a significant economic consideration. Developing nations aiming to establish or expand their fishing industries may require substantial financial and technical assistance in areas such as assessing fishing resources, developing management plans, and gaining access to markets. The high costs associated with establishing new fishery enterprises can place these countries at a competitive disadvantage compared to established fishing nations.

Furthermore, the economic impact of reduced access to fishing grounds or quotas due to conservation efforts can also influence animal cruelty laws. As exclusive economic zones and restrictions on fishing activities are implemented, distant water fishing nations may experience economic hardships, including vessel redundancy and unemployment for crews.

Lastly, the economic value of fish as a source of animal protein cannot be understated. Fish are an important traditional source of protein for many nations with large populations, and the availability and affordability of fish can have significant economic and social implications for these countries.

Do animal cruelty laws apply to fish in laboratories?

Animal cruelty laws vary from state to state in the US, and from country to country internationally. In general, however, animal cruelty laws do not apply to fish in laboratories.

In the US, the federal Animal Welfare Act does not protect fish, and they are not included in the Humane Slaughter Act or federal laws governing the treatment of animals used in research. Fish are also not counted in the United States Department of Agriculture's yearly report on animal usage in labs, despite making up an estimated 7-15% of animals used. While animal cruelty laws vary from state to state, a number of states explicitly exclude fish from the definition of "animal" in their anti-cruelty statutes. These states include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, and the Virgin Islands. Other states do not specifically mention fish or other aquatic animals, or don't define the term "animal" at all, which means that advocates for aquatic animals have a significant challenge in finding any statutory protections that might apply.

In the UK, a 2008 government report found that the country's increase in the number of animals used in experiments was "mainly due to increases in the use of fish". In the EU, the Animal Welfare Act explicitly excludes birds, rats, and mice bred for labs, and reptiles, among others.

Despite the lack of legal protection for fish under animal cruelty laws, there have been some cases of charges being brought against individuals for cruel behaviour towards fish. In 2019, a North Carolina man was arrested and charged with four animal cruelty misdemeanours for failing to provide his oscar fish with food and fresh water. The following week, however, the charges were dropped because, according to North Carolina's animal cruelty law, fish are not considered "animals".

While fish are not afforded the same legal protections as other animals under animal cruelty laws, there are some movements towards recognising their sentience and improving their legal status. For example, the Aquatic Animal Law Initiative, a collaboration between the Animal Legal Defense Fund and Lewis and Clark Law School, focuses on issues relating to the legal protection of aquatic animals. Additionally, organisations such as In Defense of Animals work to increase awareness about fish abuse and promote compassion for these animals.

How do animal cruelty laws for fish vary across states?

The Animal Welfare Act, which is the most significant general federal legislation regulating animals in the US, does not protect fish. This is the case for most aquatic animals, who are categorized as cold-blooded and invertebrates.

However, animal cruelty laws vary across states, and while some states explicitly exclude fish from the definition of "animal" in their anti-cruelty statutes, others do not specifically mention fish or other aquatic animals, or don't define the term "animal" at all.

There are only two states that explicitly include fish in their statutory definition of "animal": Oregon and Oklahoma. In contrast, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, the Virgin Islands, and Wisconsin are among the states that explicitly exclude fish from the definition of "animal" in their anti-cruelty statutes.

In some states, animal cruelty charges have been brought against individuals for mistreating fish. For example, in Florida, three men were charged with two counts of felony aggravated animal cruelty for dragging a shark behind a boat. In another case, a North Carolina man was arrested and charged with four animal cruelty misdemeanors for failing to provide his pet fish with food and fresh water. However, these charges were later dropped because, according to North Carolina's animal cruelty law, fish are not considered "animals."

What are the challenges in advocating for animal cruelty laws for fish?

There are several challenges in advocating for animal cruelty laws for fish. Firstly, fish are often excluded from animal protection laws or are explicitly exempted from their purview. For instance, the federal Animal Welfare Act in the United States does not cover fish, birds, farm animals, laboratory animals, and reptiles. This exclusion extends to state-level legislation as well, with many states in the US explicitly excluding fish from the definition of "animal" in their anti-cruelty statutes. This means that acts of cruelty towards fish may not be prosecutable under existing animal cruelty laws.

Secondly, there is a lack of consensus on whether fish feel pain, with some arguing that they lack the brain parts that enable other animals to feel pain. This uncertainty makes it challenging to build a strong case for extending animal cruelty laws to include fish. While scientific evidence suggests that fish do experience pain and suffering, it is not always considered sufficient to warrant legal protection.

Thirdly, the economic classification of fish as food, rather than livestock, in most countries further complicates the issue. Fish are often regulated similarly to vegetables or other food products, which means that cruelty laws typically do not apply to them. This classification allows for practices such as catching, drowning, and eating fish without legal repercussions.

Additionally, the usage of fish also impacts their legal protection. For example, the Animal Welfare Act in the US specifically excludes animals intended for food or fiber from its protections. As a result, aquatic animals used for food are excluded from the Act, even if they are included in the definition of "animal".

Lastly, the advocacy for fish welfare often takes a back seat to other, more pressing issues. The focus on protecting mammals and terrestrial animals takes precedence, leaving fish welfare as a less prioritized concern. This challenge is evident in the lack of public outrage or attention towards fish cruelty, making it difficult to garner support for policy changes that include fish under animal cruelty laws.

Frequently asked questions