Feeder Fish

[andywg]

also worth noting, it is illegal here in the UK to feed live fish to other animals, including other fish.

Aaah, this old chestnut again.

It is NOT illegal in to feed live fish to other animals.

Someone even wrote to the RSPCA and published their response on this board.

The legislation states it is an offence to feed an animal to another in a way that causes unnecessary pain and/or suffering. Feeding a fish small enough to fit into the mouth of the predator in one go is not unnecessary pain and/or suffering. Feeding a full grown oscar to a pack of red belly prirannhas might be viewed different.

It was not even outlawed with the new legislation on animal welfare coming in as it was recognised (and recorded in Hansard) when the Lords were debating the issue that some exotic animals do require the use of live foods to initiate feeding.

If you need to use feeder fish, you have to make sure they will be eaten in as humane a way as possible, that is all.

 

[CFC]

There was however a case a few years back where a pub landlord was prosecuted by the RSPCA for feeding live guppies to an oscar which was kept in the pub in a tank on the bar, he used to do a weekly charity fund raiser where people would place small bets on which coloured guppy would last the longest and someone reported him which resulted in a hefty fine and a ban of keeping animals for a period of time.

It is a very grey area indeed, the law states that live vertebrate animals may not be used to feed other animals accept in very extreme circumstances, i.e a newly imported animal will starve without live food. Fish do possess a backbone and so are by classification a vertebrate animal which would make it illegal to use them as food, it does however seem to be down to the discretion of your local RSPCA officer as to whether they decide to prosecute should you be found to be using live feeders.

The Royal Mail states that only fish eggs and fry (young fish less than 1" long) may be sent in the post so prehaps this is where the live feeder law is acceptable too?

 

[andywg]

The guy in the pub was unnecessary cruelty. He was also taking bets on the outcome which makes makes it become a fight or contest in the eyes of the law. The law is very harsh on fights and contests.

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

So if you could afford the price of a London barrister you might be able to argue the feeding is not physical suffering as the animal is consumed in one go (assuming you aren't somewhat of a sadist).

 

[morgan]

I took some Mollies to my local lfs a few weeks ago and accidentally took a deformed one. I asked for it back as I feared it would be used as a feeder fish. She gave me quite a lecture about the illegality of feeding live fish to another fish! I managed to explain that I don't do that. She was very clear about it being illegal. I feel a lot happier about taking my excess Mollies there now knowing they won't be sold as feeders.

 

[t.ropical_m.istx3]

what about livebearer fry if you can't find a LFS to take it before it gets too big? i'm not saying i'd use it - i don't like watching poor, helpless animals...or any animals really suffer-, but if you had livebearers and they had a kajillion fry that you couldn't rehome, could you use those as feeders, seeing as you bred them and you know they're okay?

 

[oddball_lover]

So if you could afford the price of a London barrister you might be able to argue the feeding is not physical suffering as the animal is consumed in one go (assuming you aren't somewhat of a sadist).

Feeding a fish small enough to fit into the mouth of the predator in one go is not unnecessary pain and/or suffering. Feeding a full grown oscar to a pack of red belly prirannhas might be viewed different.

You could also argue that if the fish in swallowed in one go, it would not die until it had suffocated inside the predatory fish, or begun to be digested?

As I guess would happen, as they are not 'chewed' as such and therefore not rapidly dispatched? Though I could be wrong...just i've never seen a fish 'chew' before But of course i've not had any experience with pirahna or similar...but from what I can imagine, a bunch of pirahna tearing an Oscar to pieces would surely be a more rapid death than a small fish swallowed whole and being slowly digested and suffocated?

But, as I said, I could be wrong. Just my take on the situation


I agree that the feeder fish may be necessary on a new import that will refuse to eat anything else.

But I totally disagree with giving live fish as prey when the predatory fish in question will eat defrosted, dead food. *That* is causing un-necessary suffering.

 

[nmonks]

As AndyWG points out, the use of feeder fish is not illegal in the UK. However, what is illegal is introducing two animals for the purpose of "fighting, wrestling or baiting". Hence, AndyWG's example of an oscar being dumped in a piranha tank would definitely be classed as illegal, since the outcome there would obviously be one fish fighting/attacking another. It would be difficult (impossible) to argue that this was simply the normal way to feed piranhas. Similarly, putting live guppies into an oscar tank for the purpose of bets, as CFC mentions, is again, quite obviously illegal. (In fact, betting on any animals fighting or harming one another is illegal, period.)

If you want to read the law, it's here:

http/www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/bill/index.htm

All this said, the UK hobby generally simply takes the use of feeder fish are 99.9% of the time unnecessary. None of the British fish magazines will publish articles recommending the use of live feeder fish, and most have include articles to the contrary, for example:

http/www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/...p?article_id=68
http/www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/...?article_id=996

The big difference in America is that feeder fish (usually goldfish or minnows) are cheap and widely sold. A lot of people simply view this as part of the fun of keeping predatory fish. There really isn't any two ways about this: if you're keeping an oscar or most predatory catfish, you don't *need* to use feeder fish. But people buy the feeder fish because they *want* to, and they do so even after reading about the risks involved. Questions of ethics aside, unless you're breeding your own feeder guppies/mollies, then you probably are putting your predatory fish at risk. Certainly this is true with feeder fish bought from the pet store, and doubly so with goldfish and rosy red minnows which are nutritionally poor.

Cheers, Neale

 

[kribensis12]

I love America! You can feed live fish to other fish and "place bets on them/ pay to watch them get eaten". Not imposing that it is fun to watch a fish or any animal for that matter. I am just saying that it is not illigeal. I s it illeagle to fish with live bait such as fish( minnows, and goldfish) since it is causing it unnesiccery( spelled wrong) pain? Even if it were illeagl to feed fish to other fish I would still do it becasue some types of fish do have alot of nutrition such as wrigglers from any type of fish. So baiscly awsnsering the original post, feeders are small fish fed to bigger fish.

 

[t.ropical_m.istx3]

I s it illeagle to fish with live bait such as fish( minnows, and goldfish) since it is causing it unnesiccery( spelled wrong) pain?

not where i live. my brother uses minnows when we go fishing at the lake to get bigger fish. i didn't like it so i used fake bait or worms but i like using docks better because i'm not patient enough to wait for a fish to bite my hook .

 

[nmonks]

The use of live fish for bait in the US is not illegal, at least not generally. It may be illegal in some states, but I'm not sure. As a rule though, live bait fish are widely used.

In the UK it is presently legal, but is very likely not to be soon. Live fish cannot be used as bait in Scotland once the Aquaculture and Fisheries Bill passes, as it includes an amendment prohibiting its use. It is probable that a similar law will eventually be passed south of the border as well.

The question of cruelty is subject to debate, because scientists are not completely sure about whether or not fish feel pain. Historically, it was always assumed not because of differences in the nervous system, but work by Lynne Sneddon at Liverpool is indicating that this may not be correct. Specifically, fish avoid using (temporarily) damaged muscles, in the same way we don't put weight on a twisted ankle -- presumably because both fishes and humans feel the resulting pain if they do. Regardless, being placed on a hook will stress a live fish, and that's the whole point -- it is the frantic wriggling of the live fish that attracts the pike or whatever that is being fished for.

Of course, the problem with banning the use of live bait in fishing is that if hooking the bait fish is cruel, what about when the target fish bites the hook? If the bait fish feels pain, then so will the target fish, in which case is angling generally cruel? As someone who enjoys angling once in a while, this conundrum is certainly worrying. The bigger issue is that anglers are outstanding fish conservationists and do more to ensure the quality of rivers and lakes than any other pressure group I know. So while anglers may be a bad thing for any salmon or pike that gets hooked, they're fantastically good for aquatic ecosystems generally.

Cheers, Neale

 

[andywg]

It should perhaps be added that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 has a section pointing out that anything to do with fishing, or that takes place in the normal course of fishing is exempt from the act.

 

[oddball_lover]

I'd *never* heard of people using live fish as fishing bait before!!!!

 

[MHunt]

I'd actually seen on some australian fishing programme they used live eels and tiny fish as bait. Guess it tastes better fresh, and depends on the type of fish you're trying to catch as to what type of bait you need to use.

 

[Dutchie]

Basically as i understand it, fish such as guppies or goldfish are bred as food for larger predatory fish such as pirahnas, or Oscars. They are just bred in vast quantity's for cheapness with no attention paid to quality, colour or breeding, Purely for food.

How sad.......!!!!

 

[chibi]

So can you buy feeder fish in the UK? I'm still a bit confused. I know here (US), you can buy 10 feeder goldfish or guppies for $1, or the super-deluxe-best-deal-ever 50 for $3! XD