Goldfish eating, social media and Neknominate

The recent prosecution by the RSPCA of Josh Coles for eating a goldfish that he had just won at a fairground in Stafford caused a stir on social media and revulsion in many people, but there are those that see it as just a bit of harmless fun. Josh Coles pleaded guilty and received a 12 month community service order, £385 costs and was strangely banned from keeping fish for 5 years.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue, I’m an animal lover”.

To its credit, the RSPCA stepped in early on when the craze became popular and has prosecuted many cases over the years but has perversely been accused of heavy handedness and expending money on pointless and worthless prosecutions as they are only fish.

Many people would suggest that as we pay little attention to fish slowly gasping for breath and asphyxiating on the quayside or on fish market slabs and that we find it entertaining to watch celebrities eat live small animals on reality shows why should we be so uptight about a goldfish.

What obviously shocked people the most was the fact that he ate a live goldfish, filmed it and displayed it on YouTube for no other reason than to gain fame and notoriety. It could also be that we identify goldfish and their ilk as pets not food, so we get upset when some inept unthinking person eats one at a funfair, in a Macdonalds restaurant or in the local pub.

Although these acts are mostly done under the influence of alcohol and for a dare there are many which are intentional and planned. Back in 2012, Louis Cole gained fame for regularly eating unusual live animals such as tarantulas and scorpions on his YouTube channel until he came unstuck after he ate a simple goldfish, as he didn’t realise that fish, by having a spine, are covered under anti-cruelty laws and he found himself under investigation by the RSPCA.

Eating live small animals is a common practice and a sure way of getting hits on social media which is awash with such videos. The sad part is that so many young adults appear to find it acceptable behaviour and amusing despite its lack of originality.

It was probably a surprise to many people that it is still lawful to continue this archaic tradition of giving goldfish as prizes in the first place, but it was yet another omission from the Animal Welfare Act back in 2006. Of course the frequency of these incidents could have been reduced if it had been banned as the fish would not have been so easily available.

Social media & Neknominate is mainly to blame.

The online drinking game of neknominate has fuelled the trend over the last few years. In 2014 a 22-year old named Gavin Hope prepared a cocktail then swallowed a pet goldfish and washed it down with a pint as a neknominate dare and was heavily penalised with a £330 fine and £3430 costs. Some take it too far and in the same year Sheldon Jeans swallowed a live frog and lizard and was prosecuted receiving £1,200 in costs.

Although such behaviour is nothing new, social media encourages far more of it in this modern era. There is a pattern to it though, as it mainly involves drunken young males who once they find themselves in court declare they didn’t mean any harm and believe it is funny.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue and I’m an animal lover”

In another incident a Robert Atkinson aged 20 was filmed by his friend Lewis Summers, who ironically worked in a solicitors office, swallowing a live goldfish in their local MacDonald’s having first put it in a pint of beer. Atkinson pleaded guilty and Summers guilty to aiding and abetting and they were both ordered to serve 40 hours of unpaid work and pay a £723 fine each, alongside a victim surcharge of £60. It was a premeditated action and yet he viewed himself as an “animal lover”.

“I didn’t think it was a big issue with it being a small animal. I’m an animal lover myself and I didn’t know I was committing an offence. I have thousands of followers on social media, and I posted the video because I knew it would go viral. Some people thought it was funny but there were a few who thought it was cruel.

Robert Atkinson in his defence.

Judges and Magistrates appear to take the issue seriously.

What is interesting is that magistrates and judges appear to agree that it is a serious act and have made this quite clear. At the trial of Gavin Hope presiding magistrate, David Randall, called it “a stupid thoughtless incident” and at the trial of Atkinson and Summers the judge, to his credit, summed it up in this way and I cannot put it any better:

The real question is how far down the evolutionary scale should we go in pursuing prosecutions of people who commit such acts of cruelty before it is viewed as nonsensical and heavy handed. Theoretically any lack of respect of a living creature must surely be tackled as who knows where it might lead if left unpunished.

Hunting with dogs and the “unenforceable” ban.

The UK Hunting Act 2004 was never going to work.

Hare, hare coursing, illegal hare coursing, cruelty to animals, animal welfare
Watch out, there’s a hare courser about.

Whenever there is talk about the Hunting Act it tends to revolve around fox-hunting but other forms of hunting with dogs were also banned particularly hare-coursing. Fox hunts were not disbanded, but given an olive branch and allowed to flourish through drag or trail hunting and remain popular events with the public particularly the festive Boxing Day hunts.  Traditional fox-hunting with dogs is still legal in Northern Ireland and hare coursing events continue in southern Ireland. This has allowed hunts to continue to breed and keep their hound packs for the day traditional hunting is made legal again.

In the case of hare coursing, although there is an outright ban, there has been little protection for the hares as illicit coursing continues unabated  in some parts of the country, particularly eastern England and just like fox hunting the police and enforcement authorities have no way of stopping it even though they have more powers than for fox hunting. They have been forced to use hundred year old laws like the Night Poaching Act 1828 and Game Act 1831 to help combat it as the Hunting Act is so useless. Some Police authorities have stated that it is more prevalent now than before the Act with hundreds of dogs abandoned, injured and killed as a result. [More on hare coursing in a future post]

The Act was badly conceived mainly because the Government tried to appease all sides of the debate and did not consider the practical aspects which has made the law a bit of a farce and has resulted in some forms of hunting of foxes and hare coursing to continue.

Hare, hare coursing, illegal hare coursing
There is not let up for the poor hare with gangs of hare coursers roaming the countryside.

The UK Hunting Act 2004  is so complicated and full of loopholes that law enforcers try not to involve themselves in investigating alleged offences  because obtaining sufficient evidence to put before a court is costly, time-consuming and a nightmare. This becomes obvious when you read the various websites and reams of advice issued to try to clarify the subject .

So what is hunting with dogs?

The legal definition under the Hunting Act 2004 of hunting is:

  • to pursue or kill for sport or food;
  • to try and find by diligent searching and to pursue and capture;
  • to pursue or approach stealthily or to move silently through;
  • to drive (a bird or animal, especially game bird) from cover.

The Hunting Act 2004 describes 5 punishable offences:

  • Hunting a wild mammal with a dog;
  • permitting land to be used for hunting a wild mammal with a dog;
  • permitting a dog to be used for hunting a wild mammal;
  • participating in, attending, facilitating or permitting land to be used for the purposes of hare coursing;
  • entering, permitting or handling a dog in a hare coursing event.
A wild mammal is defined or considered to be a mammal which is living wild, bred or tamed; in captivity or confinement; escaped or released from captivity.

Basically on the face of it any live mammal is protected from being hunted or pursued by dog(s), but of course this would be too easy and so to appease the hunting lobby,  hobbyists and pest controllers there are exemptions which can be exploited to continue fox-hunting.

The “Unenforceable ban”

So it is legal to use dogs to hunt rats, rabbits and wounded shot hares, but there are several farcical loopholes that hunts can use to continue hunting almost normally under what is known as the “unenforceable ban” which include:

using 2 dogs to “flush a fox out of cover” to be shot by a qualified marksman if it is being done to prevent damage to property, food crops, timber, fisheries or biological diversity, but of course the marksman could miss and the fox escape with the trained hounds in pursuit.

flushing a fox to a bird of prey which allows a hunt to take a bird of prey along and as many hounds as they wish to flush out a fox for the purpose of enabling a bird of prey to hunt the wild mammal” as long as the bird is capable of catching  the animal such as a large eagle owl.

But the major loophole was allowing drag or trail hunting to continue, a situation that was always a recipe for future trouble, a fact well anticipated by the hunters. Allowing packs of hounds to continue careering around the countryside was always going to lead to confrontations with foxes and you can almost imagine the Master lining the hounds up for their pre-hunt pep talk :

“Right lads normal tactics today, you know the drill. Try and keep on track, but if you get a whiff of a real fox scent and happen to veer off in its direction do not make it too obvious lads as we will all be in trouble-know what I mean, [Wink Wink]”.

Hounds of course are not going to go against their natural instincts and sense of smell obtained over countless generations and many huntsmen are not going to pass up a golden chance to hunt a real fox when the opportunity presents itself.  Although it would be heartening to believe that not all Hunts participate in any wrong doing realistically many probably do. Everyone knows that the excuses that the chase was purely accidental or unintentional and the hounds were out of control are always going to be difficult to legally dispute. The act of hunting must be proven as predetermined or intentional which is difficult to show in most cases.

Anti-hunt saboteurs continue to monitor hunts

Many potential court cases are dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) due to what they view as a lack of tangible evidence and those that do reach court are rarely successful in regard to fox-hunting, but there have been many successful prosecutions for hare coursing. The Police and RSPCA do not have the time, and in the case of the Police, the inclination to keep an eye on the hunts which results in anti-hunting charities and hunt saboteurs having to continue monitoring hunts. This in turn causes friction leading to often violent disturbances. In practical terms it is impossible to keep track of the freely roaming hunts which are often held on private land.

There was a golden opportunity missed to completely halt hunting with dogs if the law makers had only banned drag hunting and the keeping, breeding and use of packs of hounds, but this was too easy. If the day ever arrives when hunting with hounds is made legal again, they will be ready and waiting to step in with all horns blaring complete with all the equipment and facilities to begin again.

Related Articles: