A
Andrea
Please see previous posts.
Awfull You Tube video
- Thread starter pink princess
- Start date
- Status
Please see previous posts.
P
Popcorn
I asked the question about the 'law' to a reptile expert..and his reply...
The law is not for snakes nor soley reptiles, but applies to all animals. So, it could also apply if you fed your pet dog a live rabbit!
The law states it is illegal to feed any animal that is a vertebrate to another animal.The animal eating the live vertebrate can be another vertebrate or invertebrate. It is still illegal.
However, there is a slight 'sub clause' that makes an allowance for some live feeding. It states you can feed a vertebrate to another animal alive as long as no pain comes from it (Mmm HOW would this be possible?) and only as a last resort before assist/force feeding.
This includes rodents,mamals,spiders,scorpions,birds,fish,frogs,toads and so on....only animals without a backbone can be fed live(e.g. insects).
The RSPCA do fine, and remove the animal if live feeding occurs.
The law is not for snakes nor soley reptiles, but applies to all animals. So, it could also apply if you fed your pet dog a live rabbit!
The law states it is illegal to feed any animal that is a vertebrate to another animal.The animal eating the live vertebrate can be another vertebrate or invertebrate. It is still illegal.
However, there is a slight 'sub clause' that makes an allowance for some live feeding. It states you can feed a vertebrate to another animal alive as long as no pain comes from it (Mmm HOW would this be possible?) and only as a last resort before assist/force feeding.
This includes rodents,mamals,spiders,scorpions,birds,fish,frogs,toads and so on....only animals without a backbone can be fed live(e.g. insects).
The RSPCA do fine, and remove the animal if live feeding occurs.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 469
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I know this isn't quite on topic, but how is not feeding live animals (who, incidently, are not viewed as pets. The disgust at feeding "one pet to another" doesn't count, as the feeder animal is not viewed as pet) fair on the snakes etc?
The animal welfare act states animals should be allowed to exhibit their natural behaviour, isn't hunting, stalking and catching their prey natural behaviour for the snake? I know my gecko gets a big thrill out of hunting his crickets and locuts. Sometimes he even pokes them if they're not running away so he can actually chase them! I suppose it could be argued that it's not natural behaviour for either as the feeder animal has no ability to properly run away as they would in the wild. ?
I do agree, however, that gasing and feeding dead is better for everyone all around, but some do not just have an intrest, presumably because it is not stimulating enough. And I have no problems with someone filming their snake eating live food and putting it on the internet - in the same way I have no problems with people filming autopsys or human or animal surgery online. There is nothing making you watch it. You;ve always been aware that these sort of things happen, but nothing in the world is making you watch the videos of these things. I honestly get fed up with people on rodent forums complaining about feeder animals. It's better for a piggy to have a short, decent life ending up as feeder food than spending a long life time of misery under poor care as a "pet".
The animal welfare act states animals should be allowed to exhibit their natural behaviour, isn't hunting, stalking and catching their prey natural behaviour for the snake? I know my gecko gets a big thrill out of hunting his crickets and locuts. Sometimes he even pokes them if they're not running away so he can actually chase them! I suppose it could be argued that it's not natural behaviour for either as the feeder animal has no ability to properly run away as they would in the wild. ?
I do agree, however, that gasing and feeding dead is better for everyone all around, but some do not just have an intrest, presumably because it is not stimulating enough. And I have no problems with someone filming their snake eating live food and putting it on the internet - in the same way I have no problems with people filming autopsys or human or animal surgery online. There is nothing making you watch it. You;ve always been aware that these sort of things happen, but nothing in the world is making you watch the videos of these things. I honestly get fed up with people on rodent forums complaining about feeder animals. It's better for a piggy to have a short, decent life ending up as feeder food than spending a long life time of misery under poor care as a "pet".
A
Andrea
I would be interested to see your sources.
A
Andrea
I didn't watch the video. I wouldn't give the sadistic fool my view ratings.
So what you are saying is that because nothing is making me watch the video....I should just accept it? Keep my mouth shut and smile nicely?
An autopsy is completely different! The animal or person is dead, and an the human side, probably gave consent.
The kind of a person who enjoys and wants others to enjoy another animal suffering is immoral and unethical.
As already stated, It's not the actual feeding of a live vertebrate that riles me - It's the person who is enjoying it.
P
Popcorn
I personally don't have sources, as I said above it was by asking an experienced reptile keeper. So, one could argue, my reply was anecdotal. I made no secret of that. I shall ask though where the sources exist ?!
P
Popcorn
http://wildlife1.wildlifeinformation.org/s/00Ref/LegislationUKContents/L_UK_0011.htm
OK, here is the act we are arguing about. Clearly this is a controversial issue amongst reptile keepers, even after careful reading of the above there are ways that a person could argue that live prey could be fed...BUT....if you choose live prey then you could be prosecuted for not considering the welfare of the animal you are using as prey. Also, by taking part in killing live animals you are open to prosecution yourself. 'Where any live prey must be used, its welfare must be considered'...
Also, the law states...'It is an offence to use confined live vertebrate prey including fish, to train captive animals to hunt'.
So, as I read it. A 'loop hole' has been left within the animal welfare law, to allow the feeding of live prey to snakes who haven't eaten for months and months and who would starve and die unless they had a live mouse etc. offered. Even under these circumstances the prey's well being must be considered and if that is not, then you are committing an offence. This is the only way that feeding live prey is legal, otherwise you can be prosecuted under a variety of categories.
OK, here is the act we are arguing about. Clearly this is a controversial issue amongst reptile keepers, even after careful reading of the above there are ways that a person could argue that live prey could be fed...BUT....if you choose live prey then you could be prosecuted for not considering the welfare of the animal you are using as prey. Also, by taking part in killing live animals you are open to prosecution yourself. 'Where any live prey must be used, its welfare must be considered'...
Also, the law states...'It is an offence to use confined live vertebrate prey including fish, to train captive animals to hunt'.
So, as I read it. A 'loop hole' has been left within the animal welfare law, to allow the feeding of live prey to snakes who haven't eaten for months and months and who would starve and die unless they had a live mouse etc. offered. Even under these circumstances the prey's well being must be considered and if that is not, then you are committing an offence. This is the only way that feeding live prey is legal, otherwise you can be prosecuted under a variety of categories.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 469
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I enjoy watching my gecko eat his crickets. I actually do enjoy watching lions, wolves and snakes etc. hunting in the wild. I'm not sure how I would feel about watching a domestic reptile eat an verebrate, but if it was done in a natural fashion I would probably have no issue with it. It is only a natural process after all, and it is not being "preformed" *with the sole purpose for entertainment* which I think is a vital distinction.
The example of an autopsy was exactly that, an example. Televised autopsys do offend some people, but no-one forces them to watch them. Lots of things pop up on the telly that offend, the same can be said for the internet. On the internet too, it needs to be remembered that different countries have different laws, I'm sure in some countries they don't have a law preventing verebrates being fed live. So why shouldn't they put it on the internet? Things a lot worse are posted on the internet. (Mostly illegal things in nearly all countries, mind you)
ETA: Thanks for the link there Popcorn, I think it's interesting that the welfare of the feeding animals are being considered too - as mentioned before, just because they're going to be another animal's dinner, doesn't mean they can't have a good life up until that point. I would feel very different about the whole feeding live verebrates to animals if there was no consideration for the feeder animals.
Last edited:
A
Andrea
By sources I mean where the information originated from i.e where the person you spoke to got their information.
A valid source would of course be a link to a website which shows a law that says feeding live vertebrates is illegal.
The link you provided I have looked at before a while back, after discussing it on another forum.
All it states is that live feeding of vertebrates should be avoided, not that it's illegal.
And that was why I asked to see if you knew of any law that I didn't - by asking for your sources.
I think you have taken me the wrong way. Tone doesn't translate well over the internet. We are not arguing!
Suzie - I can't say I enjoy feeding locusts to my dragon. I do it without hesitation, because invertebrates don't suffer like vertebrates do - but I certainly don't enjoy it.
I don't think we can compare documentaries to video footage of pets being fed live vertebrates. Yes, the actual act taking place, might be similar but that's way beyond the point. Documentaries are for education. The other is for kicks.
P
Popcorn
Ok, we aren't arguing
I can't provide any other link than the entire Act itself, the one I provided was obviously only a summary. However, it is fair to say that reading the Act in full probably wouldn't help understanding and change opinions anyway
I think we are both right; sometimes the feeding is legal (under very specific circumstances) often the feeding is illegal when it contravenes the law as it stands and the 'type of feeding' becomes an offence.
It is confusing, and you can see why it is controversial, it can be read in different ways. Each individual set of circumstances and the context of the feeding needs to be taken into account I guess before it is pronounced 'leagl' or 'illegal'. More confusion is of course thrown into the equation when you consider the 'rights' of an animal to as natural an existance as possible, of which live prey might be one of those supposed 'rights'.
My personal reading, as I said higher up, is that it can't be made entirely illegal, as that would mean some (very few!) snakes would die from lack of food. However, there are many stipluations on how, why and when feeding takes place and if those are contravened, then it becomes illegal.
I suspect that there are many people who are illegally feeding live food ! The example in the papers this week where a mouse was tossed into a snake and killed the snake within 30mins, is illegal feeding of live prey. (As it happened the snake was killed!)
Anyhow....I don't even own a snake...so I don't know why I am getting so involved in this.lol
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 469
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I think, Andrea, we are using different meanings for the word "enjoy" when I say enjoy, I mean I find watching my gecko eat his insects fasinating. After all, most of the time he is a rather dull pet, lurking in his cave and sleeping, which is natural behaviour. But when he is hunting the crickets or locuts or whatever, I get to watch his quick reflexs, careful stalking, the way he wags his tail in excitment. This is what I mean by enjoy, rather than reveling in the "suffering" of the insects.
A
Andrea
Ok, we aren't arguing
I can't provide any other link than the entire Act itself, the one I provided was obviously only a summary. However, it is fair to say that reading the Act in full probably wouldn't help understanding and change opinions anyway
I think we are both right; sometimes the feeding is legal (under very specific circumstances) often the feeding is illegal when it contravenes the law as it stands and the 'type of feeding' becomes an offence.
It is confusing, and you can see why it is controversial, it can be read in different ways. Each individual set of circumstances and the context of the feeding needs to be taken into account I guess before it is pronounced 'leagl' or 'illegal'. More confusion is of course thrown into the equation when you consider the 'rights' of an animal to as natural an existance as possible, of which live prey might be one of those supposed 'rights'.
My personal reading, as I said higher up, is that it can't be made entirely illegal, as that would mean some (very few!) snakes would die from lack of food. However, there are many stipluations on how, why and when feeding takes place and if those are contravened, then it becomes illegal.
I suspect that there are many people who are illegally feeding live food ! The example in the papers this week where a mouse was tossed into a snake and killed the snake within 30mins, is illegal feeding of live prey. (As it happened the snake was killed!)
Anyhow....I don't even own a snake...so I don't know why I am getting so involved in this.lol
Good post. It doesn't matter that you don't own a snake...neither do I. Although I used to. I prefer lizards personally.
Well I'm not going to write much as it's not really going anywhere. The original point I wanted to make was that there isn't a law that says "The feeding of live vertebrates is illegal"
Yes, as you have pointed out, factors arising from live feeding such as unnecessary suffering or bad husbandry could be illegal, but this doesn't relate to actual feeding. You can be charged for those offenses for just not looking after your pets.
One can do anything unless the laws states he can not.
P
Popcorn
Aye, well, its been nice debating with you !
OK, enough of this OMG shock horror type posting on this subject.. It's a well known fact that people do this and there are children on this board who might get seriously upset by this content. Please no more posting on this subject!
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Well lets hope those children dont see it on You Tube then as they may find that more upsetting.
P
Popcorn
To petcook...........
Excuse me, I find your tone is incredibly patronising. We are/were debating the Animal Act and live feeding.....the 'shock horror' isn't something I was personally engaging in and neither was I glorifying live feeding!! So to address your post..
1. I wasn't being 'shock horror' but debating the Law without 'shock horror' based on the back of someone having seen something they were shocked by.
2. Maybe it wasn't a well known fact that people did this ? Just because YOU know!
3. Parents should monitor children on the internet, as they can see a darn sight worse than a discussion on a guineapig forum about feeding mice to snakes. I would of thought that would be the least of your worries as a parent nowadays on the internet ! If the children are young enough to be upset then they shouldn't be reading 1/2 the threads on here about life/personal issues and animals dying either.
4. Errrr... and finally the discussion HAD ended, so by asking there to be no more posting you came somewhat late.
I would argue that education of children about moral issues, current theory/practice and LAW was something quite worthwhile........
For the mods - I wasn't the thread starter, nor have I seen any such video, but surely a discussion of this nature of the Law is fairly worthwhile. Boring possibly if this has happened many times before! I'm sure reactions are wanted hence why such things are posted on youtube, but I wasn't relaly interested in youtube but the Laws surrounding animal feeding. (I even read the Zoos govt. directives yesterday.) Anyway, as I said this dicsussion was well and truly finished.
Excuse me, I find your tone is incredibly patronising. We are/were debating the Animal Act and live feeding.....the 'shock horror' isn't something I was personally engaging in and neither was I glorifying live feeding!! So to address your post..
1. I wasn't being 'shock horror' but debating the Law without 'shock horror' based on the back of someone having seen something they were shocked by.
2. Maybe it wasn't a well known fact that people did this ? Just because YOU know!
3. Parents should monitor children on the internet, as they can see a darn sight worse than a discussion on a guineapig forum about feeding mice to snakes. I would of thought that would be the least of your worries as a parent nowadays on the internet ! If the children are young enough to be upset then they shouldn't be reading 1/2 the threads on here about life/personal issues and animals dying either.
4. Errrr... and finally the discussion HAD ended, so by asking there to be no more posting you came somewhat late.
I would argue that education of children about moral issues, current theory/practice and LAW was something quite worthwhile........
For the mods - I wasn't the thread starter, nor have I seen any such video, but surely a discussion of this nature of the Law is fairly worthwhile. Boring possibly if this has happened many times before! I'm sure reactions are wanted hence why such things are posted on youtube, but I wasn't relaly interested in youtube but the Laws surrounding animal feeding. (I even read the Zoos govt. directives yesterday.) Anyway, as I said this dicsussion was well and truly finished.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow so much angst! Nowt wrong with Peter's tone at all, he has a point. And so what if the convo ended, people still have a right to an opinion.
Children have a right to read these forums and know that they feel safe in doing so. At the end of the day it's not Ogrish! rolleyes
Children have a right to read these forums and know that they feel safe in doing so. At the end of the day it's not Ogrish! rolleyes
P
Popcorn
You reckon ? If people are told to stop posting, by someone who isn't even a mod then I reckon that is somewhat antagonistic. I'm not responding any further to this thread.
He is just fed up of seeing repetitive posts that is all.
For Gods sake we are all her because we love guinea pigs and we are arguing amongst ourselves over something we have no control over! And I am also getting fed up of the same old topics being brought up and done to the death.
I think You Tube videos should be banned, they are on other forums its the only way to stop those freaks that put them on YouTube getting exposure. But then we have cutesy vids that memebers here have done that are lovely, but for every 1 of those there are 10 acts of cruelty.
For Gods sake we are all her because we love guinea pigs and we are arguing amongst ourselves over something we have no control over! And I am also getting fed up of the same old topics being brought up and done to the death.
I think You Tube videos should be banned, they are on other forums its the only way to stop those freaks that put them on YouTube getting exposure. But then we have cutesy vids that memebers here have done that are lovely, but for every 1 of those there are 10 acts of cruelty.
Last edited:
A
Andrea
I agree 100% with Popcorn.
So yes, Peter was well within his rights to voice his opinion - telling us to stop posting, even though the conversation had finished. But so were we, in the first place, to voice ours. So that's a bit hypocritical.
I notice this problem on another forum I go on. 2 or more people begin a mature and intelligent debate, on a controversial subject and it get's slated.
We aren't slandering each other - or even rubbishing each others opinion - we are simply discussing an issue.
But maybe because it isn't a "What are you doing a the weekend" thread, nobody wants to read it.
Seems a bit dull and narrow minded.
Oh please. In this instance the child card, doesn't relate.
I doubt that any child would understand half the words we are saying. And if they did, then they are mature enough to watch in the first place and even comment if they wanted to.
Kids should not be allowed unsupervised access to the internet. Ever. So a parent would have seen the thread title and not let them click.
But again, we have to censor what we do and say. It's the way the whole society is nowadays. And I can't wait to emmigrate.
And why do you have to have control over something - to have a valid opinion of it? That's saying we can't talk about the weather, or politics, or religion, or animal cruelty and a lot of other things.
So yes, Peter was well within his rights to voice his opinion - telling us to stop posting, even though the conversation had finished. But so were we, in the first place, to voice ours. So that's a bit hypocritical.
I notice this problem on another forum I go on. 2 or more people begin a mature and intelligent debate, on a controversial subject and it get's slated.
We aren't slandering each other - or even rubbishing each others opinion - we are simply discussing an issue.
But maybe because it isn't a "What are you doing a the weekend" thread, nobody wants to read it.
Seems a bit dull and narrow minded.
Oh please. In this instance the child card, doesn't relate.
I doubt that any child would understand half the words we are saying. And if they did, then they are mature enough to watch in the first place and even comment if they wanted to.
Kids should not be allowed unsupervised access to the internet. Ever. So a parent would have seen the thread title and not let them click.
But again, we have to censor what we do and say. It's the way the whole society is nowadays. And I can't wait to emmigrate.
And why do you have to have control over something - to have a valid opinion of it? That's saying we can't talk about the weather, or politics, or religion, or animal cruelty and a lot of other things.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,776
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
i think this has got completely out of hand and i think people are taking peoples posts way too personally and in the wrong context!
At the end of the day, you have stated your opinion, as others have, Peter had every right to write that if that is how he felt - Popcorn, you had your say, let others have theirs.
At the end of the day, you have stated your opinion, as others have, Peter had every right to write that if that is how he felt - Popcorn, you had your say, let others have theirs.
A
Andrea
Popcorn already said, she has nothing more to add to the thread.
What I was trying to say and agree with is what Graham said to be honest.
Also because a few people had stopped debating doesn't mean someone else can't come in and have an opinion a long as its not from 3 months back or something like that!
Again, its so easy to take things the wrong way online. rolleyes
Also because a few people had stopped debating doesn't mean someone else can't come in and have an opinion a long as its not from 3 months back or something like that!
Again, its so easy to take things the wrong way online. rolleyes
daftscotslass
Senior Guinea Pig
Well the thread has gone from the original topic to a debate over people's right to have an opinion. No point in flogging a horse so... thread closed.
- Status