[Pick] Controversy over 'Live Fish' Round 2｜Animal Abuse vs No

If a live fish is thrown away for the purpose of a gathering, would it be animal cruelty or not?

Animal groups protested against the prosecution's decision that the charge of violating the Animal Protection Act could not be applied to a fisherman who was sent to death by throwing live red snapper and yellowtail on the asphalt floor during a rally.

Animal Liberation Wave held a press conference in front of the main gate of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul on the 2nd and submitted an appeal against the prosecution's decision not to prosecute.

On the 10th of last month, the prosecution decided not to prosecute the fish used in the assembly, arguing that it was not subject to the protection of the Animal Protection Act because it was raised for 'edible purposes'.

In response, the Animal Liberation Wave raised a banner saying, "I condemn the prosecution for neglecting the defense and the pain of the red snapper killed as a tool for assembly," arguing that "the prosecution's interpretation of the Animal Protection Act is wrong and species-discriminatory."

Earlier, in November 2020, the Gyeongnam Fish Farming Association held a protest in front of the Democratic Party of Korea in Yeouido, Seoul, saying, "The government imported live Japanese fish and inflicted damage on domestic fishermen."

In the process, fisherman A and other association officials threw Japanese red sea bream and yellowtail to the floor as a protest. I complained.

After three months of investigation, the police judged that it was animal abuse to throw live fish simply for the purpose of using it for a rally, and handed over Mr. A to the prosecution.

However, the prosecution's decision was different.

The prosecution dismissed the indictment of Mr. A, seeing that it was difficult to apply the charge of violating the Animal Protection Act because the live fish thrown by Mr. A was 'for edible purposes'.

Enlarging an image

According to the Animal Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Animal Protection Act, an animal is a vertebrate with a developed nervous system capable of feeling pain, and includes mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish.

However, it is excluded if there is an edible purpose.

A prosecution official said, "If the thing that was thrown on the floor was a domestic animal, it could have been punished for violating the Animal Protection Act."

Accordingly, the Animal Liberation Wave filed an appeal against the prosecution's disposition of non-prosecution.

On the other hand, in a survey conducted on the 12th of last month through an online article of the SBS Digital News Bureau, <Rally for throwing up live fish raised for edible purposes ｜ Animal cruelty vs. 523 people).

Enlarging an image

Enlarging an image

Enlarging an image

While opinions among netizens who participated in the survey on whether or not animals were abused were divided, netizens who claimed that it was animal cruelty responded, "If live fish for edible purposes were subjected to pain for demonstration purposes, it would be animal abuse." Netizens who made the claim made comments such as "With this logic, there is nothing that is not animal cruelty, it is a bit excessive".

There is a fierce online war of words among netizens over the issue of 'a live fish-throwing assembly, animal cruelty vs not'.

[Participate in the survey]

Do you think it is animal cruelty to the readers to throw live fish for food to death?

Or do you think it's not animal cruelty?

※ Please note that this survey is a survey to hear the opinions of our readers and will not be used for any other purpose.