"Live Fish Thrown at Rally Deemed Animal Cruelty... Prosecutors and Police Reach Conflicting Judgments"

Prosecutors Decline Prosecution of Fisherman Reported for Animal Protection Act Violation After Throwing Live Fish at Rally
"Live Fish Abused and Killed as Rally Tool" vs "For Food Use, Not Subject to Animal Protection Act"
Sharp Debate Over Purpose of Throwing Live Fish: 'For Food' vs 'Rally Tool'
Similar Controversy Previously Erupted Over Gangwon Mountain Trout Festival

Animal rights group 'Dongmul Haebang Mulgyeol' held a rally in front of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office on the 2nd. Photo by Dongmul Haebang Mulgyeol Instagram

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Hyun-joo] Controversy continues as the prosecution decided that it cannot apply the Animal Protection Act charges to fishermen who threw live fish onto the asphalt ground during a rally. The current Animal Protection Act does not consider fish intended for consumption as protected animals, so the focus of the case is on the purpose for which the live fish were thrown. While the prosecution views the live fish as animals managed for consumption and thus not subject to the Animal Protection Act, animal rights groups argue that since the fish were thrown for rally purposes, it should be regarded as a case of animal abuse and killing, and they have filed an appeal.

Earlier, in November 2020, a local fish farming association held a rally in front of the Democratic Party headquarters in Yeouido, Seoul, protesting the government's large-scale import of live fish from Japan. Some participants performed acts such as throwing live fish like red sea bream and yellowtail onto the ground or handing out packaged domestic live fish to passersby. In response, the animal rights group 'Animal Liberation Wave' reported Mr. A (56), an official of the association, for violating the Animal Protection Act by throwing live fish onto the ground, causing their death.

The police, upon receiving the case, accepted the animal rights group's claims and forwarded the case to the prosecution. However, on the 10th of last month, the prosecution decided it was difficult to apply charges under the Animal Protection Act and dismissed the case, sparking intense conflict.

According to the current Animal Protection Act and its enforcement decree, vertebrates with developed nervous systems capable of feeling pain, including mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish, are all protected animals. However, those raised for consumption are excluded.

The issue is the 'purpose' for which Mr. A threw the live fish. Since fish can feel pain, they are protected under the Animal Protection Act, but if the purpose is consumption, they are excluded from protection. The police viewed that Mr. A threw the live fish for 'use in the rally' and applied charges under the Animal Protection Act, forwarding the case to the prosecution. In contrast, the prosecution judged that since the live fish were managed and raised for 'consumption purposes,' it was not animal abuse.

In response, Animal Liberation Wave criticizes the prosecution's legal interpretation as speciesist. They argue that even if fish are raised for consumption, since the yellowtail and red sea bream were killed for rally purposes, they should be punished under the Animal Protection Act, and fundamentally, no animal is born for the 'purpose of consumption.' They have named the case 'fish animal abuse and killing incident.'

On the 2nd, Animal Liberation Wave stated on Instagram, "The prosecution claims as a reason for non-prosecution that the live fish that died in this case were originally 'food animals' and thus cannot be protected by law," adding, "There is no such animal. This is serious speciesism." They continued, "The yellowtail and red sea bream abused and killed as tools for expressing anger and hatred by the fish farming association were clearly not abused for food. Just because some individuals of the species yellowtail or red sea bream are used for food does not mean that the Animal Protection Act should not apply to all individuals of that species. This disregards the dignity and purpose of the law," they sharply criticized.

On the morning of February 9, 2020, the '2020 Hwacheon Sancheoneo Festival' was held along Hwacheoncheon in Hwacheon-gun, Gangwon Province, where Sancheoneo trout were released into the fishing area. [Image source=Yonhap News]

The debate over the 'purpose of consumption' regarding fish also arose earlier concerning the Gangwon Sancheoneo Festival. Animal rights groups reported the mayor of Hwacheon County and others for violating the Animal Protection Act, claiming that during the event where participants catch Sancheoneo (Korean trout), the fish suffer extreme pain as they are trapped under ice and starve for long periods. They pointed out that the festival organizers were abusing Sancheoneo for entertainment, amusement, and profit, and that many Sancheoneo were injured or killed regardless of consumption.

However, in July 2020, the prosecution ruled that the Sancheoneo used in the festival were for consumption purposes and dismissed the appeal. The first trial court stated, "The Animal Protection Act clearly excludes fish raised for consumption from protection," and "Considering that the Sancheoneo used in the festival were originally farmed for consumption, it is difficult to regard them as animals protected by the Animal Protection Act, and it is clear that the defendants have no criminal charges."

It added, "It is also difficult to conclude that the defendants' acts of holding a festival using fish for consumption for community development violate social norms. The festival has been improved by listening to civil society's concerns, such as stopping the 'Sancheoneo Throwing' event, where a single Sancheoneo was put in a bag and given to tourists who failed to catch fish, since January 7, 2020."

Meanwhile, related surveys show that 9 out of 10 citizens believe "unnecessary pain should be minimized when slaughtering fish." According to the '2021 Public Perception Survey on Animal Welfare Policy Improvement: Public Perception Survey on Fish Welfare' report released by the Animal Welfare Research Institute Aware on November 22 last year, 89.2% of respondents answered that pain should be minimized when slaughtering fish. Furthermore, 65.4% responded that fish raised for consumption should also be subject to the Animal Protection Act. This survey was conducted from May 7 to 11 last year, targeting 1,000 adult men and women aged 20 to 69 across 17 cities and provinces nationwide.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.