Cruelty to Crustaceans?

Alwayson

May not be in the right forum but this has been bothering me all day. Met my friend for coffee this morning in Matt the Thresher in Dublin. Right next to us was an iced display area for crabs, crayfish etc. This was full of creatures that were clearly alive and in some cases would crawl out of the ice, over the ledge of the display area and crash down on to the floor where they would either struggle on their backs, lie stunned or start walking around the floor of the serving area. We couldn't stick this so we cancelled our order and left. I don't eat crabs etc so it looked really cruel to me and totally inappropriate to hear these creatures thudding from a height onto the floor and being left crawling around right next to the coffee area. I guess there is no such thing as the ISPCC (Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Crustaceans?)

ItsAWindUp

The way fish and other sea creatures are treated in general is disgusting.

DBB

Unfortunately, welfare laws pretty much the world over apply only to vertebrate animals. The closest protection for invertebrates I've seen is in the brand new Northern Ireland welfare act, which provides for future protection for invertebrates if they are shown, at some stage, to be capable of suffering.
Queen's University are currently studying lobsters' perception of pain, with a view to having them included under the welfare laws. It's not easy to "prove" that an animal feels pain, particularly invertebrates. There's little doubt that invertebrates of the crab/lobster/crayfish variety do, it's proving it that's hard:(

Discodog

DBB wrote: »

It's not easy to "prove" that an animal feels pain, particularly invertebrates. There's little doubt that invertebrates of the crab/lobster/crayfish variety do, it's proving it that's hard:(

You don't need to prove pain if you can show evidence of distress. Even the old 1911 Protection of Animals Act makes it an offence to torture, ill treat, infuriate or terrify an animal.

The Act defines an animal as:

(a) the expression “animal” means any domestic or captive animal.

(c) the expression “captive animal” means any animal (not being a domestic animal) of whatsoever kind of species, and whether a quadruped or not, including any bird, fish or reptile, which is in captivity, or confinement or which is maimed, pinioned, or subjected to any appliance or contrivance for the purpose of hindering or preventing its escape from captivity or confinement;

The dictionary says that the word Animal covers everything from single celled organisms so, in theory & unless case law has set precedence, a crustacean would appear to be covered by the Act.

But a conviction would be unlikely because it would effect industries like fishing where fish are left to "drown". The amazing thing is why people buy a lobster that has been left alive in a grotty tank. The live displays stem from the days of needing to be sure that your crustaceans were fresh & are totally unnecessary now.

DBB

You don't need to prove pain if you can show evidence of distress. Even the old 1911 Protection of Animals Act makes it an offence to torture, ill treat, infuriate or terrify an animal.

That the 1911 Act makes it illegal to torture, ill-treat, infuriate, or terrify an animal is all very well. But the reality, and in practise, we all know that many cases have been lost, or not brought before the courts at all, precisely because of the difficulty in proving that the animal feels pain or distress.
You or I may may know in our bones that the animal is distressed/in pain, but proving it "beyond reasonable doubt" is quite another thing, as our interpretation of distress might be very different to another's. We can only correlate painful/distressed behaviours, but it is extremely difficult to "prove" that an animal which can't verbally convey it's feelings is in pain/distress.
That said, there has been a lot of research into this with the vertebrates, especially domesticated mammals, and there is sufficient evidence now that certain behaviours are strongly indicative of pain or distress. Therefore, the courts accept expert witness testimony, because it can be based on researched and accepted evidence.
The same is not true of invertebrates. Whilst there is a small amount of research on pain-reception and distress-behaviours in invertebrates, they are still considered to be non-sentient. This may seem hard to believe, but up until quite recently humankind thought not only that mammals weren't sentient, but neither were human children! So there is scope for invertebrates to eventually be proven to suffer.
But the evidence is not quite there yet, unfortunately.

The Act defines an animal as:

(a) the expression “animal” means any domestic or captive animal.

(c) the expression “captive animal” means any animal (not being a domestic animal) of whatsoever kind of species, and whether a quadruped or not, including any bird, fish or reptile, which is in captivity, or confinement or which is maimed, pinioned, or subjected to any appliance or contrivance for the purpose of hindering or preventing its escape from captivity or confinement;

The 1911 Act does, yes, but this section has been amended in the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1965, which changes the definition to include "any bird, fish, or reptile". This is rather a more limited definition of what an animal legally is, and it is most likely given this amendment, though I'm not sure if it's been put to the test yet, that a judge would limit the definition of an animal to a vertebrate. He might also refer to the UK law for guidance, and the UK law is very clear that invertebrates do not come under wlefare legislation yet.
However, as I said, I don't think this has been tried and tested: the fact that it hasn't, in 100 years, perhaps suggests the futility of bringing a case on behalf of invertebrates. But maybe not. Only time will tell.

The dictionary says that the word Animal covers everything from single celled organisms so, in theory & unless case law has set precedence, a crustacean would appear to be covered by the Act.

As anyone with experience of the legal system will tell you, dictionary definitions are not legal definitions. Every Act and set of regulations lists "definitions" of what various words and terms in that act mean from a legal perspective. They do not conform to the english dictionary's literal definition of the word. As above, the legal definition of an animal in Irish law has been amended.

The amazing thing is why people buy a lobster that has been left alive in a grotty tank. The live displays stem from the days of needing to be sure that your crustaceans were fresh & are totally unnecessary now

Personally, I don't know how anyone could pick out one of these godforsaken creatures from these tanks knowing what's going to happen to them. I can't eat in a restaurant with a lobster/crab tank in it. Though I have been tempted to buy one and let it go:rolleyes:

Discodog

DBB wrote: »

The 1911 Act does, yes, but this section has been amended in the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1965, which changes the definition to include "any bird, fish, or reptile".

Actually the wording is:

"(a) the word 'animal' means any domestic animal or wild animal
and includes any bird, fish or reptile;";

So no category is specifically excluded.

As for evidence the common practice in UK Courts is to find a Vet who will testify. I have attended many such cases & it puts the defence in a very difficult situation as they have to find expert testimony to support their case.

But in the case of Crustacea the defence would pull out all the stops & would have financial backing from the fishing/food sector as they could not afford to lose such a case. There is an absolute zero possibility of this being included in the proposed Animal Welfare Bill.

The best option is to vote with your feet & tell the retailer that you will not purchase there whilst they allow unnecessary suffering. But you have to accept that they will probably laugh at you.

On a side note my Saluki was a key exhibit in a cruelty case involving a coursing gang in the UK. The Crown barrister arrived with a big smile having just found out that the Judge had two rescue Lurchers - the defendant got a jail sentence !

Bullseye1

Are people against other people eating shellfish or just how they are kept in tanks at a restaurant? I love shell fish myself but I've no desire go over to a tank and point one out to the chef. As long as they are killed as humanly as possible I'm all for eating them.

DjFlin

They taste better when they've suffered first...

star-pants

DjFlin wrote: »

They taste better when they've suffered first...

Take a week off, no need to be smart or troll people

mosi

OP, that's a terrible. I don't know if animal welfare legislation covers this - no harm giving the ISPCA a call though, there's nothing to lose.

However, one way to get something done about this may be by reporting them to the Food Safety Authority as it certainly sounds like a health and safety issue.
I don't know all the laws and regulations here but I can't imagine that they would look too favourably on the soon to be food going for a walkabout in the premises.
Also, Bord Iascaighh Mhara have a handbook of guidelines for seafood in restaurants which states

• Lobster and crab must be sold either alive or cooked.
• If alive, do not display directly on ice. Ideally hold in specially designed storage tanks.
• If cooked, place in a suitable tray/dish and display separately from raw fish to avoid
risk of cross-contamination.
• Do not top ice live or cooked shellfish.
• Uncooked crab claws spoil rapidly. Ensure correct stock rotation, place on ice and top ice.

I don't know how legally binding this is, but it sounds like that restaurant is in breach of some of these.

Finally, go onto Menu Pages and write up a review of your experience there. Even if the relevant authorities don't do anything, maybe the establishment will be compelled to improve when potential customers read about what is going on

DBB

Thanks for that list of guidelines from BIM Mosi... I have seen live crabs stored on ice many times... I didn't know you weren't "supposed" to:(
But good to know for the next time.
I suppose, as guidelines, they're not legally binding, but you'd imagine if you complained strongly enough to BIM they might send an inspector out to rattle cages.
In response to the fool who said they taste better when they've suffered, in fact there's a fair bit of evidence to suggest that any animal which was unduly stressed when it died does not taste as good, including fish. The stress hormones can make the flesh more rigid.
Bullseye, if a humane way can be found to kill crabs and lobsters, as a meat eater I'd have to be content with that. However, because not enough is known about pain reception in crustaceans, yet, how do we know if they suffer? I think most chefs will tell you that cooling the animal right down in a fridge before dunking it in boiling water is humane as the animal is not aware. Also, they'll stick a knife down into the lobster's "brain" to kill it before boiling it.
But again, how do we know this isn't causing suffering?

Bullseye1

I would imagine if the knife entered the brain it would be instantaneous death. I'm all for animals we eat being treated as humanly as possible.

DBB

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I would imagine if the knife entered the brain it would be instantaneous death. I'm all for animals we eat being treated as humanly as possible.

Well, I said "brain" in inverted commas for a reason. It's a central ganglion which may be the equivalent of a brain, but because invertebrates have a completely different anatomy to us, with simpler organs and systems, we can't tell if sticking a knife into this ganglion actually kills it. The animal may still be aware of pain as it's dunked in boiling water, as well as pain at having a bundle of nerves gouged with a sharp knife... but it has no way of "telling" us.

JupiterKid

I've little doubt that crustaceans as advanced as lobsters could have the ability to feel pain, and perhaps even emotions. Lobsters do have a clearly defined brain.

I know for a fact that Octopuses, even though they are invertebrates, are highly intelligent and able to do problem solving skills and are considered "honourary vertebrates" by animal welfare laws in many countries.

I think that the less like a human the animal is, the less we feel guilty about killing that animal in a cruel fashion.

rainbowtrout

Alwayson wrote: »

May not be in the right forum but this has been bothering me all day. Met my friend for coffee this morning in Matt the Thresher in Dublin. Right next to us was an iced display area for crabs, crayfish etc. This was full of creatures that were clearly alive and in some cases would crawl out of the ice, over the ledge of the display area and crash down on to the floor where they would either struggle on their backs, lie stunned or start walking around the floor of the serving area. We couldn't stick this so we cancelled our order and left. I don't eat crabs etc so it looked really cruel to me and totally inappropriate to hear these creatures thudding from a height onto the floor and being left crawling around right next to the coffee area. I guess there is no such thing as the ISPCC (Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Crustaceans?)

Did you just cancel your order and leave or did you make a complaint to management about the way the crustaceans were being kept? Did you see anyone pick up the crustaceans off the floor?

I'm not particularly in favour of keeping crustaceans alive in restaurants or the methods by which they are killed, but if they were in a tank and all it needed was a lid to contain them, wouldn't it have been easier to say that to the manager than having a rant about it online?

Discodog

rainbowtrout wrote: »

wouldn't it have been easier to say that to the manager than having a rant about it online?

The OP has every right to discuss the matter in any way that they see fit. Surely that is why Boards exists ?

rainbowtrout

Discodog wrote: »

The OP has every right to discuss the matter in any way that they see fit. Surely that is why Boards exists ?

I don't have a huge problem with that, but it seems that there was a very simple solution to the problem and the crustaceans could have been prevented from falling out of their tank and onto the floor. And going by the OPs post it would seem that they didn't bring this to the attention of the manager when they had the opportunity to stop it happening.

If you saw a child running out in front of a car today and you had the opportunity to stop it getting hurt, would you do something about it or would you let the child get hit by the car and then come online and say 'I saw a child get hit by a car today, some shocking parenting out there'???

People come on boards all the time to rant about stuff they've seen, but have little control over. This is something that could have been changed.

Alwayson

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Did you just cancel your order and leave or did you make a complaint to management about the way the crustaceans were being kept? Did you see anyone pick up the crustaceans off the floor?

I'm not particularly in favour of keeping crustaceans alive in restaurants or the methods by which they are killed, but if they were in a tank and all it needed was a lid to contain them, wouldn't it have been easier to say that to the manager than having a rant about it online?

Your assumptions are incorrect. There was no tank. The area the crabs were placed on was effectively part of the bar counter, with a shallow layer of ice spread on it, and nothing to stop them crawling off it and crashing to the floor, which is what happened. It was 11am in the morning and the bar had just opened, so the only staff I saw were a waitress and a chef and I made it clear to them we were leaving because we were not happy with what we had witnessed. My companion is pregnant and the whole thing especially the live fishy smell was making her a bit queasy so we didn't hang around to find out who the management was and if they were there. Plus I didn't know my facts - for all I knew at the time this could be normal practice although it looked pretty bizarre to me. Now that I have got some useful information from this forum, which is why I posted here in the first place, I have the option of going back to bar to see if it was a once-off or if it wasn't I will definitely confront the management about it.

aisher

Keeping crabs/lobsters alive in tanks or on ice is pretty standard, go down to Howth anyday and thats how they are sold - you normally kill them right before you cook them or you put them into hot water and boil them alive which I really think is cruel. I am not sure what the problem here was - do you think they should have been dead or was the fact they were able to get off the table the problem - I am surprised they would allow them to fall to the floor. Does not seem very appealing to potential customers.

Cú Giobach

DBB wrote: »

That the 1911 Act makes it illegal to torture, ill-treat, infuriate, or terrify an animal is all very well. But the reality, and in practise, we all know that many cases have been lost, or not brought before the courts at all, precisely because of the difficulty in proving that the animal feels pain or distress.
You or I may may know in our bones that the animal is distressed/in pain, but proving it "beyond reasonable doubt" is quite another thing, as our interpretation of distress might be very different to another's. We can only correlate painful/distressed behaviours, but it is extremely difficult to "prove" that an animal which can't verbally convey it's feelings is in pain/distress.

This shows how fu*ked up we can be, the natural state of affairs should be, it is illegal to torture, ill-treat, infuriate, or terrify an animal, unless it can be proven the animal does not feel any pain or distress.
We have it arse upwards and as a consequence are causing a lot of suffering and pain.
I wonder how many people would eat fish/crustaceans at the moment if they could scream, probably the same number as would eat lamb/sheep if we gathered them up in big nets dragged them out of a field and drowned them.