Man charged with animal cruelty for abandonded fish

[Seamore2001]

I reckon this guy was not a favorite person in New Hanover county. More than likely law enforcement had a beef with the guy (no idea whether justified or not) and wanted to "ding" him a little. I imagine they'd be quite happy to drop the charges if he'd just move away.

If you're a jerk to or in front of the police, they have lots of tools available for making life difficult for you.

 

[vector824]

Fish are friends! They have personalities and different behaviors just like other animals. Just because they breath water doesn't mean that they don't feel pain. Do they have emotions like a dog? Probably not, but I'm pretty sure my foxface has anxiety issues...

 

[mikenestle]

I have to admit I am surprised by the majority of the reactions in this post. I was expecting a lock him up and throw away the key mentality.

 

[ReefTeacher]

When I go away for a week or less, I don't have anyone feed the fish.....I actually think they are better off.

 

[FishLipz]

I don’t think it deserves a jail sentence, but I also rescue shelter dogs in high kill areas of the country and have a much different opinion of people who abuse dogs. It’s definitely interesting how culture shapes our opinions of things. Just like if you decided to try and order a cheeseburger in India

 

[Idoc]

Well, he was evicted...kind of hard to get back into the house to take care of the fish.

If Hole in the Head disease was a crime, then I would have been put in jail many times during my early freshwater tank days! I couldn't stop this from occurring...but back then, there wasn't that much literature at the local library on fish care (and no internet).

But as others have said...there's obviously more to this story than what he know so far.

 

[Monkeytank]

I see a lot of sympathetic comments here for the guy that left the fish in there; sympathy because he was being evicted, or that maybe the landlord changed the locks and he couldn't go back and get the fish. That surprises me, but I guess it's a sign of the times that people have been convinced to think the evil rich guys are screwing over the innocent good poor guy, and the landlord has to be some rich heartless evil tyrant. If you have ever been a property owner and had to evict someone, you'll know it is a lengthy process and not something you do lightly. Landlords are not all evil people kicking caring folks out of homes and locking doors so they can't get back in and get their belongings. I used to own a few town-homes, and when one of them wasn't earning rent, I was loosing MORE money. I say more money because, when everyone was paying their rent, I was still paying out of pocket for maintenance and upkeep. Over time it was building wealth as the loan was being paid off, but for 13 years, each year, I was paying money out of pocket to own them. I invested my 401K money and took the risk of losing it on the property if I had a bunch of vacancies or the market crashed. When I sold it, I paid plenty of taxes, in addition to all the taxes I paid each year. It wasn't a big money maker, after over a decade of hassle. When I had a deadbeat renter that didn't make a rent payment for three months in a row, I had to go to court to evict them. They lived for free and I had to suck it up, and I couldn't get the place cleaned and repainted, and the carpet replaced where they had burned it with candles they apparently had been lighting on the floors - until they vacated. I lost another two months of rent in the transition - so almost a half a year of costs came out of pocket because two guys who signed a lease decided to quit paying. It's not like I had a bunch of money sitting around to cover the loan payments without rent coming in. During the long process of time, it was clear they were going to have to move out, and during the time for filing for eviction and giving them the notice, and the court date, they had more than ample time to get their stuff and move on. The locks weren't changed until all their stuff was gone and it was empty. If they had left a fish to rot in there, it would have been solely their negligence - or them trying to leave it to die to stink up the place.

The rest of the story? My thought based on my personal experience is the guy probably left it there to rot and stink up the place to screw the property owner. There isn't a property owner out there who wants to change the locks and prevent somebody from getting their stuff out of their way so they can clean up the place and get it rented immediately. Whether a fish's life matters enough to charge a guy for animal cruelty or not, I don't think the guy deserves a lot of sympathy. I don't see anything indicating he tried to retrieve it, or he stated he wanted to get it but the owner wouldn't let him. The story would have been "Greedy landlord refuses to let renter get his fish", but that isn't the story here. The idea that the police went after the guy because they had a problem with him is ridiculous. Do you think they planted the fish? He was charged because there is a law on the books and the guy violated it. If they didn't charge him, they wouldn't have been doing their jobs. Politicians write the laws and the police have to enforce them. If his story had been he had been trying to get the fish and he couldn't because the landlord changed the locks in the middle of the night, there wouldn't have been any charges against him. Besides that, the water quality didn't get so bad the fish got hole in the head in the three days it was left in the place. It's not like he was taking good care of it in the first place, and the fish only suffered because the landlord blocked the caring owner's access to his beloved fish. I'm really surprised he is getting sympathy on this forum.

By default I would say it is animal cruelty to abandon one with no way it can sustain itself and leave it to starve to death. I don't see how that is debatable. The question is simply if cruelty to a fish counts enough to charge someone for it. Would the opinions change if it was a gem tang? If we expect the laws to protect the animals we love, we need to understand it's hard to to have the law in place with exceptions for all the ones that don't count. Should each jurisdiction ensure the law lists which animals don't matter, or only lists the ones that do? The nature of offense defines cruelty more than the animal itself. If someone leaves a cow tied to a post and starves it, even though they can be eaten, I would say that counts. Catching a fish and letting it die to eat it is different than leaving one to starve. Butchering a cow for food isn't cruelty, but leaving one tied up to starve to death for no reason is.

Leaving a fish in filthy water to starve is cruelty. That's what the guy did. The fish was found abandoned three days later, it doesn't say they guy was trying for three days to get the fish. If there is a law on the books against animal cruelty, then absolutely charge him. Not doing so would be illegal. Then, whatever the penalty is that is applied and whether cruelty to a fish is more or less than abuse of a dog is up to the judge.

 

[Dom]

I like my fish, but I love my dogs.

A fish is not a dog.

I understand. But it's keeping the commitment to their care. I'm a man of my word, when I say I'm going to do something, I do it, no matter how big or small.

How would you feel if you were locked up in a jail cell, and then they decided they weren't going to feed you, or give you fresh water?

How would you feel about being left to starve to death?

 

[ZipAdeeZoa]

I find this fascinating, not so much what happened but the larger moral questions its begs us to ponder.

I suppose in my mind it depends on the intent. what I mean by that is when the animal was purchased what was the reason for doing so? To buy animals to raise and eat has been common practice since nearly the dawn of our kind and is what I would classify as completely acceptable (albeit far from the norm in this day and age).

On the other side of the this theres a moral responsibility to provide a pet with the best quality you can and that you shouldn't have one if you're not capable of that and I think its safe to say that eating the animal you bought would violate the core moral principles of modern pet keeping.

So this happened in the town I live in. I feel like being arrested was a bit too much. What if he euthanized the fish before he moved out and put the tank out by the road? Nothing would have happened, it wouldn't have made headlines. If you did that with a dog he would have definitely been arrested. I think companion animals (dogs, cats, even birds) are looked at it a different way than most fish and reptiles by society as a whole. Most people go home to a dog/cat that is part of their family, they pet it, feed it, maybe even share a bed with it. Most people don't look as fish and reptiles as part of their family because most of them don't interact with humans the way most companion pets do.

It's funny because in the same week there was an article posted about a man shooting his neighbors dog with a BB gun, and the dog died. Most of the comments on facebook were calling for the man to be shot with a BB gun, thrown in jail for life, etc. Most of the comments on the fish story were people saying how him being charged with animal cruelty was too extreme, etc. Society as a whole does not see fish as a companion animal, and I think that partially has to do with fishing and eating fish being a normal part of our society. Just my .02

Well I think this is pretty ignorant of society.

My fish have personalities; they recognize me when I come in the room. AFTER feeding, they will come up to the glass and greet me if I get close. My buddy has a puffer that comes to the surface so that you can pet it. So I think fish are every bit as interesting as "companion pets". Granted, you can't let them sleep on the bed. But to think of them as inferior just because they can't interact in the same environment? Ridiculous.

I agree with both you're sentiments, these animals (and many others) are treated with a bias. In my (relatively short) life time working with the animals society avoids and what Science and I have found separately thus far is that animals that can't emote as extravagantly as we can understand their cues much better since we came from a similar evolutionary branch (mammals) and therefore the cues of non mammalian animals are harder for us to decipher. The subtle shift or dilation of a gaboon vipers pupil is often the only indicator it gives before launching itself at its target and even you know what to look for you could still miss it in the blink of an eye, not to mention the strike!

The other thing I've noticed is the portrayal. The way arthropods, reptiles and fish are demonized by religion, film and the media. I'm not trying to say we should stop doing this because we won't and I'm also not going to blame any one of these things because even though each one targets them to a different extent the result is the same. Its completely fine to have a T-shirt that reads "the only good snake is a dead snake" but imagine the outcry if you changed the word snake to dog? I't something I see an awful lot in every pet store I've worked in. I've never seen someone come into the store, see a puppy and scream that its vile and disgusting and ask how demented someone must be to want to own that "THING" but its common place with hatchling snakes who could never do anywhere near the damage that a teething puppy could inflict on you.

Snakes sharks and spiders combined kill less people in the states than cows, dogs and deer and vending machines do separately. Yet the the big screen doesn't have "Return of the Zesty Cheese Doritos!" and if someone falls off a latter and dies it will never leave the local paper but if someone on the other side of the earth gets attacked by a shark it goes viral. about 20,000 dolphins are killed every year in the cove and most people have heard about that issue and want to change it. The figures for sharks being killed yearly is in the millions by most estimations and because sharks are inherently bad and out only a handful people are aware of this (luckily they really really care about this). Fortunately although it's easy to only read the terrible headlines the statistics show that most of these things are improving.

We first noticed it with birds- Intelligence can't be assessed fairly by people because of our bias towards how relatable different animals are, and our expectation that animals that can perform task with human relevance are smarter than ones who can't because intelligence must be good if we have it... I promise you Tarantulas never killed each other in mass with things they created over non evolutionary differences... Sometimes being smart doesn't make things better. I think a post that starts with a story of a guy neglecting a fish and ending with fictional tarantula warfare illustrates that quite well.

Until society changes their outlook on living things the consequences of how people treat them will be up for endless debate and I don't think we should be holding our breath.

 

[stacksoner]

I think we all can relate to tank neglect on some level when unexpected life events demand prioritizing time and resources. Who knows what this guy was going through

 

[Waynerock]

Interesting....
https://www.newsweek.com/north-caro...-room-animal-cruelty-animal-abuse-new-1385857

A North Carolina man was arrested and charged with animal cruelty this week for allegedly abandonding his pet fish after being evicted from his home last month.

Michael Ray Hinson, 53, was detained yesterday by officers from the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office. Officials said an Oscar fish had been discovered inside his former residence in Wilmington. The suspect was evicted on March 22; deputies found the pet three days later.

The tank was filled with dirty water and the pet was suffering from “hole in the head disease,” a dangerous condition that is sparked by poor water quality and a lack of food.

Alongside the cruelty to animals charge—which is a misdemeanor—Hinson was also hit with one count of animal abandonment. The police department’s spokesperson said it was the first time a suspect had been charged in the county with cruelty over a pet fish, WECT reported. The former owner was assigned a $4,000 bond yesterday and has since been released from jail.

Ahhh. Sometimes I really hate living In this state. Well it’s better than where I was born and raised.

 

[Chukthunder]

I have to admit I am surprised by the majority of the reactions in this post. I was expecting a lock him up and throw away the key mentality.

Not a lot of oscar owners I suspect, people who keep them compare them to dogs. Oscars recognize idividuals and identify them with behaviors beyond feeding, redecorate their tanks, and can develop an affinity for people who aren't feeding them. Certainly not as bright as shepherding dogs yet definitely smarter than labs.

 

[cracker]

I would think the guy was really down & out. Maybe He deserved it. As stated above I want the full ,factual story.

 

[Auquanut]

I didn't vote because I honestly don't know where I stand on the issue. None of us know all of the specifics in this instance and for me, I think the circumstances could make all of the difference in what my opinion would be. Just to add a twist: Would you view the charges differently if it was multiple fish or multiple tanks? Reef tanks maybe?

 

[Captain Quint]

Interesting....
https://www.newsweek.com/north-caro...-room-animal-cruelty-animal-abuse-new-1385857

A North Carolina man was arrested and charged with animal cruelty this week for allegedly abandonding his pet fish after being evicted from his home last month.

Michael Ray Hinson, 53, was detained yesterday by officers from the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office. Officials said an Oscar fish had been discovered inside his former residence in Wilmington. The suspect was evicted on March 22; deputies found the pet three days later.

The tank was filled with dirty water and the pet was suffering from “hole in the head disease,” a dangerous condition that is sparked by poor water quality and a lack of food.

Alongside the cruelty to animals charge—which is a misdemeanor—Hinson was also hit with one count of animal abandonment. The police department’s spokesperson said it was the first time a suspect had been charged in the county with cruelty over a pet fish, WECT reported. The former owner was assigned a $4,000 bond yesterday and has since been released from jail.

Pretty sure I posted this from local news the next day. (being in this state and it was local news)

May I ask how this differs than starving a dog, horse or other I read about locally?

Yes, he was charged...I'm waiting to read of the outcome.

 

[alton]

If you watch the show Lonestar Law, which is about Texas Game Wardens they arrested three young men for cruelty to an animal because they used a feral hog to train there hog dogs and posted it online. The game wardens response was you can kill it and eat it, you just can't torture it.

 

[Dom]

I'd like to clear something up:

Placing him under arrest was excessive. And as was mentioned earlier, perhaps this guy was known to local law enforcement and they were just waiting/looking for a reason to lock him up.

My objection here is the cavalier attitude this guy demonstrated by walking away from his responsibility to the care of an animal that is dependent upon him. It isn't like this fish lives in the wild and can go out and hunt for food.

When he walked away, he sentenced this fish to a slow, painful death.

 

[MombasaLionfish]

I see a lot of sympathetic comments here for the guy that left the fish in there; sympathy because he was being evicted, or that maybe the landlord changed the locks and he couldn't go back and get the fish. That surprises me, but I guess it's a sign of the times that people have been convinced to think the evil rich guys are screwing over the innocent good poor guy, and the landlord has to be some rich heartless evil tyrant. If you have ever been a property owner and had to evict someone, you'll know it is a lengthy process and not something you do lightly. Landlords are not all evil people kicking caring folks out of homes and locking doors so they can't get back in and get their belongings. I used to own a few town-homes, and when one of them wasn't earning rent, I was loosing MORE money. I say more money because, when everyone was paying their rent, I was still paying out of pocket for maintenance and upkeep. Over time it was building wealth as the loan was being paid off, but for 13 years, each year, I was paying money out of pocket to own them. I invested my 401K money and took the risk of losing it on the property if I had a bunch of vacancies or the market crashed. When I sold it, I paid plenty of taxes, in addition to all the taxes I paid each year. It wasn't a big money maker, after over a decade of hassle. When I had a deadbeat renter that didn't make a rent payment for three months in a row, I had to go to court to evict them. They lived for free and I had to suck it up, and I couldn't get the place cleaned and repainted, and the carpet replaced where they had burned it with candles they apparently had been lighting on the floors - until they vacated. I lost another two months of rent in the transition - so almost a half a year of costs came out of pocket because two guys who signed a lease decided to quit paying. It's not like I had a bunch of money sitting around to cover the loan payments without rent coming in. During the long process of time, it was clear they were going to have to move out, and during the time for filing for eviction and giving them the notice, and the court date, they had more than ample time to get their stuff and move on. The locks weren't changed until all their stuff was gone and it was empty. If they had left a fish to rot in there, it would have been solely their negligence - or them trying to leave it to die to stink up the place.

The rest of the story? My thought based on my personal experience is the guy probably left it there to rot and stink up the place to screw the property owner. There isn't a property owner out there who wants to change the locks and prevent somebody from getting their stuff out of their way so they can clean up the place and get it rented immediately. Whether a fish's life matters enough to charge a guy for animal cruelty or not, I don't think the guy deserves a lot of sympathy. I don't see anything indicating he tried to retrieve it, or he stated he wanted to get it but the owner wouldn't let him. The story would have been "Greedy landlord refuses to let renter get his fish", but that isn't the story here. The idea that the police went after the guy because they had a problem with him is ridiculous. Do you think they planted the fish? He was charged because there is a law on the books and the guy violated it. If they didn't charge him, they wouldn't have been doing their jobs. Politicians write the laws and the police have to enforce them. If his story had been he had been trying to get the fish and he couldn't because the landlord changed the locks in the middle of the night, there wouldn't have been any charges against him. Besides that, the water quality didn't get so bad the fish got hole in the head in the three days it was left in the place. It's not like he was taking good care of it in the first place, and the fish only suffered because the landlord blocked the caring owner's access to his beloved fish. I'm really surprised he is getting sympathy on this forum.

By default I would say it is animal cruelty to abandon one with no way it can sustain itself and leave it to starve to death. I don't see how that is debatable. The question is simply if cruelty to a fish counts enough to charge someone for it. Would the opinions change if it was a gem tang? If we expect the laws to protect the animals we love, we need to understand it's hard to to have the law in place with exceptions for all the ones that don't count. Should each jurisdiction ensure the law lists which animals don't matter, or only lists the ones that do? The nature of offense defines cruelty more than the animal itself. If someone leaves a cow tied to a post and starves it, even though they can be eaten, I would say that counts. Catching a fish and letting it die to eat it is different than leaving one to starve. Butchering a cow for food isn't cruelty, but leaving one tied up to starve to death for no reason is.

Leaving a fish in filthy water to starve is cruelty. That's what the guy did. The fish was found abandoned three days later, it doesn't say they guy was trying for three days to get the fish. If there is a law on the books against animal cruelty, then absolutely charge him. Not doing so would be illegal. Then, whatever the penalty is that is applied and whether cruelty to a fish is more or less than abuse of a dog is up to the judge.

You changed my mind he is guilty.

 

[Instigate]

I don't think I really need to know more. I'm glad to see fish being treated as a pet and not a decoration in the eyes of the law. It doesn't mater what else might have been going on. If I found myself on hard times, being evicted(which doesn't happen overnight) I would break down the tank and sell or give away my livestock. Pretty simple.

 

[Todd A.]

I'm not so sure being arrested is the correct action, but certainly being fined or cited at the least. In MY opinion, a pet is a pet no matter what type of living creature it may be and it's that person's legal responsibility to provide proper care or face the consequences. I've had all sorts of pets my entire life; dogs (never not had at least one), reptiles galore, birds, fish, rabbits, chickens, etc. and feel the same commitment to each and every one. It's gotten to the point where I almost think people should be required to get a license to own a pet. It's like driving a car or owning a gun; an earned privilege, not a right.
Anyway, I suspect this guy had a lot more going on than not taking care of his fish and the cops were just looking for any reason to mess with him.