Koi Fish at Bon Buffet

L

luckystar

Guest
Has anyone ever called Animal Control about the conditions the Koi fish at Bon Buffet are living in?

Today I went in for what may be the last time. I always figured something would be done about their environment considering the amount of people that eat at the restaurant. It's been quite a while since I've eaten there, and the fish are much bigger than they were since the last time I was in there, and still in what looks like a 55 gallon tank. Koi fish require 240 gallons of water each: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koi#Keeping_koi

The fish are as large as a foot, if not more. They have difficulty turning around, and often just sit around at the bottom of the tank. They deserve better than that.

I called Animal Control today. I was told that they would send someone down there, I'm going to check back with them in a few days to make sure something was done. If not... I don't know where else to turn. I know they're just fish, but they're still living things. A Koi can be trained as easily as a cat or a dog. Just thought I'd say something, because I've never heard much about it.
 
J

julz20684

Guest
Maybe she needs to ask how the fish feel about the tank :shrug:
 
M

missperky

Guest
missperky said:
Where is the :shakinghead: smilie?

<table class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody id="collapseobj_usercp_reputation" style=""><tr><td class="alt2">(RED)
</td> <td class="alt1Active" id="p2209381" width="50%">Koi Fish at Bon Buffet</td> <td class="alt2" nowrap="nowrap">07-16-2007 01:21 PM</td> <td class="alt1" width="50%">Oh, like your posts are so much better.</td></tr></tbody></table>


KMA. :moon:
 
L

luckystar

Guest
elaine said:
...but can you eat them?

I know I'm about to open a can of worms:

You can eat a dog, but it's not usually considered a nice thing to do.
 

PrepH4U

New Member
vraiblonde said:
I'm not trying to bust on you, but...

:killingme

Fetch! Roll over! Play dead! .... uh...oh....
Oh yeah don't forget when they come running to the door to greet you! :yay:
 
L

luckystar

Guest
vraiblonde said:
I'm not trying to bust on you, but...

:killingme

Fetch! Roll over! Play dead! .... uh...oh....

Yeah, yeah, I know. But really, have you seen the tank I'm talking about? I feel horrible every time I check out of that place.
 

PrepH4U

New Member
luckystar said:
Yeah, yeah, I know. But really, have you seen the tank I'm talking about? I feel horrible every time I check out of that place.
psst it's the food that is making you feel horrible :jameo:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
luckystar said:
But really, have you seen the tank I'm talking about?
No, I try to avoid the Bon Buffet.

Is the tank at least clean? Because you'd think that would gross out the diners to have this nasty fish tank sitting where they're trying to eat.

Oh...wait...what was I thinking? They're at the Bon Buffet - I don't think a grody fish tank will bother them. :lol:
 

PJumper

New Member
luckystar said:
Has anyone ever called Animal Control about the conditions the Koi fish at Bon Buffet are living in?

Today I went in for what may be the last time. I always figured something would be done about their environment considering the amount of people that eat at the restaurant. It's been quite a while since I've eaten there, and the fish are much bigger than they were since the last time I was in there, and still in what looks like a 55 gallon tank. Koi fish require 240 gallons of water each: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koi#Keeping_koi

The fish are as large as a foot, if not more. They have difficulty turning around, and often just sit around at the bottom of the tank. They deserve better than that.

I called Animal Control today. I was told that they would send someone down there, I'm going to check back with them in a few days to make sure something was done. If not... I don't know where else to turn. I know they're just fish, but they're still living things. A Koi can be trained as easily as a cat or a dog. Just thought I'd say something, because I've never heard much about it.

Each person supposed to have certain amount of living space too. So who do I call if I know of families living in a cramp house/apartment to save for their child's education, so they don't end up in welfare? Is that a violation too?

I do eat at Bon Buffet and I don't sense too much stress for the Koi who swims leisurely in the tank waiting to be fed. Now the owners will be force to either spend a lot of money for a new fish tank or just go ahead and include the Koi in their menu. Please be realistic and don't start a welfare program for the fish.
 
L

luckystar

Guest
PrepH4U said:
Oh yeah don't forget when they come running to the door to greet you! :yay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koi said:
Koi will recognize the person feeding them and gather around at dinnertime

It's not the same, but if they were kept in a pond like they're supposed to it would be different. They do come to their owners, like any other pet.

I'm not saying I'm a vegetarian/activist or anything like that, but Koi are meant to be pets. Pets are meant to be treated fairly, and there are laws in place to make sure that they are.

New York Law Journal said:
N.Y. Court Finds Animal Cruelty Extends to Pet Fish
By Mark Fass
New York Law Journal
03-30-2006

In a case of first impression, New York's Appellate Division, 1st Department, has upheld the felony aggravated-cruelty-to-animals conviction of a man who, in the midst of a violent attack on his girlfriend and her family, turned to her 9-year-old son, and said, "You want to see something awesome?" and then purposefully crushed a pet goldfish underneath his foot.

The decision turned largely on whether a goldfish may be considered a domesticated, "companion animal."

In a 17-page opinion that included an extended discourse into the history of domestication, the 1st Department ruled that the reach of the state's Aggravated Cruelty to Animals law is broad.

Specifically, the panel held, a goldfish may indeed be considered a pet under the law.

"[T]he statutory language is consistent with the People's contention that 'domesticated' is commonly understood to mean 'to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans,'" Justice James M. Catterson wrote for the unanimous panel in People v. Garcia, 7863. "Thus, a goldfish such as the one herein is a domesticated rather than a wild animal within the common meaning of the term."

He added, "Moreover, the goldfish was, as the statute requires, 'normally maintained in or near the household of the owner or person who cares for [them].' Indeed, acknowledging that the goldfish is one of the most common household pets, defense counsel stipulated at trial that there are 'millions of fish owners throughout the country.'"

The panel however modified Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marcy L. Kahn's decision, vacating defendant Michael Garcia's conviction for attempted assault and reducing his aggregate sentence for the attack from 7-1/2-to-15 years to 5-1/2-to-11 years.

Garcia went on a rampage against Emelie Martinez and her family on Aug. 2, 2003.

"At about 3:00 a.m., Martinez awoke on the sofa to find the defendant standing over her, holding the fish tank," according to the decision. "The defendant threw the fish tank into the television set, saying, 'That could have been you.' The fish tank shattered, as did the television screen and a portion of a glass wall unit."

Garcia also shattered the VCR owned by Martinez's 9-year-old son, Juan.

Later, as Garcia helped clean up the mess, Juan came out of his room with his two younger sisters behind him, crying. At that point, Garcia crushed the goldfish -- one of three the family owned, each named for a different sibling.

The next day the violence continued, with Garcia beating Martinez repeatedly in her bedroom and then attacking Juan.

He was arrested later that day and convicted of attempted assault, criminal possession of a weapon, criminal mischief, assault, endangering the welfare of a child and aggravated cruelty to animals.

COMPANION FISH

On Tuesday, the 1st Department vacated the attempted-assault conviction, but it upheld the remaining convictions and set forth new precedent regarding the types of animals that are considered pets under Agriculture and Markets Law §353-a(1).

The "Aggravated Cruelty To Animals [law] represents the Legislature's recognition that man's inhumanity to man often begins with inhumanity to those creatures that have formed particularly close relationships with mankind," Catterson wrote. "The scope of §353-a(1) is a question of first impression for the Appellate Division, and the instant case compels the conclusion that its reach is broad."

Known as Buster's Law -- in honor of an 18-month-old tabby that was doused with kerosene and set on fire by a Schenectady, N.Y., teenager in 1997 -- AML §353-a(1) makes the intentional killing of or causing of serious physical injury to a "companion animal" a felony subject to a maximum prison sentence of 2 years.

A "companion animal" is defined as "any dog or cat, and shall also mean any other domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of" its owner.

Garcia appealed the animal-cruelty conviction.

"The defendant contends that a fish is not a companion animal because it is not domesticated and because there is no reciprocity or mutuality of feeling between a fish and its owner, such as there is between a dog or a cat and its owner," according to the decision. "He maintains that the statute's reference to 'any other' domesticated animal limits 'companion animals' to those that are similar to dogs or cats, that is, those with a degree of sentience sufficiently elevated to enable them to enter into a relationship of mutual affection with a human being."

Catterson -- along with Justices John T. Buckley, Joseph P. Sullivan, Milton L. Williams and Luis A. Gonzalez -- disagreed.

"The Legislature simply did not require a reciprocity of affection in the definition of 'companion animal,'" Catterson wrote.

The panel also dismissed the defense's argument that domesticated animals by definition "no longer possess the disposition or inclination to escape."

"Loyalty, if that is what it is, is merely another characteristic urged by defendant but not included by the Legislature as a defining feature of a companion animal," Catterson stated. "While this trait arguably distinguishes fish from dogs and, probably to a lesser extent cats, it fails to take into account that many other animals commonly considered pets, such as hermit crabs, gerbils, hamsters, guinea pigs and rabbits, would depart for less confining venues and greener pastures if given the opportunity."

Although the decision sets new precedent regarding animal cruelty, on a practical level it will have no effect on the present case. Garcia's 5-year sentence for killing the goldfish was merged into his sentence on the other charges.

Robert S. Dean of the Center for Appellate Litigation represented Garcia. He said that absent the other charges the killing of the goldfish would not have merited a 2-year sentence. He added that his client intends to appeal.

Assistant District Attorneys Alice Wiseman and Donald J. Siewert represented the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Through a spokeswoman, they declined to comment.
 
Top