Friday, 18 August 2006

What a croc(k)!

I imagine this decision also has an impact on the way that crocodiles are slaughtered and processed on farms. If they're classified as 'fish', they're probably dealt with in a different way from other farmed four-legged animals.


Australian lawmakers ponder the meaning of fish


Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:56 AM BST

CANBERRA (Reuters) - When is a fish not a fish? When it is a giant killer reptile with four legs and sharp teeth.

Politicians in Australia have been pondering the meaning of "fish" and have passed new laws making it clear crocodiles should be fish too.

The decision is at odds with the arbiter of the Australian English language, the Macquarie Dictionary, which rules that fish are "completely aquatic vertebrates, having gills, commonly fins, and typically an elongated body usually covered with scales".

The answer to the Australian meaning of "fish" is contained in the new Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Export Control and Quarantine) Bill 2006, which was endorsed by Australia's parliament on Thursday.

Australia's junior minister for agriculture Susan Ley told parliament the new definition was needed to ensure Australia had the right to enforce export controls on a wider range of fish, including crocodile products, shellfish and prawns.

For the record, Australia's Macquarie Dictionary defines a crocodile as a reptile.

Source: Reuters

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I must say, your posts highlight some very disturbing issues! They provide a good laugh but contain that vital element of comedy, the absurdity of reality. Have you considered doing standup? You would never be short of a topic!!!

booshkie said...

Yeh, but one piece of Australian legislation (forget which) says that for the purposes of this legislation a lemon shall be considered an egg (or vice versa).

That makes a croc look a lot more fishy, don't you think?

Snail said...

Please tell me you're making that up.