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.”
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.
It’s a pleasant surprise to learn our own Congress isn’t alone in the world — when it comes to sophistry, junk science and intellectual laziness.
sounds to me like a way to protect some species. Asking any goverment to pass proper legislation is like asking the Moon to glow lime green, it could happen, but don’t bet the farm on it.
Oh Jeezus- a croc is NOT a fish! Everyone know reptiles are warm-blooded while fish are not. Gloids.
http://despair.com/meetings.html
Which is more disturbing? That they are trying to lump crocodiles, shellfish and prawns into the label of “fish?” Or that no one realizes that crocodiles are neither completely aquatic nore have gills or fins, and that shellfish and prawns are not vertebrates?
They’re making a law specifically to protect these animals under the label “fish,” and then carefully craft the definition of fish to exclude these them?
I’m I the only one that’s confused?
Damn it John, you really need an edit function for comments. I butchered that.
#2
I must have missed class that day. I was always under the impression reptiles were cold blooded.
I’d classify a whale or a dolphin as a fish before I would a croc.. even though it would still be just as wrong.