How do you feel about putting an animal down?

[Gabriella Lynn]

I had a previous discussion with my boyfriends mother about whether putting an animal down for attacking a person is ok or not. I don't want to give my personal opinion quite yet but would love to know others, thanks! :)

[Powderfinger]

It depends what the dog etc did?

[Gabriella Lynn]

Well if they attacked someone really. Also it can be any animal, an animal people know can be dangerous or is dangerous or an animal that's usually fairly kind.

[Miss Vicky]

I think it all depends on the situation (what kind of animal was it, was the attack provoked, etc) and the severity of the attack.

[Gabriella Lynn]

What if it was a puppy. You raised the puppy from a couple of weeks to 6 years old. one day the dog felt provoked and bit someone, first time it ever happened and someone demanded it be put down, could you?

[will.15]

Not if I didn't have to.

But you may have a hard time fighting it if it was a pitbull or some other dog with a scary reputation.

Raise poodles.

[Miss Vicky]

It would depend on who it bit and the circumstances under which it was provoked.

However, if it were a dog in my city and the victim of the attack pursued their case legally, I wouldn't really have much choice in the matter. So my feelings on the subject would be pretty much irrelevant.

[akatemple]

It does just really depend on the exact circumstances, I do not want a dog or whatever to be put down unless it really is necessary which unfortunately it sometimes is.

[Powderfinger]

What if it was a puppy. You raised the puppy from a couple of weeks to 6 years old. one day the dog felt provoked and bit someone, first time it ever happened and someone demanded it be put down, could you?

The person who demanded the dog be put down, was he or she had injuries? If so, what were the injuries?

[Gabriella Lynn]

I don't really think your feelings would be though. Why should your feelings be invalidated?

[Gabriella Lynn]

Not if I didn't have to.

But you may have a hard time fighting it if it was a pitbull or some other dog with a scary reputation.

Raise poodles.


Haha or Shih-poo! lol

[Miss Vicky]

I don't really think your feelings would be though. Why should your feelings be invalidated?

Because I wouldn't be left with a choice of whether or not to put it down. The court would decide regardless of my feelings on the subject.

[Powderfinger]

I don't really think your feelings would be though. Why should your feelings be invalidated?

I don't know I this question was for me or not? I didn't really understand the question anyway, sorry, I'm a bit a dumb ass now!

[Gabriella Lynn]

No, I'm really confusing when I try to explain something. The question is too general. And I've already been able to think it out.


I don't believe it's ok to put an animal down. Regardless if it attacked someone or not.

[Miss Vicky]

I don't know I this question was for me or not? I didn't really understand the question anyway, sorry, I'm a bit a dumb ass now!


I think the question was in response to this:


However, if it were a dog in my city and the victim of the attack pursued their case legally, I wouldn't really have much choice in the matter. So my feelings on the subject would be pretty much irrelevant.

[Gabriella Lynn]

I have quite a few reasons, but I want to know if anyone thinks I am wrong to feel this way at all.

[Miss Vicky]

I have quite a few reasons, but I want to know if anyone thinks I am wrong to feel this way at all.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but - under certain circumstances - I believe it absolutely is right to (humanely) kill an animal that has attacked a person. But, again, it all depends on the exact circumstances of the attack.

[Gabriella Lynn]

What kind of circumstances do you think?

[Miss Vicky]

A few examples:

-Unprovoked attacks

-Attacks that are the result of food aggression

-Attacks on children

-Attacks by a dog at large

[Gabriella Lynn]

Well if we can put Animals down for those, why can't we put people down for the same thing?

-Serial Killers

- Homeless drug addicts

-Pedophiles

-Robbers

[Powderfinger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9MXdEiEi5w

[Miss Vicky]

Well if we can put Animals down for those, why can't we put people down for the same thing?

-Serial Killers

- Homeless drug addicts

-Pedophiles

-Robbers

Are you serious? This is not even a legitimate argument.

Also, depending on location and circumstance, people can be "put down" for some crimes. But that is an entirely separate issue and is completely irrelevant to the original question.

[Gabriella Lynn]

Explain to me how it isn't a legitimate arguement?

Because people are human and they have thoughts and can "realize" their mistakes. Even though a lot keep doing it? Is a dog bite more traumatic than an adult harming a child?

[Gabriella Lynn]

I don't want it to get overly heated. it's not meant to be a negative discussion. Just a different concepts type of thing. I will totally back down if anyone feels uncomfortable with it.

[Powderfinger]

I'm fine, I love dogs...mans best friend ;)

[will.15]

Some dogs are really, really dangerous

[Gabriella Lynn]

Well yeah, I love animals. and in all honesty, if a dog tore my childs face off, I would be PO-ed. But is it the animals fault, or the owners?

And I guess I don't totally feel an animal really knows better after the fact. They become aggressive, then they love you. Like PMS. But the results can be severe.

I know In my last statement, it seems way too "light-hearted" but do you really think an animal can carry the concept that they really hurt someone?

[Gabriella Lynn]

Some dogs are really, really dangerous


Oh yeah, I completely agree. That's why there is the category Bully Dogs.

My cousin's got a new dog and it was a Terrier. She was just petting it and the dog tried to bite her. I don't remember if it did. They also had a Black Lab Rotweiller mix. That dog never once tried to hurt anything.

Dogs can be very random and bizarre.

[will.15]

But our society puts a higher value on human life. If the dog is truly dangerous then the dog gets put down. Doesn't matter if the owner is at fault also, although they can get in legal trouble also if ther are criminally negligent.

[Powderfinger]

. Like PMS.

I know In my last statement, it seems way too "light-hearted" but do you really think an animal can carry the concept that they really hurt someone?

For the PMS :D

Mainly they are protecting their territory

[Miss Vicky]

Explain to me how it isn't a legitimate arguement?

Because people are human and they have thoughts and can "realize" their mistakes. Even though a lot keep doing it? Is a dog bite more traumatic than an adult harming a child?

I never said a dog bite is more or less traumatic than child abuse. Nor did I make any indication that I believe people can "realize" their mistakes. And I won't go into the subject of what I think about violent or sexual criminals' potential for "rehabilitation" or my stance on the death penalty so don't you dare even pretend to know my thoughts on the matter. Again, these are wholly separate issues from the subject of the best way to deal with aggressive animals.

Whether you or the animals like it or not, domestic animals must live in human society and live by human rules, not theirs. This means that they must be able to exist peacefully with humans. If they fail to do this and/or the human(s) that are dominant over them fail to restrain or otherwise control the animals' aggressive tendencies, the animals may pay for it with their lives. In some cases, humans may pay for it with their lives, too. An animal with a history of (unprovoked or otherwise unjustifiable) violence is likely to attack again. Allowing that animal to live only puts others - human and animal - in danger.

If you personally are harboring an aggressive animal, it is your legal and moral obligation to protect others by making absolutely certain that nobody gets hurt. If you fail to do that and the result is that somebody gets hurt and your animal gets killed, you've nobody to blame but yourself.

[Gabriella Lynn]

I never said a dog bite is more or less traumatic than child abuse. Nor did I make any indication that I believe people can "realize" their mistakes. And I won't go into the subject of what I think about violent or sexual criminals' potential for "rehabilitation" or my stance on the death penalty so don't you dare even pretend to know my thoughts on the matter. Again, these are wholly separate issues from the subject of the best way to deal with aggressive animals.

Whether you or the animals like it or not, domestic animals must live in human society and live by human rules, not theirs. This means that they must be able to exist peacefully with humans. If they fail to do this and/or the human(s) that are dominant over them fail to restrain or otherwise control the animals' aggressive tendencies, the animals may pay for it with their lives. In some cases, humans may pay for it with their lives, too. An animal with a history of (unprovoked or otherwise unjustifiable) violence is likely to attack again. Allowing that animal to live only puts others - human and animal - in danger.

If you personally are harboring an aggressive animal, it is your legal and moral obligation to protect others by making absolutely certain that nobody gets hurt. If you fail to do that and the result is that somebody gets hurt and your animal gets killed, you've nobody to blame but yourself.

Ok well I guess I feel like it's just the same because a dog doesn't know better and a human does.


Also, how do we know if an animal will attack again if majority are killed after the first one?


And I do agree with your last statement but paying fines and a little jail time, is that really all someone so negligent should pay?

[Gabriella Lynn]

For the PMS :D

Mainly they are protecting their territory


Lol


If I were a dog, I would be PMS central. Bully Dog capital. lol (Just Kidding!)

[Miss Vicky]

Ok well I guess I feel like it's just the same because a dog doesn't know better and a human does.

The destruction of aggressive animals is about public safety, not about punishing the animals in question.


Also, how do we know if an animal will attack again if majority are killed after the first one?

What makes you say the "majority of them are killed"? Actually in my experience (I've been working in veterinary clinics for the last 12 years and have seen a lot of aggressive animals), the majority of them ARE NOT killed and many attacks go completely unreported to authorities because the owners feel that "it's not my baby's fault" or because the victim is afraid the animal will be destroyed. Actually, many aggressive animals are not destroyed until a really serious attack occurs and either a child or another animal is seriously injured or killed as a result.

I have personally been the victim of unprovoked attacks by aggressive dogs (all of which occurred prior to me working in the veterinary field). I did not report them. I should have.


And I do agree with your last statement but paying fines and a little jail time, is that really all someone so negligent should pay?

No, but that's all the law allows.

[honeykid]

People are way too precious about animals. I don't wish them any harm, but I've no problem with those that are deemed to have contravened the law to be put down. Of course, I hate dogs and horses, so I'm not the best person to ask. :D

[mack]

Well. I agree with Vicky.

That said, I do think two things:

1. Cruel people can intentionally provoke an animal to frenzy. It does happen, and in these instances the animal (dog, for example) will act on primal instinct. I think the food this is also the case. I always had a dog growing up, and my parents always taught us never, ever bother a dog while eating, or touch its food while its eating - they fight over that - and that's considered provocation. I honestly think a lot of cases of animals "unintentionally" hurting humans have a lot to do with failure of their "humans" having been trained on how to properly respect and interact with them They are not human, and I think animal husbandry is a lost art.

2. Domesticated animals "can" and "should" be taught how to appropriately interact with humans. Take the dog example. We always played with our dog, but she was trained never to bite us. I mean I've actually played with her, with gloves on where I let her bite my hand gently (this is the ghetto version of dog frisbee - they use their teeth, and your hand is the frisbee. Wear heavy gloves. :p). If she did accidently bite me too hard during this game, she would instantly whine, tuck her tail and get low to ground in apology. I would actually have to comfort her that I wasnt mad at her, and that she wasnt in trouble. So to my earlier point - why would I punish a dog for getting a little too rough when I intentionally worked her up? I say "ouch" and stop playing, and she got the point. To her credit, and the credit of dogs, she knew the difference between a gentle bite and a hardcore chomp down.

Which means I have to make 2 more points:

3. A dog that intentionally attacks by biting down hard/maiming a human -without provocation (e.g. not a guard dog trained to do just that - and you've trespassed, or they were "sicced" on you by a human) - they know better. Put them down.

4. Humans who keep wild animals that are not household pets or generally domesticated animals - if the animal gets out of control in the slightest, donate to a zoo, or put them down. I just read a story about how a trainer kept a pet gorilla in her house - this gentle giant often escaped and ran the neighborhood - on one such occasion she asked her good friend and neighbor to help catch him so he wouldnt be caught by police and put down (her neighbor apparently helped her do this before, so the gorilla knew the neighbor well) - the gorilla mutilated the neighbor and tore her face off. The lady is on the first "face transplant" patients in America. Google it. The animal shouldnt have been kept as a household pet, and should have been put down before a life was destroyed.

[cinemaafficionado]

Well, I believe that child molesters should be castrated ( if male), so I don't have a problem with putting an animal down. Of course there should be relevant justification, such as a pit bull going nuts and mangling a human or if a horse is hurt and can't heal, to put it out of it's misery.
However, I'd rather terminate a pit bull than a horse. I've done both and the horse really bothered me.

[Miss Vicky]

I disagree about excusing animals that are food aggressive.

Food aggression is a HUGE liability. If you are an adult that lives entirely alone and you don't ever have houseguests or other animals in the house, then I suppose if you want to keep a food aggressive dog, that's your choice. But there have been far too may incidents of people and animals being attacked for simply walking past a food aggressive dog while it was eating. It's just far too risky and this is exactly why most shelters will automatically destroy dogs that show even the slightest hint of food aggression. It's really not worth the risk.

[cinemaafficionado]

It's odd, but I just remembered this huge rat ( as big as a cat ) coming at me in an alley in Hong Kong. I remember those red, beady eyes, the ugly snout and the up-raised long, stiff tail. I kicked it into oblivion. Had it bitten me, I know I would have needed a tetanus shot. I didn't lose any sleep over it.

[Gabrielle947]

The worst thing is,that it's all owner's fault.I was attacked a few times only because the dog was set free and no one bothered to tie him.Nowadays people buy pitbulls or German shepherds and don't bother with the equipment for them(muzzle,dog-lead etc.)I think better punishment would be to give a nice fine to the animal owner.And even homeless dogs attacking people is people's fault.In my opinion , animal can be put down only for health reasons - rabies,deadly disease.

[Mr. Ken V.B Liar]

Totally depends on the circumstances. If your Jack Russell nips a guy for poking it and annoying it, no, but if someone's PitBull savages another person mercilessly, then absolutely. I don't think a single nip or quick bite should necessarily mean the animal is destroyed, it could just be irritated - as many have said, circumstances have to be investigated.

[Yoda]

Explain to me how it isn't a legitimate arguement?
Because human life is more important, and needs to be protected more, than animal life. This is the whole discussion, really; if you agree with this, then all the arguments you're hearing will make perfect sense. And if you don't, then no argument will make any difference.

This is not to defend animal cruelty; to the contrary, one of the burdens of being human is that we understand enough to know better. But if we have a responsibility to consider these actions in the first place--simply because we're capable of considering things, as humans--then we've already established why people are different.

Either our moral and intellectual judgment is valuable, and thus deserves a different standard of protection, or it isn't, and we have no more obligation to be kind to animals than animals have to be kind to each other. In other words, if someone wants to say that we're no better than the animals, they simultaneously absolve us of the responsibility of behaving any more considerately than they do.

[Miss Vicky]

The worst thing is,that it's all owner's fault.I was attacked a few times only because the dog was set free and no one bothered to tie him.Nowadays people buy pitbulls or German shepherds and don't bother with the equipment for them(muzzle,dog-lead etc.)I think better punishment would be to give a nice fine to the animal owner.And even homeless dogs attacking people is people's fault.In my opinion , animal can be put down only for health reasons - rabies,deadly disease.

Firstly, the breed of the dog really doesn't make any difference. I've been actually bitten by four different dogs of four different breeds: Golden Retriever, Dalmation, St. Bernard, Cocker Spaniel. All of them what I refer to as "Disney Dogs" - breeds that have been portrayed in film and media in a positive light (though, of course, Cujo is an exception in the case of the Bernard, but there's still the Beethoven series and other movies to consider).

Saying it's always people's fault is a load of bleeding heart BS. Yes, many dog owners are completely irresponsible and don't properly socialize, properly train or properly restrain their dogs, but a lot of it also has to do with poor breeding and just the fact that - like people - each dog has its own personality. Some of them are just vicious by nature (again, referring to the individual animal, not the breed).

Unlike Yoda, I don't really consider human life more valuable or more important than animal life. But just because the law doesn't allow us to dispose of violent people the way we can dispose of violent animals does not mean that those violent animals should be allowed to live.

[wintertriangles]

Unlike Yoda, I don't really consider human life more valuable or more important than animal life.Me either. I find that idea extremely ridiculous. Just like when it's the right circumstance for humans, it's for the best of the ailing to euthanize.

[Gabriella Lynn]

People are way too precious about animals. I don't wish them any harm, but I've no problem with those that are deemed to have contravened the law to be put down. Of course, I hate dogs and horses, so I'm not the best person to ask. :D


Actually you are. I didn't start this thread for a one sided opinion! lol

[Yoda]

Me either. I find that idea extremely ridiculous.
I wonder how. The implications of this principle produce any number of legal absurdities if you actually apply them. For example: if animal life is equally as valuable and important as human life, then why don't we charge pet owners as slave traders? If you acknowledge that this idea is ridiculous, then you've already conceded the idea that animal life should be governed by a different standard.

[Miss Vicky]

I wonder how. The implications of this principle produce any number of legal absurdities if you actually apply them. For example: if animal life is equally as valuable and important as human life, then why don't we charge pet owners as slave traders? If you acknowledge that this idea is ridiculous, then you've already conceded the idea that animal life should be governed by a different standard.

Yoda, you take things to the extreme. I can't speak for WT, but I believe that people have no more right to live than animals do. This is a separate issue from other rights.

[wintertriangles]

I wonder how. The implications of this principle produce any number of legal absurdities if you actually apply them. For example: if animal life is equally as valuable and important as human life, then why don't we charge pet owners as slave traders? If you acknowledge that this idea is ridiculous, then you've already conceded the idea that animal life should be governed by a different standard.That example is not applicable to this discussion at all. We're talking about euthanizing, which only deals with suffering. If a pet is suffering under its owner there are means of taking the pet from the owner. Saying having pets is like slavery is a pretty untestable but in all likelihood just not true for pets do show either appreciation or disappointment to their family. You could make a better argument that children are slaves to the school boards.

[Sedai]

Terrible. Part of owning a pet, though.

[Miss Vicky]

That example is not applicable to this discussion at all. We're talking about euthanizing, which only deals with suffering.

Actually, we're not really talking about true euthanasia (which is defined in The Oxford Dictionary as "bringing about a gentle death in the case of incurable and painful disease"). The title of this thread is misleading. The OP's actual question is in regard to whether or not it is okay to put an animal down after it has attacked a person.

[Yoda]

Yoda, you take things to the extreme.
I do. :) That's the quickest way to test the idea, and/or to find out where the actual point of disagreement is.

I can't speak for WT, but I believe that people have no more right to live than animals do. This is a separate issue from other rights.
I think it's pretty difficult to say that animals deserve so many fewer rights in so many basic areas, except this one. Every sane culture that has asserted the right to life has had the good sense to assert other rights along with it, implicitly acknowledging that to "live" means a lot more than to merely exist.

And this is without getting into the thorny issue of what constitutes an animal, because I'm guessing we're all cool with insecticide.

But putting all that aside, there's a more fundamental problem: doesn't what you're saying now still imply that we have to put people to death for merely biting other people? Even if we accept a distinction between "living" as we usually understand it and just plain old existing, wouldn't we still have to put both dogs and people to death for the same set of offenses? Because if we don't, then again, we're admitting that people have more of a right to live than animals.

[Yoda]

That example is not applicable to this discussion at all. We're talking about euthanizing, which only deals with suffering.
We're talking about an animal's rights in general, it seems to me (as Vicky points out, the initial topic wasn't really about alleviating suffering), but even if we weren't it's an inescapable aspect of the question. And it doesn't really matter, because in the course of discussing whatever was being discussed, I advanced an idea, and you disagreed with it (quite strongly, in fact), and that's what I'm addressing.

But anyway, the next question is: does this response mean that you don't literally disagree? That you only disagree with the statement "human life is worth more than animal life" in the context of euthanasia, specifically?

If a pet is suffering under its owner there are means of taking the pet from the owner.
So slavery is only wrong if the slaves are "suffering" under their owner?

Saying having pets is like slavery is a pretty untestable but in all likelihood just not true for pets do show either appreciation or disappointment to their family. You could make a better argument that children are slaves to the school boards.
See above. Slavery doesn't become a moral wrong by demonstrating that the slave is dissatisfied.

I feel like these responses I'm giving now are kind of obvious. Whatever our disagreement here is, I find it hard to believe that you think the slavery distinction is moot based only on the reduced mental capacity or self-awareness of the slave.

[Miss Vicky]

But putting all that aside, there's a more fundamental problem: doesn't what you're saying now still imply that we have to put people to death for merely biting other people? Even if we accept a distinction between "living" as we usually understand it and just plain old existing, wouldn't we still have to put both dogs and people to death for the same set of offenses? Because if we don't, then again, we're admitting that people have more of a right to live than animals.

Again it all depends on the individual circumstances, but your example of biting is really ridiculous. An animal's line of attack is to bite. People generally go to other methods of attack - fists, weapons, etc. I would think a person who goes around biting other people is afflicted with some sort of mental illness. Which, under the law, is a whole other issue.

But all of that aside, yeah quite frankly I do think people who fly off the handle and physically attack other people with little or no provocation ought to be disposed of.

ETA: For the record, I'm not okay with insecticide. I only personally kill insects if they are a threat to the health and safety of me or my animals. Of course, I also feed insects to my pet frogs.

[Gabriella Lynn]

Actually, we're not really talking about true euthanasia (which is defined in The Oxford Dictionary as "bringing about a gentle death in the case of incurable and painful disease"). The title of this thread is misleading. The OP's actual question is in regard to whether or not it is okay to put an animal down after it has attacked a person.


Your completely right, The title is completely misleading. I couldn't figure out a better way to propose my thought and my way of asking for others opinions. But don't take it as irrelevant. I wasn't meaning to be confusing on dishonest of my intentions for this thread.

[Gabriella Lynn]

But putting all that aside, there's a more fundamental problem: doesn't what you're saying now still imply that we have to put people to death for merely biting other people? Even if we accept a distinction between "living" as we usually understand it and just plain old existing, wouldn't we still have to put both dogs and people to death for the same set of offenses? Because if we don't, then again, we're admitting that people have more of a right to live than animals.


Well yeah, if it was between me and the dog, who would die? The dog.My life has more meaning because I can make a change in the world, or I have higher possibilities. I have the control over the animal. They have no say in what goes. they don't have the knowledge, the realization, the power that we do so we can control ourselves and to not react so harshly because of something like food.

[Yoda]

Again it all depends on the individual circumstances, but your example of biting is really ridiculous. An animal's line of attack is to bite. People generally go to other methods of attack - fists, weapons, etc. I would think a person who goes around biting other people is afflicted with some sort of mental illness. Which, under the law, is a whole other issue.
Well, we don't generally put people to death for attacking with their fists, either. The point is not the biting, really, but that a dog can be put to death for attacking someone but not killing them, and for not even coming particularly close to killing them. A significant injury is plenty. Do you support the death penalty to everyone who significantly injures another person, even if they did not come particularly close to killing them?

But all of that aside, yeah quite frankly I do think people who fly off the handle and physically attack other people with little or no provocation ought to be disposed of.
The question above is kind of the same one I would ask here. But I wanted to quote it to point out that "physically attack" encompasses everything from injuring someone to beating them to death, and the point I'm trying to make is that we put dogs to death for the former, but not people.

ETA: For the record, I'm not okay with insecticide. I only personally kill insects if they are a threat to the health and safety of me or my animals. Of course, I also feed insects to my pet frogs.
Okay, but I assume this is more of a personal preference, and that you wouldn't support laws that outlawed the killing of bugs, let alone laws that treated it equivalent to the killing of people or dogs or whatever else?

[Gabrielle947]

Vicky,but there are some breeds which are considered more dangerous.Why police use only certain breeds?Because they are thought to be more agressive,dangerous and stronger.And don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that only specific breeds attack people,it was just an example.
but a lot of it also has to do with poor breeding and just the fact that - like people - each dog has its own personality. Some of them are just vicious by nature (again, referring to the individual animal, not the breed).
some animals are fierce and vicious by nature,so what?Why their owners can't keep them in cages?Walk them with a normal dog lace?Put on a muzzle?Keep him free only where it's certainly safe?
My parents had a German Shepherd,we kept him in a cage but there were a few times when he escaped and bit people.Lots of money were spent paying the fines but it was our fault,the cage where we kept him in wasn't very good,fence was quite old,too but since we lived in a detached house there weren't many people around so my parents always thought that it won't bite anyone anymore.

[Gabriella Lynn]

[quote=Yoda;813018]Well, we don't generally put people to death for attacking with their fists, either. The point is not the biting, really, but that a dog can be put to death for attacking someone but not killing them, and for not even coming particularly close to killing them. A significant injury is plenty. Do you support the death penalty to everyone who significantly injures another person, even if they did not come particularly close to killing them?quote]


Well I guess this is where my whole thought process is and why I believe what I do.

I don't understand how we can put an animal down for attacking someone, not killing them, but hurting them severely in some way and yet we can't do the same with humans.

The reason why I think this is because I strongly believe that human lives are precious. We are just as important if not more, to everything else there is on this earth. So why is it ok that someone gets to go and destroy someone else's life, probably multiple lives, by killing a loved one with no reason other than to do so because they want to, and they get to be harbored in a prison. They get to live off our tax money and don't have to pay bills or have to live with the responsibilities that we do. Why is the death penalty so much more expensive and why do they get to keep their life? Is it still so precious even though they destroyed it themselves? Are we to blame? Why do we have to pay for them to live off us?


I know my thought process is probably really extreme. And my whole reasoning for the thread, personally, is for this thought process and to hear the thoughts of others. But I want to know if what I say even makes sense. Because I already know that a vast majority probably disagrees with me.

[will.15]

It is ridiculous anyone would disagree human lives are more important than animals.

Animals have rights, but they don't have constitutional rights.

[Miss Vicky]

Yoda - I feel like I'm answering the same question over and over and over, just put into different words. Yes, I do think a person who flies off the handle and causes significant injury to other people or to animals (again, depending on individual circumstance) ought to be treated no differently than a dog that does the same. If you have a problem with that, quite frankly I don't care.

As to the subject of insects, I make no distinction between the lives of vertabrates and invertabrates. Or what is considered "sentient" or "non-sentient." That's a distinction you make. Not me.

[will.15]

Yoda - I feel like I'm answering the same question over and over and over, just put into different words. Yes, I do think a person who flies off the handle and causes significant injury to other people or to animals (again, depending on individual circumstance) ought to be treated no differently than a dog that does the same. If you have a problem with that, quite frankly I don't care.

We have a little thing called the Bill of Rights that says you can't put a person to sleep without due process.

[Miss Vicky]

some animals are fierce and vicious by nature,so what?Why their owners can't keep them in cages?Walk them with a normal dog lace?Put on a muzzle?Keep him free only where it's certainly safe?
My parents had a German Shepherd,we kept him in a cage but there were a few times when he escaped and bit people.Lots of money were spent paying the fines but it was our fault,the cage where we kept him in wasn't very good,fence was quite old,too but since we lived in a detached house there weren't many people around so my parents always thought that it won't bite anyone anymore.

Quite frankly your dog should have been confiscated and destroyed and your family should have been prevented from owning another dog, because they clearly were not responsible dog owners.

Keeping a dog constantly in a cage is not the answer. Actually dogs that spend the majority of their time so confined are more likely to bite (out of pent up energy and frustration) than dogs that are given more mental and physical stimulation. Social animals like dogs that are constantly confined become mentally and emotionally unstable and therefore much more dangerous.

[Miss Vicky]

We have a little thing called the Bill of Rights that says you can't put a person to sleep without due process.

I'm not talking about what does happen, I'm talking about what I think should happen. Also, I never said anything to exclude due process.

I was asked a question. I answered it honestly.

[Yoda]

Yoda - I feel like I'm answering the same question over and over and over, just put into different words.
I'm asking more specific questions each time. And frankly, I'm doing it to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you probably mean something more nuanced. I'm inviting you to clarify what you believe, rather than just assuming I know. I can't imagine why this would be a negative thing, but I'm perfectly capable of making those assumptions rather than simply asking you, if you'd prefer that.

Yes, I do think a person who flies off the handle and causes significant injury to other people or to animals (again, depending on individual circumstance) ought to be treated no differently than a dog that does the same. If you have a problem with that, quite frankly I don't care.
There's not a whole lot of point in me just saying I have a problem with it--especially seeing as how you've preemptively told me you don't care. I just like the implications of principles to be made clear. Because what you're suggesting means we'd be putting, way, way (I wish I could double-italicize that second "way") more people to death than we currently do, and for much lesser offenses.

But aside from pointing that out, I do have a question. You say they ought to be treated "no differently." But that could actually mean two different things: it might mean, as I said above, that you think human executions should go up, or it might mean that those of dogs should go down, since both changes would result in them being treated the same. Which is it that you're advocating?

As to the subject of insects, I make no distinction between the lives of vertabrates and invertabrates. Or what is considered "sentient" or "non-sentient." That's a distinction you make. Not me.
Okay, but we've already established that this is your personal preference; I acknowledged as much in my last reply. I'm asking if it's a preference you think the law should forcibly apply to others.

And this is a good example of what I meant earlier when I said that asking these questions is me giving you the benefit of the doubt, by the way. I could just jump to the conclusion that the above means you think there's no moral (and should be no legal) difference between killing people who are wandering through your back yard and removing an ant hole back there, but I think it's more reasonable for me to ask you if that's true, and if not, to invite you to clarify why not.

[Miss Vicky]

A straight forward and simple answer that right now I don't have time to clarify any further than this because I have other responsibilities:

-I'm advocating more human death.

-Yes, I think the law should be applied equally to protect the lives of "non-sentient" animals and "sentient" ones.

[Yoda]

Well, that certainly does clarify things.

If we're saying sentience doesn't matter either way, then I don't think we can exclude microbes, either. Which means we're going to need to upend our legal system to handle a few billion involuntary manslaughter charges every day. And we'll need Nuremburg-style war crime tribunals for the Orkin Man.

[Gabrielle947]

Keeping a dog constantly in a cage is not the answer. Actually dogs that spend the majority of their time so confined are more likely to bite (out of pent up energy and frustration) than dogs that are given more mental and physical stimulation. Social animals like dogs that are constantly confined become mentally and emotionally unstable and therefore much more dangerous.
Yep,they were irresponsible but when they had that dog,I think there was still USSR at that times,so there weren't such punishments. :D What I meant,that every dog can be safe and the owner should take all the responsibility.Now you say that dogs can't be kept at cages?So where the owner should keep a large and aggressive dog?In a small flat?Or let him be free?

[Miss Vicky]

Well, that certainly does clarify things.

If we're saying sentience doesn't matter either way, then I don't think we can exclude microbes, either. Which means we're going to need to upend our legal system to handle a few billion involuntary manslaughter charges every day. And we'll need Nuremburg-style war crime tribunals for the Orkin Man.


Again, you're being ridiculous. Obviously I'm not talking about accidental killing. I'm also not talking about killing to protect a person's safety, the safety of their family or the safety of their home. At no point did I say that all killing is wrong or that a person should be punished for killing an animal for any reason.

Yep,they were irresponsible but when they had that dog,I think there was still USSR at that times,so there weren't such punishments.

This is no excuse for their irresponsibility in keeping a dangerous animal and failing to protect the public from it.

What I meant, that every dog can be safe and the owner should take all the responsibility. Now you say that dogs can't be kept at cages?So where the owner should keep a large and aggressive dog?In a small flat?Or let him be free?

Have you read anything I've said? Large (or small), aggressive dogs shouldn't be kept at all, unless you count the freezer while their dead bodies await disposal.

And I don't believe that every dog can be safe. An aggressive dog is a bomb waiting to go off. All it takes is one little mistake on the owner's part and somebody or something is going to get hurt or killed. I've seen it and experienced it too many times to ever believe otherwise.

[Gabrielle947]

Have you read anything I've said? Large (or small), aggressive dogs shouldn't be kept at all, unless you count the freezer while their dead bodies await disposal.
so where should they be?What about people that have dogs for safe issues?To protect their house and so on?

[Yoda]

Again, you're being ridiculous.
Of course; I'm using ridiculous examples to show why certain principles are untenable. The fact that the end result is ridiculous is precisely the point: it leaves you to explain why the principle in question would not lead to the ridiculous example. And if it does, then either the ridiculous result must be accepted, or the principle that leads to it has to be abandoned.

Obviously I'm not talking about accidental killing. I'm also not talking about killing to protect a person's safety, the safety of their family or the safety of their home. At no point did I say that all killing is wrong or that a person should be punished for killing an animal for any reason.
This is a confusing response, because I wasn't talking about those things either, nor did I accuse you of saying all killing is wrong. I responded to precisely what you said: that there should be no legal distinction between sentient and non-sentient creatures. That's the only principle I'm working off of.

And under our laws, you can't just kill someone (accidentally or not) and walk away, which is why I specifically said "involuntary manslaughter" and not "murder." And even that's being generous, because we all do things every day that we know will kill billions of tiny organisms. Under your principle, this is either murder or criminal negligence.

It seems to me that the legal principle you're advancing would necessitate either criminal investigations for stepping on spiders, or else absolutely no criminal investigations for killing people. Do you genuinely find either of these ideas acceptable? If the answer is yes, then my only response is to let the answer speak for itself. And if not, then the question is obvious: how can we put your legal principle into effect in a way that doesn't lead to one or the other?

[gandalf26]

I had a previous discussion with my boyfriends mother about whether putting an animal down for attacking a person is ok or not. I don't want to give my personal opinion quite yet but would love to know others, thanks! :)

Lets say the Dog attacked a child for no reason then YES it should be put down.

Now lets say a Dog attacked a child after the child hit it over the head with a stick, then I say NO it should not be put down.

I have 2 friendly young labradors that are capable of aggression. I would hate to be in the position where my Dog did something like that and hope it never happens.

[gandalf26]

so where should they be?What about people that have dogs for safe issues?To protect their house and so on?

Was the Dog being kept in the cage all the time (other than feeding/walking etc)? or just during sleeping hours through the night?

If it was being kept in a cage all the time then that is cruel.

[wintertriangles]

But anyway, the next question is: does this response mean that you don't literally disagree? That you only disagree with the statement "human life is worth more than animal life" in the context of euthanasia, specifically?In that context yes but also in the context of respect, which is really what bugged me about the statement in the first place. It's impossible to discuss this in a legal manner because it's impossible to dictate animals' side to things.


So slavery is only wrong if the slaves are "suffering" under their owner? See above. Slavery doesn't become a moral wrong by demonstrating that the slave is dissatisfied. I feel like these responses I'm giving now are kind of obvious. Whatever our disagreement here is, I find it hard to believe that you think the slavery distinction is moot based only on the reduced mental capacity or self-awareness of the slave.The slavery distinction exists because you applied it, and legally this is impossible to apply. My example was meant to show that certain animals like dogs have enough expression to where we can justify whether or not they feel "enslaved." Beyond that, it all has to do with the respect of the family. If the family doesn't respect the pet, it becomes more like slavery and less like a family. I know what you're getting at but the reduced mental capacity is a paramount element in this. It's not like if we knew that pets didn't want to be pets that we would retain them against their will (well not most people).

[Miss Vicky]

so where should they be?What about people that have dogs for safe issues?To protect their house and so on?

People who do that are asking for trouble, at least in this country. Right or wrong, here in the U.S. if your dog bites anybody for any reason you could find yoursef the target of a lawsuit.

But regardless, a dog that is intended to attack intruders is unlikely to make the distinction between a true intruder and a guest and all it takes is one little mistake on the owner's part for someone to get it hurt.

[Yoda]

In that context yes but also in the context of respect, which is really what bugged me about the statement in the first place.
My statement was not intended to convey (and I don't think it did convey) any endorsement of cruelty or a lack of respect for animal life. To the contrary, I live with a budgie, a rescued dog, and three rescued cats, and I adore my pets. I think violence towards animals is cowardly and cruel and I hate how careless people can be towards animals. I realize that some people may use the idea that human life is more important to debase animal life, but then, lots of reasonable beliefs can be perverted to serve a sadist's rationalizations.

I'm glad you mentioned this, though, because it gets at the heart of what I think this is usually about. I've heard a handful of people who say that they don't believe humans and animals should be treated differently, or something to that general effect. But when I probe that statement, I almost invariably find that it's not true: that most of them recognize that a distinction is necessary and that our views are actually quite similar. They often just want to convey either a) a strong respect for animal life, or b) a strong distaste for human life. Usually the first one. It's hyperbole, in other words, to discourage people who would abuse the idea.

This may not describe you; you may literally believe it. But I thought it worth mentioning, because I'd be surprised if our views on this differed all that much. My position is simply that people need to come first. Not that animals should come last, and not that they can be disregarded as moral entities. Just that people need to come first. Do you disagree?

It's impossible to discuss this in a legal manner because it's impossible to dictate animals' side to things.
It's hardly the only issue on which we have to make law with insufficient information. I share your frustration, but it can't be helped.

The slavery distinction exists because you applied it, and legally this is impossible to apply. My example was meant to show that certain animals like dogs have enough expression to where we can justify whether or not they feel "enslaved." Beyond that, it all has to do with the respect of the family. If the family doesn't respect the pet, it becomes more like slavery and less like a family. I know what you're getting at but the reduced mental capacity is a paramount element in this. It's not like if we knew that pets didn't want to be pets that we would retain them against their will (well not most people).
True, we wouldn't, but my argument here is that slavery isn't okay either way. Stockholm Syndrome doesn't mean you're not being kidnapped, and manipulating a lesser mind does not deprive it of its rights. There may be a moral difference between a cruel slaveowner and a kind one, but I don't know how there can be a legal one.

And that's sort of granting too much, because lots of dogs try to get outside without permission, or disobey commands, or just plain run away. All actions perfectly consistent with a slave who wants to be free. Do people have a right to keep such dogs? Does anyone?

[Gabrielle947]

Was the Dog being kept in the cage all the time (other than feeding/walking etc)? or just during sleeping hours through the night?
oh,now I checked the dictionary - I didn't meant a tiny box with heavy bars when I said cage.I meant this medium size yard which is surrounded with fence.Well and if you're asking about my dog - at first he lived in flat.It wasn't very tiny,but definitely not big enough for him.I think he lived there for a year.Then,we moved to a house and we kept him in this yard.We walked and fed him but we just couldn't let him out of that yard because we were afraid that he might run away and injure someone.

Vicky,all I wanted to say is that if a dog attacks someone,it's the owners fault.If the dog is fierce - he can be kept somewhere,owners can put on a muzzle,finally they can try to train him.You mentioned earlier that some dogs are vicious by nature but they can be controlled from attacking people.And now you are talking about owners mistakes.
let's just say that a dog who is vicious bites a kid.This dog escaped from the house and the owner is sorry.Whose fault it is?

[wintertriangles]

Do you disagree?90% of the time not really because there's rarely a time when that type of decision need be made. Around here a dog that bites gets three strikes, which sucks for the dog but at least there's time for things to change. This is why I should have gotten your definition first, it usually helps settle the dust. So to answer, no, I agree.

And that's sort of granting too much, because lots of dogs try to get outside without permission, or disobey commands, or just plain run away. All actions perfectly consistent with a slave who wants to be free. Do people have a right to keep such dogs? Does anyone?I don't agree with this however. Similar actions yes but untestable and just as easily interpreted as playing. I don't know if people have a right to anything though outside physical things we trade.

[Yoda]

90% of the time not really because there's rarely a time when that type of decision need be made. Around here a dog that bites gets three strikes, which sucks for the dog but at least there's time for things to change. This is why I should have gotten your definition first, it usually helps settle the dust. So to answer, no, I agree.
Okay then. :)

If it's of any interest, while my views on animals haven't really changed much, they've gotten sharper over time; specifically, after my wife and I bought a kitten back in November of 2010. Since then, I find myself a lot angrier at people who are careless about pet ownership. Not to say I wasn't before, but it's definitely become more acute.

I don't agree with this however. Similar actions yes but untestable and just as easily interpreted as playing. I don't know if people have a right to anything though outside physical things we trade.
I agree it's impossible to tell when a dog wants out and when it's playing around, or just badly trained, or whatever. But would you agree that sometimes their behavior is virtually indistinguishable from what we'd expect if they did, in fact, want to get away? That's really all that's necessary, I think, to make the point. Though I guess it's pretty much a meaningless point now.

[Miss Vicky]

Vicky,all I wanted to say is that if a dog attacks someone,it's the owners fault.If the dog is fierce - he can be kept somewhere,owners can put on a muzzle,finally they can try to train him.You mentioned earlier that some dogs are vicious by nature but they can be controlled from attacking people.And now you are talking about owners mistakes.
let's just say that a dog who is vicious bites a kid.This dog escaped from the house and the owner is sorry.Whose fault it is?

At what point did I say they can be controlled from attacking people? (If I said it, absolutely point it out to me specifically). I said I don't believe a dog's breed is of any relevance and I said that if a person chooses to keep a vicious dog (which I believe is an unwise and unsafe decision to make), it is their moral and legal obligation to protect the public from that animal. I also said that it has been my experience that people who keep vicious dogs often fail to meet this obligation, your parents included.

As to the scenario you proposed: It's the owner's fault but that does not completely absolve the dog, either. Whether the owner is sorry about the attack is of no relevance. An at-large dog has bitten a child, thus proving itself to be a danger to the public and proving its owner to be negligent by keeping a vicious animal and failing to restrain it. The dog should be destroyed and the owner should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[Godoggo]

What if it was a puppy. You raised the puppy from a couple of weeks to 6 years old. one day the dog felt provoked and bit someone, first time it ever happened and someone demanded it be put down, could you?

When you say you raised a puppy from the time it was a couple of weeks old, do you literally mean it was two weeks old? Where was the rest of the litter and the mother?

Yes, it's unfortunate that sometimes a dog must be put down due to behavioral issues, but sometimes it is the only safe solution. Every situation is different and it all depends on the dog, but usually more so on the owners. The owners must be willing to put in the work to make sure everyone is kept safe. If small children are involved then it becomes more difficult or unwise to try. If the dog is six and honestly never shown aggression before, then a vet is the first thing in order.
Actually, that is the first thing to be done in any case of aggression, but if it's taken this long for aggression to show, my first guess would be that the dog doesn't feel well.

[Gabriella Lynn]

When you say you raised a puppy from the time it was a couple of weeks old, do you literally mean it was two weeks old? Where was the rest of the litter and the mother?.
Do you take everything so literally? lol

[Powderfinger]

Do you take everything so literally? lol

:D It is PMS, Gabriella. I'll shut up now! My mouth is zipped locked..:D

[Godoggo]

Do you take everything so literally? lol

Well, in these parts a couple usually means two. I did, however, have a good reason for asking. A pup taken too early from it's mom and litter mates will often have behavior problems because they didn't get the chance to learn all they needed to know.

It's ingrained in me to look for these sorts of details as this is pretty much what I do for a living.

[Gabriella Lynn]

Well, in these parts a couple usually means two. I did, however, have a good reason for asking. A pup taken too early from it's mom and litter mates will often have behavior problems because they didn't get the chance to learn all they needed to know.

It's ingrained in me to look for these sorts of details as this is pretty much what I do for a living.

Oh lol well I've never actually owned a dog before. lol so I didn't know that but thank you for telling me. now I won't feel so stupid if I ever get one!! lol :)

[Gabriella Lynn]

:D It is PMS, Gabriella. I'll shut up now! My mouth is zipped locked..:D


lmao! you loved that I said that didn't you? I have absolutely no filter so I will probably be saying more things like that, haha :D

[Godoggo]

Oh lol well I've never actually owned a dog before. lol so I didn't know that but thank you for telling me. now I won't feel so stupid if I ever get one!! lol :)

Actually, I'm feeling stupid because I just skimmed the post and didn't realize you were being hypothetical. I thought it was an actual case. Duh.

[honeykid]

The truth is it depends how heavy it is and how long you've been holding it. If your arms are really tired or you've got something to do, you really should put them down.

[Miss Vicky]

Actually, I'm feeling stupid because I just skimmed the post and didn't realize you were being hypothetical. I thought it was an actual case. Duh.

You shouldn't feel stupid. Typically questions like these stem from actual cases and not hypothetical situations. I also thought the OP was asking about an actual case.

Apparently the title isn't the only thing about this thread that is misleading.

[Gabriella Lynn]

The truth is it depends how heavy it is and how long you've been holding it. If your arms are really tired or you've got something to do, you really should put them down.


Lmao! if I could give you like 50 positive rep, I so would. That was perfect. :D

[Gabriella Lynn]

Actually, I'm feeling stupid because I just skimmed the post and didn't realize you were being hypothetical. I thought it was an actual case. Duh.


Sorry If I am so misleading :D I have multiple thoughts at the same time and if I don't get in hit in the head just right, then it splatters like paint! ;)

[Gabrielle947]

At what point did I say they can be controlled from attacking people?
I'm saying it.
(which I believe is an unwise and unsafe decision to make),
so where should they be put?
The dog should be destroyed and the owner should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
ok,so it's dogs fault that he bit someone?It his fault that he is vicious by nature?He deserved to die because he was born fierce?

[Miss Vicky]

so where should they be put?

They should be put down.

If their owners foolishly decide to keep dangerous dogs despite the risks, then they need to keep them in a secure kennel/run - that is fully enclosed on all sides (including the top) and surrounded by a secure fence.

ok,so it's dogs fault that he bit someone?It his fault that he is vicious by nature?He deserved to die because he was born fierce?

As I've already said, destroying vicious animals is not about punishing those animals. It's about protecting the lives and safety of humans and of other animals. It's unfortunate that it needs to be done - but it does need to be done - and the price of not doing it could very easily be somebody's life.

[Godoggo]

ok,so it's dogs fault that he bit someone?It his fault that he is vicious by nature?He deserved to die because he was born fierce?

As Vicky has pointed out, fault has nothing to do with it. You can't leave a dangerous dog in a home with a family who can't/ won't manage the situation until the dog can be rehabilitated. There are many reasons, types, of levels of aggression in dogs and sometimes the dog can learn to change it's emotional response to whatever is causing the aggression. Sometimes it's a medical condition that can be treated with medication. Then again, sometimes nothing works. That's when you have to put them down.

Just so you know, a pack of feral dogs or wolves will drive away or kill any member that is vicious or overly aggressive. Dogs are meant to be somewhat aggressive but not so much that it can't live in harmony with a pack.

[Gabrielle947]

I just can't agree with you both because I think that the best solution to be safe from vicious dogs, is not killing them.

[Monkeypunch]

Honestly, I do not like the idea of putting a dog down if he attacks a person. I mean was the dog provoked? Was he trying to protect himself? I think it's cruel to end the dog's life over this.

[Sleezy]

Here's the deal.

Human beings have taken the concept of "domestication" a little too far. Yes, dogs and cats are domesticated in the sense that they can (and prefer to) live with us in relative harmony, as they have for thousands of years.

But many people erroneously expect their pets to conduct themselves as if they understand the world as we do. Right from wrong, who is who... hell, I think a good part of the population probably believes their animals understand English.

This isn't the case. Animals are instinctual creatures. They always have been and always will be. They're capable of being friendly and calm and loving, as we want them to be, but they don't understand the world like we do. And it's a good bet that every pet owner will experience this.

Cats will scratch your couch because it de-stresses them, or because that's their way of showing they're happy to see you. It's also their way of instinctively stretching and exercizing the muscles that their ancestors (and wild cousins of today) have relied on for sustenance and survival for millennia.

Yet still I see owners bring cats to the animal shelter because they "won't stop tearing up my furniture."

Big, dangerous dogs are no different. Yes, they're dogs, and yes, we love their big, cute, cuddly faces. But all it takes is some moron to approach a strange dog too quickly or erratically, and suddenly that dog feels threatened or believes his/her owner is in danger. Why do people not understand this? Why do people believe that one dog will invariably act the same as another?

This is the perception that needs to be changed.

[Godoggo]

Sleezy, I pretty much agree with you on a lot of points. I could split hairs on a couple of things, but a mainly wanted to get to the example you have provided. That's a relative easy fix provided the owners are willing to first manage the situation.

I'm certainly not suggesting that a dog be put down in any case where a dog shows aggression. I love dogs. They consume a huge portion of my life. I am saying in some cases that there is no other choice. After the vets and trainers are exhausted what to you suggest to do with a dog that has bitten and continues to be aggressive towards members of the family?

Is it morally acceptable to know you have a dog that may attack someone and not do anything because, "hey, they should have known better to get near my dog?" As a dog owner it is up to me to know dog behavior and keep both my dogs and the general public safe from them. If a dog is out in public, I think people have a resonable assumption that the dog is safe. Yes, they should ask before petting but that doesn't justify a bite if they don't.

[Miss Vicky]

Big, dangerous dogs are no different. Yes, they're dogs, and yes, we love their big, cute, cuddly faces. But all it takes is some moron to approach a strange dog too quickly or erratically, and suddenly that dog feels threatened or believes his/her owner is in danger. Why do people not understand this? Why do people believe that one dog will invariably act the same as another?

In my experience, the moron to blame in dog bite cases is most often the dog owner, not the victim. On three separate occasions, I've had dogs come after me for no other reason than the fact that I was walking on the same path/sidewalk as the dog and its master.

The dalmation that ripped a chunk of flesh out of my arm did so because I was walking on the same trail in the opposite direction. It lunged out and sunk its teeth into me as we passed each other. It was on a leash and so were the other two dogs that the man was walking (and clearly failing to control). I wasn't moving erratically. I didn't change my pace or make eye contact with the dog. I was simply trying to get to school.

Then there was the St. Bernard that tried to rip my arm off a few years later. I was walking to work on the sidewalk of a busy public street. In the opposite direction I could see a very small man and a very large dog approaching. To one side was a vacant lot. Remembering what had happened with the dalmation, I calmly walked into the vacant lot to give the gigantic dog and its tiny master a wide berth. Instead the dog dragged its master across the lot, lunged at me and sunk its teeth into the sleeve of my shirt, grazing my skin.

More recently, I was taking a walk along a pedestrian/bike trail in my neighborhood. It is a popular path for people to use not just for recreational exercise, but as a short cut to several different shopping areas and schools. Walking very slowly ahead of me was a man and his - unleashed - puggle (there are signs posted all along the trail that cite the city's leash laws, but irresponsible dog owners regularly ignore them). As is my right to do on a public path, I went around them. As I was passing, the dog rushed at me and attempted to bite my ankle, but barely missed. I shot the man a nasty look and he caught and leashed his dog. I continued on my way and the route I chose had me circling back around and walking along same path in the opposite direction. And wouldn't you know it, I encounter the same man and his - yet again - unleashed dog.

But you know, it's clearly my fault for being a moron and approaching a strange dog too quickly or erratically. :rolleyes:

[mark f]

Three Strikes and You're Out!

[Sleezy]

After the vets and trainers are exhausted what to you suggest to do with a dog that has bitten and continues to be aggressive towards members of the family?

Is it morally acceptable to know you have a dog that may attack someone and not do anything because, "hey, they should have known better to get near my dog?" As a dog owner it is up to me to know dog behavior and keep both my dogs and the general public safe from them. If a dog is out in public, I think people have a resonable assumption that the dog is safe. Yes, they should ask before petting but that doesn't justify a bite if they don't.

You bring up a good point. Obviously, there are dogs that seem to be uncontrollable, no matter how much effort is put into training them. That's true. But the problem is very few people afford the time or patience to even try to get through to their dogs. But there are plenty of folks out there who work with dogs, who really get through to their personalities and start the process of building trust and infusing a belief of safety and accountability. People laugh at Cesar Milan, but he's been very successful because he treats dogs as dogs and understands how they interpret the world.

Obviously, a lot of us probably don't know details about the lives of our dogs before we got them. But when you commit to adopting a dog, you should probably expect (again, understanding that a dog is an animal, after all) that you might run into some problems. It's my belief that accepting responsibility for a pet means keeping that pet; you don't just take it back if you don't like it. That's why it's absolutely essential to do your homework and, if you can, foster a dog for a while before you decide to adopt it... so you know you're not getting a dog that's too much to handle or far more work than you're prepared for.

In my experience, the moron to blame in dog bite cases is most often the dog owner, not the victim. On three separate occasions, I've had dogs come after me for no other reason than the fact that I was walking on the same path/sidewalk as the dog and its master.

Wow. Given the number of examples you listed, my first question is: "Do you roll around regularly in bacon dog treats?" ;)

No disrespect intended, as you're absolutely right: some owners don't train or condition their dogs to behave in public, and accidents happen. So yes, a lot of times the "moron" label falls to the dog owner because he/she hasn't invested the time and consideration into properly understanding and training his/her animal. That's absolutely key, especially for the bigger breeds.

Does that mean their dogs should be put down, though? Not at all. Negligence is often forgotten as a factor for aggression, and the reason is very simple. Nobody "has time" to work with a dog and the stigma of "aggression" has come to stick very easily because, well, it's how we make sense of a problem we don't understand.

[Godoggo]

Obviously, a lot of us probably don't know details about the lives of our dogs before we got them. But when you commit to adopting a dog, you should probably expect (again, understanding that a dog is an animal, after all) that you might run into some problems. It's my belief that accepting responsibility for a pet means keeping that pet; you don't just take it back if you don't like it. That's why it's absolutely essential to do your homework and, if you can, foster a dog for a while before you decide to adopt it... so you know you're not getting a dog that's too much to handle or far more work than you're prepared.



Well to that I say, "Amen, brother." I am with you there. I wish people would do their part to educate themselves. Even then, sometimes people get a hold of more than they bargained for. It happens.

I wish I could be on the other side of this arguement. I still maintain that in some cases it is a very horrible necessity.

[Miss Vicky]

Wow. Given the number of examples you listed, my first question is: "Do you roll around regularly in bacon dog treats?" ;)

Yes, I make sure to bathe in eau de pork before going out.

I do my best to avoid confrontation with dogs, but the problem of aggressive dogs has become so great in my area that I don't dare leave the house without my pepper spray handy. It's absolutely ridiculous how many times I've been charged at by dogs without any real provocation.

Does that mean their dogs should be put down, though? Not at all. Negligence is often forgotten as a factor for aggression, and the reason is very simple. Nobody "has time" to work with a dog and the stigma of "aggression" has come to stick very easily because, well, it's how we make sense of a problem we don't understand.

I believe it does. You're welcome to disagree, but I believe it does. For exactly the reason I put it bold. Nobody has time to work with the dog. Nobody has time to fix that loose fenceboard or fill that hole Fido's begun to dig under the fence. Nobody wants to spend the money for spaying or neutering. Because they don't want to put their "baby" through surgery. Because they don't want Fido to lose his "manhood." Or because they intend to breed that purebred dog, who almost invariably came from a mill or BYB, has no real pedigree and is far from a great specimen of the breed. And nobody wants to spend the time, money or effort to hire a qualified trainer or behavioral specialist to correct the problem. And the result is a bunch of anxious, nervous, frustrated, and unstable dogs that are a hazard to their family (including other animals in the household) and to the general public. You may believe in second or third chances, but in my experience people who are negligent aren't going to change their ways and the more chances you give them the more people and/or animals are going to get hurt.

But I don't believe that putting the dog down is the full answer. I believe that the owners need to be prosecuted and that they need to be legally barred from owning another dog.

[honeykid]

If someone doesn't have time to work with a dog, then they shouldn't have one. Much like children, I'd make it much harder to have one.