Should culling of stray dogs be done ? [Archive]

cricket

08-06-16, 08:07 AM

I hate to say it, but maybe it's more humane. That's basically what happens anyway I think. Strays are brought in and given a chance to be adopted, but we know what happens if they're not. I think there should be some sort of process before people are allowed to get a dog or a cat. Not just anybody should be able to get one of these pets. It is an important responsibility that needs to be for the duration of the animal's lifetime. Worried about the dog with your new baby, or you have to move to an apartment? Work it out! I'm babysitting the dog below while his owner is on vacation. He was found walking the streets of California underweight and alone. Two different people adopted him only to bring him back because he was timid. My friend got him just before it was too late. He is so damn sweet that my wife wants me to ask her if we can take him a couple days every month to play with Rudy. Just like Nebbit said, not being responsible for your animal is cruel.

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/oo33/edketter/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsjgylltsf.jpeg (http://s359.photobucket.com/user/edketter/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsjgylltsf.jpeg.html)

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/oo33/edketter/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsxiaawnlk.jpeg (http://s359.photobucket.com/user/edketter/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsxiaawnlk.jpeg.html)

Omnizoa

08-06-16, 08:26 AM

culling of stray dogs is banned. But this ignores the threat of rabies
Culling of homeless people is banned. But this ignores the threat of STIs.

FromBeyond

08-06-16, 10:10 AM

I think culling of people who breed dogs with genetic problems should be banned.

Take UK for instance, in recent years dogs home have filled with staffs (Staffordshire bull terriers) the dog of choice for your average chav scumbag and yet they continue to breed them... even though so many go to shelters

seriously it's the no1 dog I see all the time in almost every place I go, dickheads with tracksuits and bad attitude trying to look threatening with their staff

sometimes you see old people with them too and I just think you should know ****ing better

they are also ugly stupid dogs but they look intimidating so who cares

of course if you go to the country you start to see real dogs

Daniel M

08-06-16, 10:12 AM

sometimes you see old people with them too and I just think you should know ****ing better

What?

cricket

08-06-16, 10:14 AM

It's too bad, because they^^are cute, and I don't blame the dogs, but it pisses me off every time I see some sh!thead walking one of them down the street. You see them a lot in the ghettos of America.

Daniel M

08-06-16, 10:31 AM

The dogs are aggressive in some cases because these people you're talking about train them and use them in that way. I don't know how "old people should know better", they shouldn't get the dogs just because some people choose to use them in a certain way? Nothing to do with the dog. My family has one and it's incredibly friendly, never bit anyone or tried to attack anyone, doesn't bark at anyone, we have a 12 year old sister and other younger children coming in and out the house that it has no problems with, if anything, it's over friendly. Over active, full of energy, always looking for a fuss from people, cuddles etc.

cricket

08-06-16, 10:40 AM

banality

08-06-16, 10:48 AM

Daniel M

08-06-16, 10:56 AM

They can be great dogs but there are a lot of instances when they suddenly attack for no apparent reason. Any dog can do that, but the damage these dogs can inflict is what seperates them. I was making a delivery yesterday and right in front of me a 110 lb girl was walking 2 of them. If something set them off against another person or dog, there would be nothing she could do to stop them. To me, that's irresponsible. My wife's best friend's daughter was attacked by the family pit bull at 5 years old. Over 100 stitches to the face and lucky to be alive.

At least talking about my own, I wouldn't say that it's particularly strong or wouldn't imagine it doing such an attack against anyone. Obviously anything could set a certain dog off, but I think there is just a level of responsibility and caution dog owners should have in general, and not a specific one to do with certain kinds of dogs.

Never once has ours ever been like angry, in a rage, tried to attack anything, got annoyed, if I was walking it, I wouldn't expect anything to "set it off" and if something did look concerning I could definitely control it and wouldn't let it get to a situation where it hurts anyone.

cricket

08-06-16, 11:06 AM

With the right owner I'm sure they're fine, but it's no coincidence that you see them more in bad neighborhoods than any other kind of dog. A lot of these attacks come completely unexpectedly. I wouldn't get a pit bull anyway, but I certainly wouldn't get one if I had a child, or some other dog breeds for that matter. It's just not a chance I would take. I wouldn't even leave my little Rudy alone with an infant.

Omnizoa

08-07-16, 10:04 PM

Got a visual for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEf82o2ty0

TONGO

08-07-16, 10:07 PM

http://www.alookthroughlens.com/weblog/archives/korean_restaurant.jpg

:D

Omnizoa

08-07-16, 10:17 PM

:D
:tsk:

The Gunslinger45

08-07-16, 10:19 PM

Tongo the Chinese don't eat dog. Those are the Koreans! ;)

Camo

08-07-16, 10:25 PM

I'm gonna say no. It shouldn't happen, but i haven't owned a dog since i was 12 or something so i'm not qualified to disagree or agree with most in this thread tbh.

TONGO

08-07-16, 10:30 PM

Tongo the Chinese don't eat dog. Those are the Koreans! ;)
I fixed the photo :up: Though weve had a few chinese restaurants shut down here in florida serving dog or cat.

Omnizoa

08-08-16, 11:00 AM

I'm gonna say no. It shouldn't happen, but i haven't owned a dog since i was 12 or something so i'm not qualified to disagree or agree with most in this thread tbh.
That doesn't matter.

Miss Vicky

08-08-16, 11:17 AM

I see stats on numbers of dog bite cases, but how many actual cases of rabies are seen in the area?

Camo

08-08-16, 11:22 AM

That doesn't matter.

I know it isn't absolutely crucial for me to have owned a dog recently to voice my opinion, but i still think that from the responses here and elsewhere it isn't as open and shut as it is in my head and i have to put that down to me not educating my self thoroughly on the subject since i don't own a dog.

Camo

08-08-16, 11:27 AM

I see stats on numbers of dog bite cases, but how many actual cases of rabies are seen in the area?

A guy died in Scotland from Rabies in the first confirmed case of Rabies in Britain in 100 years in 2002. I always remember that because it is pretty astonishing i thought rabies was a lot more common here, not sure if anyone has had it since. An article about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2509375.stm

A man has died after contracting Britain's first case of rabies for 100 years, hospital bosses have confirmed.
David McRae, a 56-year-old conservationist from Guthrie, Angus, Scotland, failed to recover from European Bat Lyssavirus (EBL), a type of rabies found in several northern European countries.

Mr McRae, who was licensed to handle bats, was bitten by one of the creatures on at least one occasion.

Ninewells entrance
Mr McRae died in Ninewells Hospital
His licence was issued by wildlife agency Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), for whom he had carried out research.

A SNH spokesman said Mr McRae's death was a "bleak day" for everyone involved in conservation in Scotland.

He added: "Everyone at Scottish Natural Heritage is completely devastated by this terrible news."

The Oldham-born wildlife artist moved to Angus three years ago and has spent much of his time painting and working with bats.

Doctors announced on Tuesday that Mr McRae was being treated in an isolation unit at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee.

He was bitten by a species known as Daubenton's Bat some weeks ago.

There is no cure for the disease.

Close contact

Tayside NHS Trust has confirmed clinical staff closely involved in treatment of the patient will be offered advice and vaccination where appropriate.

Rabies is a serious infection of the nervous system that is caused by a virus which is usually transmitted by a bite from an infected animal.

Mr McRae had prolonged close contact with bats over many years and had been bitten on at least one occasion.

He had also carried out work for SNH under contract.

In Europe, where the EBL strain is common, there have only been three cases of humans catching rabies since 1977.

This is the first case of indigenous rabies in Britain since 1902.

NHS Tayside director of public health, Drew Walker, said his deepest sympathies were with Mr McRae's family.

He repeated advice that only members of the general public who handle bats or who have been bitten or scratched by them are at risk of infection.

A helpline has also been set up to offer reassurance and advice.

Miss Vicky

08-08-16, 11:32 AM

Yes, but Scotland is not Pakistan nor is it a third world country. ;)

seanc

08-08-16, 11:33 AM

Myth: 3 Americans die every year from rabies Fact: 4 Americans die every year from rabies. It is truly the silent killer.

Camo

08-08-16, 11:34 AM

Yes, but Scotland is not Pakistan nor is it a third world country. ;)

Just saying that it is pretty amazing to me, plus it was the first in 100 years in the whole of Britain it just happened to be in Scotland. Also it was only the third since 1977 in the whole of Europe which is 25 years.

Miss Vicky

08-08-16, 12:42 PM

Myth: 3 Americans die every year from rabies Fact: 4 Americans die every year from rabies. It is truly the silent killer.

Yes, but America has a much smaller feral dog population and has laws requiring dog owners to vaccinate their pets for rabies. The places that are implementing or considering culling are generally in much poorer countries.

I'm still waiting for some relevant statistics.

TONGO

08-08-16, 01:32 PM

Pakistani city of Karachi has culled it's stray dogs---something that raised the ire of animal rights activists. Read more here---

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pakistan-karachi-stray-dogs-poison/1/732698.html

In my country ( India ) culling of stray dogs is banned ever since a campaign by PETA forced the government's hand . But this ignores the threat of rabies due to bites by stray dogs . In third world countries many people cannot afford expensive anti rabies vaccines . Rag pickers and people living on the streets are in dire danger of dog bites and rabies .

So should stray dogs be culled or not ?

If the dog has rabies then shoot it, done. Nobodys going to jail for killing a rabid dog.

Miss Vicky

08-08-16, 01:53 PM

I did a quick search and found a few articles, some of them were pretty vague and didn't give specific timelines for the statistics they did give. I did find one article though that stated that in Pakistan approximately 5,000 people die of rabies every year (http://tribune.com.pk/story/527464/rabies-5000-people-die-every-year-in-pakistan/) and that most were infected as a result of bites from domestic dogs. If that statistic is accurate, that's pretty damn scary.

That said, regardless of anyone's stance on the issue, poison isn't the way to go. It's incredibly inhumane and is an indiscriminate killer, which means that any creature that ingests it may be killed, which could include human children. I think alternative methods of population control need to be explored as well as implementing more vaccination of pet dogs.

nebbit

08-09-16, 05:00 AM

Got a visual for you:
:bawling:

christine

08-09-16, 05:27 AM

If the dog has rabies then shoot it, done. Nobodys going to jail for killing a rabid dog.

I don't think anyone's saying rabid dogs shouldn't be killed humanely and a well taken shot is better than poison.
I can't talk about anywhere apart from the UK but feral stray dogs are really rare here now. When I was a kid there would be random dogs roaming the streets and when they get in packs which they instinctively do I remember they are really intimidating. I guess we have dog wardens now, but the dogs homes are packed with pitbull types and staffies like Camo says. It's sad to see them all there bred just to be euthanised cos no families want them and in the meantime puppy farms breed cuter dogs with inbred physical problems :(

There's probably no money in Pakistan to run a proper countrywide programme to neuter all the strays which cuts down the population. There must be much more pressing uses for state money in a country with so many other problems :(

Topsy

08-09-16, 06:21 AM

Omnizoa

08-09-16, 09:37 AM

neuter all the strays
No.

Miss Vicky

08-09-16, 11:51 AM

neuter all the strays
No.
What have you got against neutering?

christine

08-09-16, 01:28 PM

Absolutely not-you need to fix the actual problem,which is humans acting irresponsible as always. it should be mandatory to chip the dogs so you can link it back to owner.when people have to start paying for abondoning their dogs then maybe that will help,as we seem to love our money more than anthing else.
you wont find a single stray dog here,its about social codes-you just dont do that.

I can't see a well organised dog chipping service going on in Pakistan somehow . The average income in the whole country is US$73 a month so I bet rural villages are pretty poor and I'm thinking local government bribery and corruption would be endemic so that'd be pretty pointless. You're not talking about a well organised country with a history of settled democracy here.

Miss Vicky

08-09-16, 01:41 PM

I can't see a well organised dog chipping service going on in Pakistan somehow . The average income in the whole country is US$73 a month so I bet rural villages are pretty poor and I'm thinking local government bribery and corruption would be endemic so that'd be pretty pointless. You're not talking about a well organised country with a history of settled democracy here.

Also, it's pretty likely that many of the dogs in question are actually feral rather than stray, meaning that they were born on the streets and have never belonged to anyone. So mandatory chipping would be ineffective and pretty pointless even without corruption of authorities.

Sadly, spaying and neutering probably isn't a feasible option either, given the scale of the problem and lack of resources.

Captain Steel

08-09-16, 01:44 PM

Any way Koreans could get involved to help with the situation?

...like if you had too many chickens and called up Perdue?

Omnizoa

08-09-16, 01:47 PM

What have you got against neutering?
Nothing you haven't got against female circumcision.

Miss Vicky

08-09-16, 02:25 PM

Nothing you haven't got against female circumcision.

You need to educate yourself.

Circumcision - be it male or female - is a barbaric practice that is done for aesthetic, religious and cultural reasons and, in most cases, provides no benefit to the person. It's also generally done without any anesthesia and is, IMO, child abuse.

Neutering, on the other hand, is performed under anesthetic and has significant health advantages for the animals - particularly for the females - in addition to providing a humane method of population control. In males, it prevents testicular cancer and reduces the risk of prostate problems. It also reduces roaming and aggression, thus putting the animal at a lesser risk of injuries and infection from fighting or getting into traffic. In females the benefits are much higher, virtually eliminating the risk of pyometra - a common, life-threatening infection of the uterus and fallopian tubes - and greatly reduces the risk of mammary tumors.

Topsy

08-09-16, 02:32 PM

Also, it's pretty likely that many of the dogs in question are actually feral rather than stray, meaning that they were born on the streets and have never belonged to anyone. So mandatory chipping would be ineffective and pretty pointless even without corruption of authorities.

Sadly, spaying and neutering probably isn't a feasible option either, given the scale of the problem and lack of resources.

I still cant multiquote CHRISTINE this is for you also :lol:

I see both your points. In regards to them being feral- if you dont have any strays,you wont have any ferals. And it costs more to neutering dogs than to chip them?
I know that my suggestion is rather ideally-but you have to start somewhere-if all dogs that were sold wether from store or privately were chipped mandatory then a big part of it would be gone because you wouldnt be adding to the problem. You would still have to clean up the mess that is right now,there are loads of WW dogs charities out there to help-both getting them off the street or to another country aswell.If neutering the ones that are left is the solution than thats unfortunatly what they have to do to SOLVE it but what they are doing now is just a cruel for the moment thing that isnt going to fix anything.

christine

08-09-16, 05:13 PM

Nothing you haven't got against female circumcision.

how is that even a comparison? :rolleyes:

Topsy - yes what you're suggesting would be great in an ideal world but sadly it's not and these dogs wander around scavenging, starving and disease ridden. It's awful to see :(

Captain Steel

08-09-16, 06:33 PM

You need to educate yourself.

Circumcision - be it male or female - is a barbaric practice that is done for aesthetic, religious and cultural reasons and, in most cases, provides no benefit to the person. It's also generally done without any anesthesia and is, IMO, child abuse.

You mean I wasn't born this way?

(Hey, that's also a title of my new favorite TV show!)

Omnizoa

08-09-16, 08:58 PM

You need to educate yourself.how is that even a comparison? :rolleyes:
Are either of you willing to be spayed considering it's significant health advantages?

Miss Vicky

08-09-16, 09:46 PM

Are either of you willing to be spayed considering it's significant health advantages?

Firstly, pyometra is not a common condition in humans. Secondly, if a problem arises I am able to seek treatment. A feral or stray dog is not able to do so and will die a long excrutiating death. Even pet dogs often die from it because when it happens, expensive emergency surgery is required that many pet owners cannot afford or if surgery is performed, the animal's health is too compromised from the infection and they sometimes die anyway. It's a horrible, painful death. I've seen it happen first hand time and time again and it makes me sick because it's so easy to prevent.

However, if I could get myself surgically sterilized I absolutely would. But I certainly can't afford it, insurance won't cover it, and most doctors will not do it on a childless woman of my age.

Omnizoa

08-09-16, 10:38 PM

if I could get myself surgically sterilized I absolutely would.
It's nice to have a choice in the matter.

Miss Vicky

08-09-16, 10:52 PM

It's nice to have a choice in the matter.

I sincerely hope you don't have any pets.

Omnizoa

08-09-16, 10:55 PM

I sincerely hope you don't have any pets.
If I did I wouldn't call them pets.

Captain Steel

08-10-16, 12:54 AM

If I did I wouldn't call them pets.

Now you've got a pet bird. ;)
Okay... a convalescent patient bird.

christine

08-10-16, 05:01 PM

Are either of you willing to be spayed considering it's significant health advantages?

My point was you were comparing female circumcision with being spayed. The two things are not the same in case you don't understand that. I've never heard of female dogs being circumcised.
Anyway to address your question yes I'd be sterilised if I thought I would only be having children who would be wandering around unloved, emaciated and disease ridden.

Omnizoa

08-10-16, 05:42 PM

My point was you were comparing female circumcision with being spayed. The two things are not the same in case you don't understand that.
That's why I was comparing them, because they are not the same, but similar; Both are forms of genital mutilation, both are exercised with the conviction that it is in the best interest of the recipient (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Reasons), and both are practiced with reckless disregard for informed consent.

If you still contest they are dissimilar then you'll have to make a moral case for why absence of consent is synonymous with consent, which would vindicate rape.

Alternatively, you would have to make a moral distinction between humans and non-humans, which would vindicate speciesism.

Finally, you could posit that dog's genitals are naturally life-threatening, which is absolutely false.

Miss Vicky

08-10-16, 06:30 PM

I'm not even going to address that. It's so beyond ridiculous it isn't even funny. And if you want to talk about consent and choice for animals, you need to extend it beyond anything sexual. Individual freedom for example. I applaud what you're trying to do for that bird you've taken in, don't get me wrong. However, the reality is that you've imprisoned it even if only temporarily and with the intent to save it. How do you reconcile that?

I do have to ask too, if you're against culling and against neutering, what solution do you propose? That the dogs in Pakistan and other placed be allowed to continue to breed out of control and to continue to spread Rabies - a deadly, incurable disease that can affect any mammal including humans?

Omnizoa

08-10-16, 11:25 PM

I'm not even going to address that.However, the reality is that you've imprisoned it even if only temporarily and with the intent to save it. How do you reconcile that?
You evidently missed the "life-threatening" part, maybe you should address it.

I do have to ask too, if you're against culling and against neutering, what solution do you propose? That the dogs in Pakistan and other placed be allowed to continue to breed out of control and to continue to spread Rabies - a deadly, incurable disease that can affect any mammal including humans?
If A dog or any other sort of animal, human or otherwise, is running around biting people, STOP IT, don't knee-jerk purge the species en masse like a lunatic.

Miss Vicky

08-10-16, 11:42 PM

You evidently missed the "life-threatening" part, maybe you should address it.

How so?

You say that it's essentially rape to do anything to an animal's reproductive organs without its consent. So are you saying that it's okay to "rape" them if the situation is life threatening? Does spaying or castrating an animal suddenly cease to be "genital mutilation" after a major health problem has already occurred?

Animals are not capable of giving consent - informed or otherwise - so it is up to humans to make decisions on their behalf, hopefully with the best interest of the animal in mind. This is exactly what you've done with that bird and exactly what I and any other responsible pet owner does when opting to neuter their animals.

If A dog or any other sort of animal, human or otherwise, is running around biting people, STOP IT, don't knee-jerk purge the species en masse like a lunatic.

And you propose to "stop" them how exactly? And how exactly are the people supposed to identify the particular animal that did it? And how is population control via sterilization - as Christine proposed - "lunacy"? We're not talking about an endangered species here, we're talking about domestic dogs. We're also not talking about "purging" all of Pakistan's dogs, but rather the ones running loose and endangering the public, each other, and any other animal they encounter.

Omnizoa

08-11-16, 12:16 AM

How so?

You say that it's essentially rape to do anything to an animal's reproductive organs without its consent. So are you saying that it's okay to "rape" them if the situation is life threatening?
Guy rolls into ER blackout from a gunshot wound. Leave him to die?

Does spaying or castrating an animal suddenly cease to be "genital mutilation" after a major health problem has already occurred?
No.

Animals are not capable of giving consent - informed or otherwise - so it is up to humans to make decisions on their behalf,
Neither are baby humans, therefor circumcision.

This is exactly what you've done with that bird and exactly what I and any other responsible pet owner does when opting to neuter their animals.
That is a gross conflation of two entirely unrelated problems.

On one hand you're removing an animal from a life-threatening environment as a means to heal an injury which impedes it's natural ability to move freely, eat, and drink.

One the other hand you're performing a surgery to impair an animal's natural ability, rarely with regard to saving it's own life.

And you propose to "stop" them how exactly?
Would you like me to say that you should respond to a tiger attack with harsh language? If an animal is threatening your life, you're at liberty to threaten it's.

And how exactly are the people supposed to identify the particular animal that did it?
Are dogs known to bite and run? Do they have a getaway car? Is not the commonly accepted approach to rabies to RETAIN the animal that made the bite in the name of quarantine?

And how is population control via sterilization - as Christine proposed - "lunacy"? We're not talking about an endangered species here,
Ah, so the preservation of animals we've subjugated is of a higher priority than the preservation of their bodily functions, I see.

We're also not talking about "purging" all of Pakistan's dogs, but rather the ones running loose and endangering the public, each other, and any other animal they encounter.
This is a different use of "endangerment" and it pre-supposes once again that any and all stray dogs should be considered irredeemable threats.

Miss Vicky

08-11-16, 12:46 AM

No.

So it's okay to "mutilate" them in an effort to stop suffering, but not okay to do so to prevent that suffering in the first place. Right.

Neither are baby humans, therefore circumcision.

I've already expressed my opinions on that matter. But if you want to go there, yes, baby humans are incapable of giving consent, which is why parents have to make decisions on their behalf - like deciding to vaccinate them, you know, to prevent illness.

That is a gross conflation of two entirely unrelated problems.

Kind of like neutering animals and circumcising children.

Would you like me to say that you should respond to a tiger attack with harsh language? If an animal is threatening your life, you're at liberty to threaten it's.

With what, exactly? I doubt Pakistani citizens walk the streets armed with guns or other means of killing an attacking dog.

Are dogs known to bite and run?

Yes.

They're also known to run in packs and a lot of dogs look pretty damn similar to each other.

Is not the commonly accepted approach to rabies to RETAIN the animal that made the bite in the name of quarantine?

I would hazard a guess that if Pakistan had the means to properly quarantine suspected animals they wouldn't be in the this situation to begin with, since they'd likely also have the means to prevent the problem in the first place. You know, through neutering and vaccinations.

Ah, so the preservation of animals we've subjugated is of a higher priority than the preservation of their bodily functions, I see.

Yes, the preservation of existing life is of higher priority than the preservation of that life's ability to reproduce.

This is a different use of "endangerment" and it pre-supposes once again that any and all stray dogs should be considered irredeemable threats.

I'd say 5,000 human deaths (plus an uncountable number of animal deaths) a year qualifies as a pretty major threat.

christine

08-11-16, 06:37 AM

how do we get a dog's consent to perform any treatment on it?

Just going back to something Miss Vicky said. I had a female German Shepherd called Mollie before I had the one I have now. I'd never heard of pyometra. One day I came back from work and Mollie was collapsed on the floor, she was in great pain and distress and was rushed to the vet where pyometra was diagnosed and an emergency operation was performed. The only thing we'd noticed about her was that she was drinking a lot a few days before, but it was a hot spell of weather so we didn't think anything of it. Mollie very nearly died, and because she was old she took a great deal of looking after to bring her back to health. Seeing her struggle around every day was really hard, fortunately she slowly got better and eventually lived for another few years. If I'd have known I'd have had her spayed when she was young and healthy to save her going through that suffering when she was elderly and less able to cope. Great dog. I still miss her.

Sexy Celebrity

08-11-16, 06:46 AM

how do we get a dog's consent to perform any treatment on it?
It'll wag its tail.

Swan

08-11-16, 06:52 AM

You guys sicken me with your speak of mutilation. I don't need this in my life.

*Continues entering thread*

Omnizoa

08-11-16, 11:01 AM

So it's okay to "mutilate" them
It's unproductive to argue because you find the other person's terminology unappealing, jus' sayin'.

in an effort to stop suffering, but not okay to do so to prevent that suffering in the first place. Right.
You're suggesting that any surgery is justified on the grounds that it would incidentally prevent a specific problem somebody might suffer from.

By that logic it's acceptable to CIRCUMCISE CHILDREN.

How are we missing this?

I've already expressed my opinions on that matter. But if you want to go there, yes, baby humans are incapable of giving consent, which is why parents have to make decisions on their behalf - like
Circumcision.

Kind of like neutering animals and circumcising children.
See above and above.

With what, exactly? I doubt Pakistani citizens walk the streets armed with guns or other means of killing an attacking dog.
I fail to see what you could possibly be getting at here, even ignoring the fact that an unarmed adult human is more than capable of restraining, if not killing, a dog.

There is no burden on me to provide a means for someone to defend themselves because I dare suggest that someone defend themselves.

They're also known to run in packs and a lot of dogs look pretty damn similar to each other.
WELL THEN, that's my whole argument out the window, surely if any dog can just infect someone with a fatal disease and run away then we're completely impotent.

Kid ding dong ditches your front door? So other option, gotta kill 'em all.

I would hazard a guess that if Pakistan had the means to properly quarantine suspected animals they wouldn't be in the this situation to begin with, since they'd likely also have the means to prevent the problem in the first place. You know, through neuteringThe only thing I've found online connecting neutering to rabies is the idea that neutering decreases roaming tendencies, and therefor reduces the odds of an otherwise healthy dog encountering a rabid dog.

HMMMMM... roaming tendencies, nope, can't think of ANY other means of helping THAT.

http://www.acousticgeometry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/soundproof-door.jpg

Yes, the preservation of existing life is of higher priority than the preservation of that life's ability to reproduce.
Assuming their ability to reproduce necessarily impinges on their own lives with any certainty.

I'd say 5,000 human deaths (plus an uncountable number of animal deaths) a year qualifies as a pretty major threat.
"Major" insofar as "I am personally upset by the arbitrary number of murders in Venezuela, so let's kill all Venezuelans".

Omnizoa

08-11-16, 11:08 AM

how do we get a dog's consent to perform any treatment on it?
You don't. That is why it is in the interest of the patient not to assume otherwise until the patient can conceive of no competing interests.

Just going back to something Miss Vicky said. I had a female German Shepherd called Mollie before I had the one I have now. I'd never heard of pyometra. One day I came back from work and Mollie was collapsed on the floor, she was in great pain and distress and was rushed to the vet where pyometra was diagnosed and an emergency operation was performed. The only thing we'd noticed about her was that she was drinking a lot a few days before, but it was a hot spell of weather so we didn't think anything of it. Mollie very nearly died, and because she was old she took a great deal of looking after to bring her back to health. Seeing her struggle around every day was really hard, fortunately she slowly got better and eventually lived for another few years. If I'd have known I'd have had her spayed when she was young and healthy to save her going through that suffering when she was elderly and less able to cope. Great dog. I still miss her.
Likewise I could advocate surgically removing my daughter's breasts because she might get breast cancer.

Miss Vicky

08-11-16, 11:52 AM

It's unproductive to argue because you find the other person's terminology unappealing, jus' sayin'.

But it's productive to include terms like mutilation, rape, and lunacy in your argument? Right.

You're suggesting that any surgery is justified on the grounds that it would incidentally prevent a specific problem somebody might suffer from.

I'm stating the fact that, among other things, spaying virtually eliminates the possibility of a VERY COMMON, catastrophic infection known as pyometra.

Oh and since you like visuals, here's one for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrl-5jDV7eY

By that logic it's acceptable to CIRCUMCISE CHILDREN.

How are we missing this?

The difference is that the logic behind circumcising children is false. There are no proven benefits to it except in some cases with abnormal foreskin, but even then the problem can often be solved by stretching the skin rather than removing it.

There are plenty of proven benefits to spaying and neutering dogs and cats.

I fail to see what you could possibly be getting at here, even ignoring the fact that an unarmed adult human is more than capable of restraining, if not killing, a dog.

It takes one bite from a rabid animal to transmit rabies. It doesn't even have to be a severe bite, just one bad enough to break the skin. So if an unarmed human manages to restrain or even kill a dog, that will do NOTHING to protect them from a deadly, incurable disease. What are you failing to see about that?

There is no burden on me to provide a means for someone to defend themselves because I dare suggest that someone defend themselves.

Making suggestions without offering any way of implementing those suggestions is pretty damn unproductive.

WELL THEN, that's my whole argument out the window, surely if any dog can just infect someone with a fatal disease and run away then we're completely impotent.

We're not impotent. That's where population control comes in.

The only thing I've found online connecting neutering to rabies is the idea that neutering decreases roaming tendencies, and therefor reduces the odds of an otherwise healthy dog encountering a rabid dog.

You don't need Google. Try using common sense. The link between neutering and rabies is population control and reduction. Fewer street dogs means fewer rabid street dogs.

Also, most TNR (trap, neuter, return) programs include vaccinating the animals they capture and treating them for parasites. So fewer street dogs that are able to make more dogs means fewer street dogs infected with rabies. And more street dogs protected by vaccines means fewer street dogs infected with rabies.

Assuming their ability to reproduce necessarily impinges on their own lives with any certainty.

Actually their inability to reproduce will not impinge their own lives but rather improve them. Neutered animals generally live longer than intact animals. They're not trying to feed litter after litter of puppies while also trying to feed themselves. They're at less risk of contracting disease or becoming injured from fighting. Even a relatively minor injury can become life threatening from infection. Plus flies will land on the wound and lay eggs - ever seen a dog being eaten alive by maggots? I have. Many times.

christine

08-11-16, 12:02 PM

You don't. That is why it is in the interest of the patient not to assume otherwise until the patient can conceive of no competing interests.

I don't understand this sorry. Give me an example. What about vaccinations?

Omnizoa

08-11-16, 12:43 PM

But it's productive to include terms like mutilation, rape, and lunacy in your argument? Right.
Pardon, would you prefer prettier words? "Alteration"?, "Non-consensual sex"?, "Special"?

I'm stating the fact that, among other things, spaying virtually eliminates the possibility of a VERY COMMON, catastrophic infection known as pyometra.
I've noticed that.

Oh and since you like visuals, here's one for you:
Lord have mercy, your appeal to emotion has convinced me. Next time a negro shoots somebody we'll round all of them up and cut all of their fingers off. BUT NOT ALL OF THEM, just the ones without owners. That's the moderate solution.

The difference is that the logic behind circumcising children is false. There are no proven benefits
It's a potential source of infection.
People can die from infections.
The logic is sound.

There's no point arguing severity because any conclusion would be entirely arbitrary. You cannot meaningfully differentiate the two.

There are plenty of proven benefits to spaying and neutering dogs and cats.
Interestingly sold to us by people who's financial interest it is in to spay and neuter dogs and cats.

It takes one bite from a rabid animal to transmit rabies. It doesn't even have to be a severe bite, just one bad enough to break the skin. So if an unarmed human manages to restrain or even kill a dog, that will do NOTHING to protect them from a deadly, incurable disease. What are you failing to see about that?
Ah, your angle is that prevention is the only solution, I see.

Couple problems with that.

Making suggestions without offering any way of implementing those suggestions is pretty damn unproductive.
Right, so if you happen to burn off your entire paycheck before the month is out, I am utterly unable to recommend budgeting yourself unless I specifically intend to do it for you.

We're not impotent. That's where population control comes in.
I'm not getting bad grades. That's where burning the school down comes in.

You don't need Google. Try using common sense. The link between neutering and rabies is population control and reduction. Fewer street dogs means fewer rabid street dogs.
AH! OF COURSE! Why didn't I just use my COMMON SENSE!?

Thank you, Miss Vicky, I now realize that the only way to reduce disease is by maiming their carriers before they catch it.

Can't catch foot fungus if you don't have FEET! *sharpens hacksaw*

Okay, it's not "maiming", it's "sterilizing", there, that's a prettier word. Now let's get to sterilizing humans because less humans overall means less humans with necrotizing fasciitis.
Also, most TNR (trap, neuter, return) programs include vaccinating the animals they capture and treating them for parasites. So fewer street dogs that are able to make more dogs means fewer street dogs infected with rabies. And more street dogs protected by vaccines means fewer street dogs infected with rabies.
I like how you're defending a strategy for reducing street dogs that involves catching them and putting them back.

Actually their inability to reproduce will not impinge their own lives but rather improve them.
Inability... improve... inability... improve... inability... **** it, that parking space is worth handicapping myself.

Neutered animals generally live longer than intact animals.
"Intact animals".

Also, this rationale seems to justify destroying your sense of taste if it means adding another year to your life. Seems like a tradeoff that would warrant... I dunno, asking?

But you can't ask. So let's just assume they're cool with it.

They're not trying to feed litter after litter of puppies while also trying to feed themselves.
So many puppies! How could we POSSIBLY prevent a situation like this?

http://www.acousticgeometry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/soundproof-door.jpg

They're at less risk of contracting disease or becoming injured from fighting.
Wow. Now that I didn't know. Who'duh thunk that castrating somebody makes them more resilient to harm? Superman must be a eunuch.

Seriously though, you meant it reduces aggressive tendencies. I get that. Tough to throw a house party when someone's locked all the doors.

Even a relatively minor injury can become life threatening from infection. Plus flies will land on the wound and lay eggs - ever seen a dog being eaten alive by maggots? I have. Many times.
Once again, this applies equally to circumcision.

Omnizoa

08-11-16, 12:56 PM

I don't understand this sorry. Give me an example.
Dog spends 24/7 vomiting up everything it eats. There's little else in the schedule for anything other than NOT doing that.

What about vaccinations?
Cost/Benefit. It's a one-second injection that practically guarantees against one of the most harrowing experiences it may ever face in it's life. There's little question that it's in the dog's best interest save exceptional circumstances.

Permanently damaging their body? For a "maybe"?

PERSONALLY?

I'd prefer you ask me about that first.

I wouldn't want to grow up to find out my mom crippled one of the core biological functions I was born with because HEY, uterine infection amirite?

Miss Vicky

08-11-16, 01:53 PM

Interestingly sold to us by people who's financial interest it is in to spay and neuter dogs and cats.

I'm growing tired of this round and round pointless argument, so I'm not going to re-address everything you've said, but I do want to address this.

This is a bull**** statement. No vet anywhere is getting rich off of spaying and neutering. Most vets charge relatively nominal fees for the procedure in an effort to encourage pet owners to have it done for the sake of their pets. Many vets also participate in low-cost and no cost spay/neuter clinics and volunteer their time for TNR and rescue programs (and, yes, I support a strategy that puts unadoptable, sterilized and vaccinated animals back on the street rather than just killing them).

If it was truly about money, veterinarians would not recommend spays and neuters because there's much more money to be made treating pyometra, cancer, and fight wounds. Speaking from 15 years of experience, you can make about the same amount of money from one pyometra as you can from ten elective spays.

It's also not just "sold to us" by people with a "financial interest" in it, it's also recommended by people involved with animal rescue and by shelter workers who deal first hand with the problems of cat and dog overpopulation.