They always look like they think they are going for a walk happy... Until they get to "The Room"

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

What he did was humane. The dogs he killed otherwise faced a life of nearly constant fear, slow starvation and debilitation from disease. Absent his private program, no one else was going to do anything about it.

I'm quite conflicted on this argument, the exact same argument could be made for many suffering poor people, but we don't accept that logic for humans.

I don't care what kind of misery I'm in, I don't want to be put out of it except if I am already about to die and am suffering on my way, and I suspect most animals would say the same if they could.

That their lives aren't easy as strays may be true, but nothing in nature is as easy as being a pet, and I'm not convinced that the life of a stray dog is any worse than the life of many wild animals.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Well, you think your way, and i'll think mine. While you're thinking that way, consider that these animals are starving to death (feral dogs are highly unlikely to be able to feed themselves as feral cats often successfully do), and that they are parasite and flea ridden. Given that they have probably been unceremoniously dumped by some university graduate creep who couldn't be bothered to live up to his or her responsibilities, there is a high likelihood that they are bewildered and depressed by going, virtually in an instant, from being a part of a gregarious pack to being alone and literally shiftless in an environment which they don't understand and are not prepared to live in.

A comparison with poor human beings in this case is facile and simplistic.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Hmmm..so you're kind of saying WE'RE putting ourselves out of OUR misery, in such situations as the poor dumped dogs?

They'd certainly fight for life as much as we would in similar circumstances....

(I am wondering, though, on a practical level in this particular case, if Set's shooter was just pre-empting what the farmers would likely do. Feral dogs kill and maim livestock to a terrible extent and in a horrible way, and they would certainly be shot...or worse baited...here.

I am also wondering if truly uncared for packs of wild dogs might, at least, not do the awful maiming of large numbers of animals that tame dogs that get out do? Truly self-providing animals might well become as parsimonious with their hunting energy as most predators are in the wild, given that they need to have available calories to expend on the hunt.

Though perhaps the extensive maiming thing is just something dogs do when they have prey that can't get away, like livestock in enclosures, or that can't get through fences? Foxes do it in hen-houses....anyhoo this is a separate musing, not relevant to the thread...)

We certainly make a lot of assumptions about what is best for animals.

Although, someone has already made the point that packs of dogs roaming in cities are likely to "have to" be eradicated, anyway, to protect ourselves from attack and such, and our pets from being eaten.

A remote aboriginal community I visited recently was about to cull the the dogs.....the lore was very much that, once they formed packs, they were dangerous (given the number of dogs, I assume this lore came from experience.) It was noted that they had killed a feral donkey recently, and one was warned NOT to walk out of near reach of the nearest house, and smaller children were not being allowed away from adults.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Wild animals are often parasite-ridden to what appears to be a truly horrid degree, too, Set...and often starve slowly or succumb to slow, awful diseases.

The likely feelings of an abandoned pet just make one feel sick at heart, though, as you say.

0 Replies

Certainly in the region to which i referred, farmers would take steps. But being little inclined to spend any time hunting down a feral pack, they would likely just put out poisoned food for them, which of course puts other animals at risk. Feral dogs will also haunt areas of human habitation, trying to find garbage to eat, and will sometimes attack pets in such areas.

Poor humans can still communicate their needs and wants in ways that a feral dog cannot. There are numerous social assistance agencies in every part of the country, both publicly financed and privately run which will feed poor people, and provide them shelter and clothing vouchers for second-hand stores. No such agencies exist for feral dogs--if any public agency is involved, their purpose will be to trap the animals and then put them down--although they would most likely ignore the problem as long as they could. The poorest human in North America has far more recourse to resources than will any feral dog ever have.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Hmmm..so you're kind of saying WE'RE putting ourselves out of OUR misery, in such situations as the poor dumped dogs?

I think so, I think we have more problems with them being feral than they do (in certain environments). Where I now live they don't tend to starve or freeze, and there is a large population of feral dogs. It can be a nuisance to humans, but even then it's more of an eyesore than anything else. They aren't aggressive, and are more like community pets, hanging out outside bars and restaurants eating garbage and handouts.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I suspect Robert was thinking world wide re poor people.

Think of India etc. perhaps...not poor folk in the developed western world.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

I think we have more problems with them being feral than they do

I think I agree with that. (For different reasons)
... Something to do with such obvious evidence of the lack of human compassion & irresponsibility being so conspicuous.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Yeah, specifically I was thinking of the poor in Brazil, as the same justifications were used in the killing of street urchins by some. Businesses who considered them a nuisance were paying off-duty police officers to shoot them, and I heard a lot people make the argument that they were being put out of their misery, they are diseased etc.

Their lives were virtually identical to the stray dogs that shared the streets with them. And in all of the countries I've lived in that make no effort to collect and kill stray dogs I've observed strays living about as well as homeless people do. They don't look healthy and robust, but they are hanging out and living off the community as well as homeless folks do (who don't tend to look healthy either).

I'll go walk out to a corner some day and video it for you guys to see what I mean, then you guys can decide for yourselves if their lives are really so full of suffering that it's worth killing them, or if we just find strays to be a nuisance and rationalize why we kill them.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

That's what the dogs on Aboriginal communities are like.

Until, as I said, they form packs.

Lots of them ARE owned....but they live in a a far more dog-focussed society than dogs in the city do. Some are well looked after, some very poorly looked after, some feral. I have to say, it was fascinating when waiting around (which you do a lot of in remote aboriginal communities) to try to make sense of the dog social structure. There was a great deal going on, but apart from intense busyness, it was hard to work out WHAT, exactly.

What was also interesting, but also very awful, was how different the dogs were in different communities.

In some, the dogs generally looked pretty well and happy.

In one that I saw, especially, most of the dogs were so thin they looked like skeletons with, in some cases, a harsh, staring skin with hair draped over it....in most cases, the poor animals were dying slowly from advanced mange, and were all bare, suppurating skin. They also looked constantly fearful and hostile.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

if stray dogs are competing for resources with homeless humans then the dogs need to go....this ain't complicated. Your own kind comes first.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Good points. I was thinking of the murder of the street kids by death squads (I knew it was South America, I couldn't be sure which country) when you were talking.

I have to say, though, that I think I would have (and I am not comfortable with guns and such) happily shot with my own hands most of the dogs in that one community I mentioned, just as I would kill a badly maimed and suffering animal that had been hit by a car, or a dying in pain beloved pet....those dogs were suffering intensely, I think, and looked utterly miserable. I think they were preying on young pups and such, and weaker members of the pack to stay alive.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Quote:
I think we have more problems with them being feral than they do

I think I agree with that. (For different reasons)
... Something to do with such obvious evidence of the lack of human compassion & irresponsibility being so conspicuous.

That's true, isn't it?

Once we domesticate a critter, and then allow it to breed, the responsibility is OURS.

Especially when we then take it to countries where it is not native, and where it destroys the native ecology if not contained and controlled.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Ok, but I also don't think any homeless people here are starving to death either. There are actually very few of them and I've seen more in the US (stronger families here mean less loner homeless types and more big households) but there are dozens of stray dogs that live on my street and a handful in every neighborhood.

The notion that we are competing with them for resources is ridiculous. They mainly eat our trash. Sure, it's a wee bit annoying, here we put out our bags of trash on the street instead of in those big plastic trash cans and they'll sometimes tear it open and make the place a bit more messy, but they just aren't competing with the humans in any significant way. Most people here don't have money for dog food, and they give the dogs the chicken bones (yeah, I know, but they do this every day without problems), and leftover scraps. So the life of the strays here is not very different from the life of the pets in terms of diet, and they just aren't making any humans starve.

I know it's hard to picture from the US, and I have a hard time imagining strays doing well there as well, but one day I'll show you some video and I think you'll change your mind. They are tolerated here, and I think if you see how they live you'd not be able to argue that they are harming the society in any significant way.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

I have to say, though, that I think I would have (and I am not comfortable with guns and such) happily shot with my own hands most of the dogs in that one community I mentioned, just as I would kill a badly maimed and suffering animal that had been hit by a car, or a dying in pain beloved pet....those dogs were suffering intensely, I think, and looked utterly miserable. I think they were preying on young pups and such, and weaker members of the pack to stay alive.

I buy that. I certainly have a hard time envisioning a good life for strays in some environments. The cases I speak of involve a lot of dependence on humans and tolerance from said humans. Without that, I don't think they'd fare too well. I don't think any strays here are hunting their food, so without the support of the community I can imagine things getting ugly.

But here, when they do form packs, they just tend to play outside some bar or restaurant waiting for trash or handouts, and they are some of the most good-natured dogs I've seen, I've never had any of them even bark at me, which is something I can't say for the non-strays.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Fascinating!!!! I would be most interested in the video. Although, I suspect it would look much like the world of the dog in the happier remote communities I mentioned.

I would love to do some ethological research on those groups of dogs, as has been done on similar groups of cats.

I can see no good reason to kill critters doing no harm, and leading reasonably happy lives....but, as you say, when can we reasonably decide the life of another creature is so bad as to kill it, on the basis that we are "putting it out of its misery". Look at how much thought and energy we put into this decision for beloved pets who we know intimately, and in whom we can discern the smallest sign of no longer having interest in life.

The dogs I would have killed, had I had the right and the means, would likely have argued for their lives most eloquently, could they speak Human.

Sigh.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

I wanted to find a video, to save myself the effort of making my own but then I found this site about strays in India that makes my case pretty well, and also confirms my suspicions about viability. I had a hard time imagining a stray's life in America, without access to trash, and they cite that as a key difference for why killing strays doesn't make sense for India.

Here's the site: http://www.wsdindia.org/

Here are some excerpts in line with what I am describing:

http://www.wsdindia.org/StrayDogIssue/stray.htm

Quote:

Why do stray dogs exist?

Most free-roaming dogs belong to an ancient canine race known as the Pariah Dog, which has existed all over Asia and Africa ever since human beings started living in settlements. They are, and have always been, scavengers " that is, they live on garbage created by humans. In India the breed has existed for perhaps 14,000 years or more. In addition to scavenging, they are widely kept as pets by rural and urban slum households.

http://www.wsdindia.org/StrayDogIssue/removal.htm

Quote:

Why removal of dogs doesn’t work

Most Indian civic bodies have been killing stray dogs for decades, some since the last century. The concept was directly imported from the developed countries without any understanding of the very different urban conditions in the third world. In developing countries such as India, where exposed garbage and slums encourage the existence of strays, killing or removing stray dogs has proved completely ineffective in controlling rabies or the dog population. This is because dogs removed are easily replaced.

http://www.wsdindia.org/StrayDogIssue/solution.htm

Quote:

The effective solution:
Sterilisation-cum-vaccination

For decades the Municipal Corporation of Mumbai used to kill up to 50,000 stray dogs annually. The method used was electrocution. In 1994, in response to demands made by our organisation and others, dog-killing was replaced by mass sterilisation and immunisation of stray dogs.

Under this programme, stray dogs are surgically neutered and then replaced in their own area. They are also vaccinated against rabies.

The dog population becomes stable, non-breeding, non-aggressive and rabies-free, and it gradually decreases over a period of time.

That seems to be describing a significantly different scale than what I am talking about with problems that I think come with the scale and density (e.g. the territorial problems are likely exacerbated with greater numbers and subsequent density) but it's pretty much in line with my experience in Brazil and Costa Rica.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

But here, when they do form packs, they just tend to play outside some bar or restaurant waiting for trash or handouts, and they are some of the most good-natured dogs I've seen, I've never had any of them even bark at me, which is something I can't say for the non-strays.

I started to post to this before, re what I've seen, or think I've seen, in Italy and Mexico. I edited myself, since what I saw - which resembles your comment, Robert - may be a tip of an ice berg of sorts. Or not. I do remember reading that in Italy, people tend to toss their dogs on their ways to the shore in summertime. Not sure how much of that is true either.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Interesting...reading....the picture on the Mumbai site looks like a Basenji.

2 Replies

@dlowan,

That site has helped me understand the conflicting opinions I've had about this. I see it work well here, but had a hard time imagining how it could work Stateside, and I now think it just wouldn't and the very different societies are the reasons for it.

Their FAQ is another good read:

http://www.wsdindia.org/FAQs/faqs.htm

Quote:

Q1. Why are there so many stray dogs here anyway? Why aren’t there any in London and New York?
A1. The urban environment in India has two features that encourage stray animal populations " exposed garbage and slums. Neither of these exists in developed countries.

Stray dogs are scavengers and garbage provides an ample source of food for them. In the absence of this food source, dogs would not be able to survive on the streets.

Quote:

Q19. Isn’t it sad that stray dogs have to eat garbage?
A19. Archaeological studies indicate that wolves started living near human settlements so that they could eat the garbage thrown outside. Dogs evolved from these wolves, and have always been scavengers. Unlike humans, they do not view garbage with disgust. In fact, even a well-fed pedigreed dog will often make trips to the dustbin when his owners aren’t looking. Of course, eating garbage has its risks, since once in a while a dog may eat something poisonous " but many strays lead long and healthy lives with no other source of food.

0 Replies

They always look like they think they are going for a walk happy... Until they get to "The Room"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know