Animal Rights?

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7284753.stm

 

This story made me extremely angry. I haven't been to Srinigar, but I've been to several countries where stray dogs roam uncontroled for lack of controls on their populations. The animals are revolting, disease ridden, and suffer from a host of problems, from maggots in their living flesh to missing fur and rabies. They shamble around alternating enacting violence on passers by and collapsing in pain and hunger.

 

Killing such animals can only be a kindness. But here are some dimwitted animal righst groups insisting that a cull is cruel! If anything is cruel it is the avoidance of a cull.

 

Am feel very strongly about this and would like others to join in suporting the cull against the ignorant do-gooders, but mention it here also in case I've got the wrong end of the stick.

[Humodour]

Are you sober?

[Gorth]

While I am against killing animals for the sake of convenience, I see a point in reducing a threat to human lives here. Death by rabies is never fast and never pleasant (and India has more than 20.000 deaths per year of those). Combined with the fact that dogs are not an endangered species, I think they could do without stray dogs at all. Strychnine on the other hand is not exactly a painless, fast death for the dogs either. They could find a faster and more efficient poison or a way of doing mass chemical sterilisation.

[SteveThaiBinh]

While I suppose there are some who would argue that any kind of cull is cruel, that's hardly a mainstream position, and certainly not one I'd support. I agree that this doesn't sound like a very humane method of carrying out the cull, and would prefer something else (for example, that the dogs be shot with tranquilizers and then 'put to sleep'), however this isn't a rich part of India and you'd need to consider the possible expense of this method and the drain on vital services to the human population it might entail. I don't know much about it, but it's possible poisoning was chosen because it was cheap and easy to do? They carried out a kitten cull where I live last year, and that was done with tranquilizer darts and a sack. There were complaints, but those were mostly because the residents weren't warned and so some neighbourhood children, quite small ones, saw what was happening and were upset by it.

 

Speaking of cruelty, true cruelty is putting a link to a very funny comedy programme in your sig, but one that can only be accessed if you're resident in the UK. That's just plain mean. :sad:

[Walsingham]

Are you sober?

 

I am, actually. But I see your point.

[Nick_i_am]

The issue isn't really with the cull as much as the method of performing it.

 

As much as I hate crulty against animals I hate fanatical animal rights campainers more.

[Walsingham]

The issue isn't really with the cull as much as the method of performing it.

 

As much as I hate crulty against animals I hate fanatical animal rights campainers more.

 

Ok, that makes a bit more sense. However, as Steve points out, you're talking about regions where drugs and time and money aren't going spare for people. It's a matter of opinion, but I think it's totally unreasonable to demand care for animals when people are getting worse.

 

A bit surprised not to hear from Guard Dog on this one.

[BIOShazard]

The ASPCA is gonna have a good time dealing with this. If it were in America.

If I wanted to dim the Stray Dog population, I would do it swiftly, like a shot to the neck. Or gather them all into one place, and throw some shock grenades, so they are blinded and don't know they are about to be killed. This could end good or bad.

When I saw this thread, I immediatly remembered something I saw on How Its Made. Baby chicks flying down a chute. They must of gotten an earful from the ASPCA.

[LadyCrimson]

The issue isn't really with the cull as much as the method of performing it.

I'd agree.

 

I'm very against animal cruelty, but I'm also a realist in that there are far more unwanted/feral pets than may be desirable/can be controlled. Sterilization can work well for small 'colonies' of stray animals, but in mass quantities, it may not be effective enough, soon enough.

 

I'd prefer something other than strychnine be used. But I can understand the expense issue, if there is one.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Same thing here: cull them, but gently. There has to be a better way than strychnine to kill them...

[Walsingham]

I don't know what's wrong with shotguns, to be brutally honest. I know if I had to choose a way to die myself, a double blast of 12 guage to the head would be high on the list.

[Guard Dog]

A bit surprised not to hear from Guard Dog on this one.

 

I've been a little busy these days Wals.

 

I work in a dog rescue (when I can find the time) and I have 14 dogs of my own and I can categorically state, animals do not have rights. Having a right implies the ability to assert it. I can't even convince half of my dogs that the front door and back door lead to the same yard.

 

It is a sad (bitter gut wrenching for those who have seen it) necessity to put animals to sleep. And in a situation like the article paints, rabies is a real concern because it turns a harmless stray into a raving monster with a deadly bite. But you are all right, methods are important and it should be done in as humane a way as possible. I suggest a sedative dart followed by a Sodium Pentobarbital injection. It painless and used by vets everywhere.

 

And no Wals, not shotguns because there is a real probability of doing a half way job of it.

[Walsingham]

How do the costs compare of the dart injectors vs bullets?

[Guard Dog]

How do the costs compare of the dart injectors vs bullets?

More expensive by a long way but doing the most humane thing is seldom the most expedient or least expensive.

[Nick_i_am]

And if those are funds that could go into improving infastrusture or medical care then the problem is obvious in the above situation.

[Gromnir]

a capacity to understand and exert rights is no prerequisite for having rights. babies and people suffering from prolonged periods o' unconsciousness has rights... and Gromnir has met some boarder collies that is arguably as smart as vol. prove tomorrow that dolphins is as smart as people and they still wouldn't have rights. gorillas and chimps can communicate via sign language, after a fashion and yet they got 0 rights. why? one reason is 'cause rights... ain't. is a legal fiction that people, as a society, create and deem wholly necessary. the notion o' rights is one of humanities best lies.

 

no people has decided that animals deserve rights. 2 times a year in the United States, the multi-state portion of the bar exam is offered to prospective lawyers, and almost invariably there will be 1 animal rights question on that exam. the question is always a trick question. no matter how clever the dolphin or chimp... no matter how cute the kitten or puppy, animals has no rights within any of these United States of America.

 

however, it is always the way in which we treat the weak and defenseless that says the mostest 'bout us as individuals and as a society. anybody who has taken the most basic psychology course is no doubt familiar with prison guard experiments. and observe how somebody treats menials and you learn much 'bout them as a person. in spite o' what is Rights, there is always situations in which one person will have the ability and opportunity to mistreat other people, and how one reacts to such a situation is always worthy o' notice. how we treat prisoners and the retarded, and the weak... how we treat employees or those those who is defenseless...

 

*shrug*

 

animals got no rights. is probably good that they do not. nevertheless, it is Gromnir's pov that the humane treatment o' animals, while having nothing to do with rights, says a great deal 'bout us as people/People.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Enoch]

Well, it won't show up on the MBE because it's state-specific statutory law, but there are generally criminal punishments for mistreatment of animals. This is not to be confused with giving rights to animals, of course (no more than a house has a right not to be burgled), but it is one measure of the protections that we, societally, have decided to give to animals.

 

 

Back to the main topic, though, I agree with the general sense on the thread that, although something generally needs to be done about stray dog populations that threaten people, mass poisoning is not a particularly attractive way of doing so.

[Tale]

Strychnine? Is that as bad as the chinese method? Does sound like an inhumane method.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Tale

[Humodour]

a capacity to understand and exert rights is no prerequisite for having rights. babies and people suffering from prolonged periods o' unconsciousness has rights... and Gromnir has met some boarder collies that is arguably as smart as vol. prove tomorrow that dolphins is as smart as people and they still wouldn't have rights. gorillas and chimps can communicate via sign language, after a fashion and yet they got 0 rights. why? one reason is 'cause rights... ain't. is a legal fiction that people, as a society, create and deem wholly necessary. the notion o' rights is one of humanities best lies.

 

no people has decided that animals deserve rights. 2 times a year in the United States, the multi-state portion of the bar exam is offered to prospective lawyers, and almost invariably there will be 1 animal rights question on that exam. the question is always a trick question. no matter how clever the dolphin or chimp... no matter how cute the kitten or puppy, animals has no rights within any of these United States of America.

 

however, it is always the way in which we treat the weak and defenseless that says the mostest 'bout us as individuals and as a society. anybody who has taken the most basic psychology course is no doubt familiar with prison guard experiments. and observe how somebody treats menials and you learn much 'bout them as a person. in spite o' what is Rights, there is always situations in which one person will have the ability and opportunity to mistreat other people, and how one reacts to such a situation is always worthy o' notice. how we treat prisoners and the retarded, and the weak... how we treat employees or those those who is defenseless...

 

*shrug*

 

animals got no rights. is probably good that they do not. nevertheless, it is Gromnir's pov that the humane treatment o' animals, while having nothing to do with rights, says a great deal 'bout us as people/People.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well, considering that 'humans' interbred with chimpanzees for about 5 million years before it became genetically impossible (at about 4 million years ago), our genetic material is almost identical except for mostly junk DNA and environmental changes, and that chimps have all the basic mental assets of humans (arithmetic, tool use, language, culture, altruism, laughter, jealousy, learning, self-awareness, etc), I think there's a stronger case for giving them rights (in the human rights sense) than any other animal. Fact of the matter is, many of them have levels of personality and intelligence exceeding certain groups of society (e.g. the mentally retarded).

 

But it'll never happen because people don't like to think we're related to apes, especially religious fanats. Plus, it'd make the pharmaceutical companies that use them as lab rats look bad. Even though chimpanzees are an endangered species.

 

Hell, on the evolution note: chimp chromosomes are near identical to human ones. The 2 chromosome has fused in humans from two chimpanzee 2 chromosomes - there's actually proof this happened because there are telomeres in the middle of the human 2 chromosome... telomeres only occur on the end of chromosomes to prevent damage to the end of the chromosome during replication.

 

Genetically, we may only have 98.5% of our DNA in common with chimps, but the interesting thing is that the 1.5% difference is mostly junk DNA (as well as viral immunity, gene duplication, things like that based which are species neutral). The important small number of differences, things like cranial capacity, hair loss, etc, are mostly controlled by a only one or two genes. In fact, hair loss is thought to have occurred only 240,000 years ago due to only copy of a gene being deleted (even though we have 9 more).

 

Much of chimpanzee intelligence, personality and culture is as environment dependent as in humans. Humans only developed language at 70,000 years ago, probably due to the innovation of one or two individuals. It might have spurred human progress since, but it's not the selective force behind human intelligence. I wonder how "smart" you'd be if you were raised from birth without in a society without human tools, including language and fire?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_lan...f_sign_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzi#Example...zi.27s_behavior

 

On a complete tangent, the average female chimpanzee weighs about 40kg, is 3ft tall, and is about 5 times stronger than the average adult male. If you ever get in a fight with a chimp, run away and live to tell the tale.

[Azarkon]

nevertheless, it is Gromnir's pov that the humane treatment o' animals, while having nothing to do with rights, says a great deal 'bout us as people/People.

 

So how do animal rights militants play into all this? You know, the guys who put bombs under people's cars in order to get them to stop the "inhumane" treatment of animals?

[Gromnir]

what is your point? what is the correlation?

 

*shrug*

 

Gromnir ain't no PETA extremist. we likes a good steak as much as the next guy, and our closet has leather belts and shoes aplenty. kill animals for food and clothing? got no problem with that. when Gromnir were young we hunted a great deal... for food. gotta be some advantages to being at the top o' the food chain. even so, killing an animal is not same as torture. can accept the necessity or pragmatism o' killing critters w/o accepting inhumane excess. dog fighting and unnecessary cruel methods o' slaughter and a whole list o' other stuff that people does to animals on a daily basis may not be a matter o' Rights, but such sadism is offensive.

 

if Gromnir is bothered by killing animals in unnecessary cruel manner, why would we thinks that blowing up humans with car bombs would be ok? no doubt you thinks you make a point.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 10, 2008 by Gromnir

[Azarkon]

The point is to obtain clarification, dear Gromnir, for what you left unsaid: that there is "inhumane," and then there is inhumane.

 

Culling disease-ridden animals with what tools you have available to you isn't inhumane. It's pragmatism. The idea that anyone takes pleasure from such a cull, or should be judged thus of their humanity, is, frankly, pretty absurd.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Azarkon

[Humodour]

nevertheless, it is Gromnir's pov that the humane treatment o' animals, while having nothing to do with rights, says a great deal 'bout us as people/People.

 

So how do animal rights militants play into all this? You know, the guys who put bombs under people's cars in order to get them to stop the "inhumane" treatment of animals?

 

Probably the same place as pro-life militants that put bombs in abortion clinics?

 

Use a brain.

[Azarkon]

Probably the same place as pro-life militants that put bombs in abortion clinics?

 

Use a brain.

 

The analogy is correct, but the insight is lacking: a comparison is not an explanation. Still, why did you feel compelled to answer my question to Gromnir? Let him defend his own suggestion that people's attitudes towards weaker beings reflect their general humanity, particularly in relation to the existence of pro-life militants and animal rights militants.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Azarkon

[Cantousent]

Probably the same place as pro-life militants that put bombs in abortion clinics?

 

Use a brain.

 

Why do you feel the need to answer a question I posed specifically to Gromnir, and with such a pointless comparison? Let him defend his own suggestion that a person's attitude towards animals is reflective of that person's basic humanity.

 

More to the point, Krezack, why turn this debate into a discussion of abortion? Apart from your pointless diatribe on the genetic nature of chimps, what the hell is your position vis a vis the culling anyhow?

 

Chimps aren't human. Chimps don't have rights. Chimps should not have rights.

 

This is not the same as advocating inhumane treatment of chimps. Chimps undoubtedly should have protections, but they are not human. If nearly human status yields rights, then what about nearly chimp status? Where does it end?

 

However, animal rights groups should never be confused with animal advocate groups. Advocating humane treatment of animals is not the same as mistaking them for having an equal stake and share in society.

 

Trying to confuse the issue by bringing up pro-life militants is silly. It's comes across as a clumsy attempt to equate denial of chimp rights (don't make me laugh) with anti-abortion violence. Use a brain?

 

As for the culling, that's a policy issue in the country in question. The measure doesn't seem grossly inhumane, even though I'm sure most folks would rather more humane means could be found and afforded. In the long run, however, improving the living standards of the society would probably help improve the treatment of the animals in question at any rate. After all, societies that don't have to worry about throngs of rabid animals are in a better position to impose laws protecting animals in the first place.

 

By the way, while I don't have anything against chimps in the least, that pretty female chimp won't gain much benefit from being 5 times stronger than the average human mail when the human male is carrying a fire arm.

 

We have a hard enough time trying to convince people of our shared humanity. Suggesting that we convince people of our shared humanity with chimps strains credulity.