Why do we kill animals if they attack us?

[Smoke]

We kill the dog because by the time it becomes a threat to human life it's easier to kill the dog than to socialize it properly. Of course, the same thing is true of the owners, and we don't kill them.

 

[Reverend Rick]

We kill the dog because by the time it becomes a threat to human life it's easier to kill the dog than to socialize it properly. Of course, the same thing is true of the owners, and we don't kill them.

Sad but true

 

[DallasApple]

We kill the dog because by the time it becomes a threat to human life it's easier to kill the dog than to socialize it properly. Of course, the same thing is true of the owners, and we don't kill them.

We dont kill them but they can be prosictued and go to prison.If you own a known aggresive dog especially.You can also be sued civily if your dog bites someone else or even someone elses pet.

Do ya'll remeber the case where the husband and wife couple owned two Presa Canarios (they are 120 lbs dogs a type of mastiff) that mauled to death their neighbor right in the hallway of their apartment building?

The dogs were destroyed.But the couple was charged I believe with manslaughter and they were convicted to my recolection.

Love

Dallas

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I live in western Canada and occasionally someone will come into contact with a bear when hunting or hiking. If it's a mother bear with cubs nearby, the bear will sometimes attack. These bears are then hunted down and shot. What really bothers me is they shoot the cubs too. They will do this with cougars, wolves, and coyotes too. Is it morally right to kill them for acting like animals?

I can understand for killing an attacking bear in order to save oneself or another person. However, if the cubs are doing nothing harmful, in fact if they're fearful for their lives, killing them is not something one should be proud of because the animal was a baby, helpless and wasn't posing any threat. I think it's just a sign of trying to be macho by saying "look, I got a fur coat, it was from a bear" and people are amazed that they killed a bear. Of course, the fact it was a baby doesn't matter.

Humans are extremely retributive by nature and this shows in the punishments we administer to both animals and one another. This vengeful streak is arguably a large part of what earned humanity their role as Earth's top predator (top predator for the time being anyway ) but is now a fairly useless trait.
A simple way to understand this is by example of a wasp sting. If a wasp stings you and tries to fly off, the automatic human reaction is to try and kill it. We earn nothing from the wasp's death, but it appeals to our retributive nature. We apply this same rule to all creatures (including humans) though with larger, more advanced creatures we dress up our mean streak with laws.
Very few punishments dished out by humans actually seek to solve a problem, they seek to punish for the sake of punishment. Putting down a dog does not undo the fact that a person was attacked, it doesn't compensate the victim in any way and it isn't as if killing the dog is the only way to prevent future attacks.
Humans need to at least attempt to understand the animals they share the planet with (if Humans can be said to share the planet at all...) instead of simply resorting to their own bloodlust to deal with any problems they may have. If you own an animal with lots of sharp teeth, make sure you treat it with the proper respect.

Agreed.

If it was a vicious attack and severe damage was inflicted or even death, killing the animal should be looked at as preventative action for the safety of others in the future, not retribution.

Before killing or making any decision, shouldn't one consider the situation? In event A: a person torments and abuses a dog badly and the dog strikes back. In event B: a person is being kind to the dog and the dog strikes. Either way, if one doesn't investigate the context, then killing the dog can be an act of retribution. I'd also go as far as to include any history of the dog being abused, so as to see if it may have attacked out of reacting from what it was used to for much of its life. Once again, by killing it, one doesn't know this but the reason and context of the attack, as well as the history of the dog and victim must be considered.

In the case where a dog was chained, the parents who allowed their child to enter the dog's territory should have been punished, not the animal.

Agreed.

If you climb into a lions den at the zoo, who made the mistake?

Both the lion and me. I made the obvious mistake of trying to cuddle with a lion. The lion made the mistake of not getting any taste meat sauce to go along.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Both the lion and me. I made the obvious mistake of trying to cuddle with a lion. The lion made the mistake of not getting any taste meat sauce to go along.

Pass the A-1!

 

[Ba'al]

I can understand for killing an attacking bear in order to save oneself or another person. However, if the cubs are doing nothing harmful, in fact if they're fearful for their lives, killing them is not something one should be proud of because the animal was a baby, helpless and wasn't posing any threat. I think it's just a sign of trying to be macho by saying "look, I got a fur coat, it was from a bear" and people are amazed that they killed a bear. Of course, the fact it was a baby doesn't matter.

These are rangers or police that hunt the animal down afterwords and destroy them. It's policy.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

These are rangers or police that hunt the animal down afterwords and destroy them. It's policy.

I'm not very well-versed in this so how do the rangers know which bear to hunt down? Take me for example. If a bear attacks my dog, my family and/or myself, and suppose I end up defending myself from it in however way, how does the ranger know which bear attacked me? If I clobbered the thing on the snout (regardless of how effective it would be), how do the rangers know that the bear in sight is the same bear?

Also, when the rangers go to kill the bear, if it was an adult that attacked, then do the rangers also go and kill any of the harmless bear baby cubs or do they only kill the adult?

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

Pass the A-1!

^^ That is the good stuff for meat (the Guinness-flavoured one). Not sure which one the lion would like though, have to put that on my to-do list and ask one.

 

[MSizer]

Humans can't even consider all other humans equals yet (maybe someday we'll get there). Therefore, dogs, being a psychological outgroup, do not benefit from the same moral consideration as humans. Also, it is very hard to get a dog who has become aggressive to refrain from repeating. Many dog's are agressive due to mental illness, and we have only scratched the surface on human mental illness, so dogs sadly have to wait in line before we can help them with their head problems. I don't necessarily agree with it, in fact I don't agree with it, but I haven't thought of a better solution yet that is practical to implement. The sad thing is that barring mental illness, almost all dogs who bite have been poorly socialized by a carless or ignorant human companion. I find it very sad.

 

[Ba'al]

If I clobbered the thing on the snout (regardless of how effective it would be), how do the rangers know that the bear in sight is the same bear?

They don't know for sure. They investigate and guess.

Also, when the rangers go to kill the bear, if it was an adult that attacked, then do the rangers also go and kill any of the harmless bear baby cubs or do they only kill the adult?

I don't think they always kill the cubs but I know for a fact that in one case they killed the cubs as well. Their excuse was that they were worried the cubs would have tendencies to attack humans when they got older.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

Humans can't even consider all other humans equals yet (maybe someday we'll get there). Therefore, dogs, being a psychological outgroup, do not benefit from the same moral consideration as humans. Also, it is very hard to get a dog who has become aggressive to refrain from repeating. Many dog's are agressive due to mental illness, and we have only scratched the surface on human mental illness, so dogs sadly have to wait in line before we can help them with their head problems. I don't necessarily agree with it, in fact I don't agree with it, but I haven't thought of a better solution yet that is practical to implement. The sad thing is that barring mental illness, almost all dogs who bite have been poorly socialized by a carless or ignorant human companion. I find it very sad.

I agree, however, what does liven up my view is that the practice of vetenarism uses very sophisticated equipment so at least in North America, for most of the clinics, the healthcare non-human animals receive is similar or equal to that of humans. There is also massive research on animal behavior from various views. Although I don't think there is a large field of abnormal psychology on non-human animals that uses the same treatments as it does for humans, we are getting there as the research is implementing various brain-imaging techniques and other methods, just as it does for humans.

For the poor socialization of the dogs, well, that's where it takes time, dedication, love and respect for the dog from humans. Many humans are compassionate but there are many who are not. I don't know if the amounts of each group are equal or not, I'd ideally like to have it so they're not and there are more compassionate ones. Whether that is truly the case or not I don't know. There is so much emphasis on the barbaric acts in China, South Korea and other countries that it's hard to make an accurate judgment. I do wish though that those dogs and other animals that are so barbarically treated do get the proper nurturing they need and that those barbaric animals (the humans) who did such acts get the proper imprisonment and possibly treatment.

 

[IF_u_knew]

It may lie in the human psyche but it's not what I'm referring to because killing the flees on a dog is an act to protect the dog and others. The issue I'm referring to is after the dog has attacked and after the attack, others order the dog to be killed. After the attack, some time has passed whereby the person is no longer in harms way but for the dog-flees interaction, the flees remain there.

Okay, but someone could argue that killing fleas to protect the dog is unfair to the fleas who are following their natural instincts.

Around here, they do not put dogs down because they have bitten a person only once ... it would be required after a dog mauled a human or has viciously bitten more than just one innocent person (innocent meaning someone not purposely riling up the dog). Then, how could this even be an issue to argue? You defend protecting the dog from fleas but ... hmmmm.

I would indeed have no issue to see such an animal put down for the well being of my sons.

What you say ... after they bite someone one time, they are automatically ordered to be put down ... I have never heard of it being required.

What really amazes me is how ppl can sit here and compare dogs to being on the same level as children or other humans BEING. I appreciated the loyalty of companionship and have enjoyed the playfulness of the dogs that I have had in the past, even I have felt a bit more secure by their presence .. but NEVER could I equate that to the love and importance that I place on my sons or others of my family and friends. I can not marvel at a dog learning and growing with a sense of wonder in what it is we are in here on this planet, that being Life. Their loyalty is not comparable to the curiosity for life that already is displayed by my sons that will one day ultimately lead them to go out into the world and hopefully contribute to making it a better place for others than it is now.

I am sometimes sure that pets are loved more than (or even equally to) humans only by those who are disconnected from reality in some way ... I can't understand it being otherwise. :sorry1:

 

[Charity]

I believe that lots of times when an animal attacks it is doing it our of fear rather than just being agressive because it is bad or out of control....

It is an natural instinct to put up a guard against what you would consider threatening actions.....Dogs are no different than people when it comes to using it's only defense mechanism...
I agree many people are not responsible dog owners and they should pay the penalty by law for such neglect. I think that others measures should be pursued before putting an animal to death. If after further training and discipline if the dog does not change its behavior then the choices for it's future are certainly questionable....

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

Okay, but someone could argue that killing fleas to protect the dog is unfair to the fleas who are following their natural instincts.

Around here, they do not put dogs down because they have bitten a person only once ... it would be required after a dog mauled a human or has viciously bitten more than just one innocent person (innocent meaning someone not purposely riling up the dog). Then, how could this even be an issue to argue? You defend protecting the dog from fleas but ... hmmmm.

I addressed this argument earlier and due to the amount of posts, it's fine if you didn't look it over. The argument I present, which is consistent with the one I put for killing an animal, is when the animal is attacking my family, my dog or myself. In the case of fleas, the fleas are attacking my dog and I wish to relieve my dog of those attacks.

What you say ... after they bite someone one time, they are automatically ordered to be put down ... I have never heard of it being required.

It has in some instances.

What really amazes me is how ppl can sit here and compare dogs to being on the same level as children or other humans BEING. I appreciated the loyalty of companionship and have enjoyed the playfulness of the dogs that I have had in the past, even I have felt a bit more secure by their presence .. but NEVER could I equate that to the love and importance that I place on my sons or others of my family and friends. I can not marvel at a dog learning and growing with a sense of wonder in what it is we are in here on this planet, that being Life. Their loyalty is not comparable to the curiosity for life that already is displayed by my sons that will one day ultimately lead them to go out into the world and hopefully contribute to making it a better place for others than it is now.

The comparison is made in terms of the consequences of a dog's vs. a human's action and the potential reasons for those initial actions. This isn't about which is better, a dog or human. When I make the comparison, I compare if a dog mauls someone and the dog has an owner vs. an adult or a child or adolescent. I compare the outcomes of the attack by the culprit: the dog may get put down while the victim gets medical treatment but lives. In other words, I'm addressing a double-standard that exists and questioning why it exists. It's nothing to do with how loyal, cute or fluffy a dog is or how smart it is in comparison to a human.

The more in-depth factors come into play when determining the reason for the dog attacking. If a person goes and ****** off a dog, and gets mauled, it's unjust to later on after medical treatment to want the dog to be put down.

I am sometimes sure that pets are loved more than (or even equally to) humans only by those who are disconnected from reality in some way

Thank you for putting yourself on a pedestle and showing how you believe your way of viewing this is correct while others who view it differently are disconnected. This shows a sense of arrogance in that you don't care why someone may value a dog more than humans, you think no matter what, they're disconnected and that you're right.

You say you cannot understand it being otherwise so my question is, have you questioned it? Given your dichotomous view and putting yourself on a pedestle, try to think of it this way: put yourself off the pedestle no matter how hard it may be. Once that's done, try to take a third-person view as though you're new to the planet and are observing person A loving a dog more than a human and person B loving a human more than a dog. From your previous response, since you own a dog you can know many of the things it can do and bring to one emotionally. So take yourself off the pedestle and just question yourself.

If you end up at the same result, that's fine. But will you still put yourself on a pedestle? Will you have an argument regarding the evident double-standard I mentioned throughout this thread?

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Not so. Several years ago in my town there was a 2y/o that was bitten, and consequently died, by the family Pit. The Pit was not only put down, but used to spearhead a city ban on all Pit Bulls. NOW...the 2y/o was outside, alone, at 6am while her parents slept, and the dog, which according to several extended family members was abused by the parents, was chained up outside. I ask...who was really to blame for the death of that little girl. I don't for one second believe it was the Pit. The blame lay squarely with the parents and it was they who should have suffered at least legal charges instead of the dog serving a death sentence as well as leading to the deaths of other Pits in the city as they were nearly hunted in this town for a while after the ban first went into place. I hate BSL.

I would say those were extraordinary circumstances. The parents should have been charged with the child's death. Still, when the attack is bad enough to cause death I would say that is well beyond a bite.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This shows a sense of arrogance in that you don't care why someone may value a dog more than humans, you think no matter what, they're disconnected and that you're right.

My dog is part of my family. He rides with me in my truck and sits up like a human.

At lunch time, we go through a drive thru window and he gets a meal just like me.

I worry some times about the emotional attachment I have to this dog.

If someone was to shoot my dog, I would have a hard time not crossing the line and doing something stupid.

The thing is, as much as I love this animal, I need to remain grounded and realize that I could not defend him like I could a human. Someone could shoot him right in front of me and I could not respond with deadly force.

Animals do not have the same rights as humans.

 

[Charity]

My dog is part of my family. He rides with me in my truck and sits up like a human.

At lunch time, we go through a drive thru window and he gets a meal just like me.

I worry some times about the emotional attachment I have to this dog.

If someone was to shoot my dog, I would have a hard time not crossing the line and doing something stupid.

The thing is, as much as I love this animal, I need to remain grounded and realize that I could not defend him like I could a human. Someone could shoot him right in front of me and I could not respond with deadly force.

Animals do not have the same rights as humans.

Sometimes the dog deserves more rights that some humans, especially those humans that put little value on other human lives and take it upon themselves to kill, mutilate, assault, rape, beat, and molest children....
Oh you could respond with deadly force but the consequences of your actions would probably put you in the same category with the people in my first sentence..

 

[IF_u_knew]

Thank you for putting yourself on a pedestle and showing how you believe your way of viewing this is correct while others who view it differently are disconnected. This shows a sense of arrogance in that you don't care why someone may value a dog more than humans, you think no matter what, they're disconnected and that you're right.

Such drama ... Trust me, with ppl like you in the world, I could never think such a thing about myself.

What are the reasons someone would love their pet as much as, and even in some cases, more than their own family members and human beings? I am not knocking the good feelings that one will indoubtedly get from their animal and in fact, there (in the reason behind the "good feelings") is why I even said what I did in the first place. I understand it goes off topic and so, not a big deal as you have clearly shown how you react to such views ... just saying.

"Sometimes sure" <--- really? you take that to mean what you said in the above? :faint:

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The thing is, as much as I love this animal, I need to remain grounded and realize that I could not defend him like I could a human. Someone could shoot him right in front of me and I could not respond with deadly force.

Though, if someone was shooting a gun right in front of you, whatever the intended target, they are still posing a threat to you, and I believe you have the right to defend yourself.

But, I do agree with you Rev. I should be able to respond to a threat to my pet in the same way I would another member of my family.

Here's a question, though. What if someone were threatening my goldfish. Morally (not taking the law into account), would I be justified in defending it?

I feel I would.

Animals do not have the same rights as humans.

Only according to humans. We tend to be anthropocentric. I'm sure my fish is fishopocentric...

 

[Guitar's Cry]

What really amazes me is how ppl can sit here and compare dogs to being on the same level as children or other humans BEING. I appreciated the loyalty of companionship and have enjoyed the playfulness of the dogs that I have had in the past, even I have felt a bit more secure by their presence .. but NEVER could I equate that to the love and importance that I place on my sons or others of my family and friends. I can not marvel at a dog learning and growing with a sense of wonder in what it is we are in here on this planet, that being Life. Their loyalty is not comparable to the curiosity for life that already is displayed by my sons that will one day ultimately lead them to go out into the world and hopefully contribute to making it a better place for others than it is now.

I am sometimes sure that pets are loved more than (or even equally to) humans only by those who are disconnected from reality in some way ... I can't understand it being otherwise. :sorry1:

I understand your point of view, but it seems to me that if we invite a predator into our homes, we must accept the consequences. The suggestion that we ignore the fact that we are enslaving an animal, then taking its life when it doesn't do as we want (taking into account that it's typically considered forgivable for a slave to fight back and is often considered heroic) seems way too inhumane to me.