Forums > Social Discussion > Boy, 7 breaks into zoo and feeds anilmals to a croc.
Login/Join to ParticipateCarpal \'Tunnel
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
Posted:
SYDNEY, Australia - A 7-year-old boy broke into a popular Outback zoo, fed a string of animals to the resident crocodile and bashed several lizards to death with a rock, the zoo's director said Friday.
The 30-minute rampage, caught on the zoo's security camera, happened early Wednesday after the boy jumped a security fence at the Alice Springs Reptile Center in central Australia, said zoo director Rex Neindorf.
The child then went on a killing spree, bashing three lizards to death with a rock, including the zoo's beloved, 20-year-old goanna, which he then fed to "Terry," an 11-foot, 440-pound saltwater crocodile, said Neindorf.
The boy also fed several live animals to Terry by throwing them over the two fences surrounding the crocodile's enclosure, at one point climbing over the outer fence to get closer to the giant reptile.
'Like he was playing a game'
In the footage, the boy's face remains largely blank, Neindorf said, adding: "It was like he was playing a game."
By the time he was done, 13 animals worth around $5,500 had been killed, including a turtle, bearded dragons and thorny devil lizards, Neindorf said. Although none were considered rare, some are difficult to replace, he said.
"We're horrified that anyone can do this and saddened by the age of the child," Neindorf said.
Lawsuit planned against boy's plans
Alice Springs police said they are unable to press charges against the boy because of his age. Children under age 10 can't be charged with criminal offenses in the Northern Territory. His name was not released because of his age.
Neindorf said he plans to sue the boy's parents.
The boy's small size is probably the reason he didn't trip the zoo's security system, which relies on sensors to detect intruders, Neindorf said.
"I just want people to learn that they can't let their children go and run amok," Neindorf said. "If we can't put the blame onto the child, then someone has to accept the responsibility."
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27005221/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i don't know what to say..........HOW messed up in the head have you got to be to do something remotely like this?
HELL yes the parents should be responsible and YES i do think they should take the blame for their psycho child!!!
castrate them all so they can't pollute the rest of the future gene pool.
SYDNEY, Australia - A 7-year-old boy broke into a popular Outback zoo, fed a string of animals to the resident crocodile and bashed several lizards to death with a rock, the zoo's director said Friday.
The 30-minute rampage, caught on the zoo's security camera, happened early Wednesday after the boy jumped a security fence at the Alice Springs Reptile Center in central Australia, said zoo director Rex Neindorf.
The child then went on a killing spree, bashing three lizards to death with a rock, including the zoo's beloved, 20-year-old goanna, which he then fed to "Terry," an 11-foot, 440-pound saltwater crocodile, said Neindorf.
The boy also fed several live animals to Terry by throwing them over the two fences surrounding the crocodile's enclosure, at one point climbing over the outer fence to get closer to the giant reptile.
'Like he was playing a game'
In the footage, the boy's face remains largely blank, Neindorf said, adding: "It was like he was playing a game."
By the time he was done, 13 animals worth around $5,500 had been killed, including a turtle, bearded dragons and thorny devil lizards, Neindorf said. Although none were considered rare, some are difficult to replace, he said.
"We're horrified that anyone can do this and saddened by the age of the child," Neindorf said.
Lawsuit planned against boy's plans
Alice Springs police said they are unable to press charges against the boy because of his age. Children under age 10 can't be charged with criminal offenses in the Northern Territory. His name was not released because of his age.
Neindorf said he plans to sue the boy's parents.
The boy's small size is probably the reason he didn't trip the zoo's security system, which relies on sensors to detect intruders, Neindorf said.
"I just want people to learn that they can't let their children go and run amok," Neindorf said. "If we can't put the blame onto the child, then someone has to accept the responsibility."
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27005221/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i don't know what to say..........HOW messed up in the head have you got to be to do something remotely like this?
HELL yes the parents should be responsible and YES i do think they should take the blame for their psycho child!!!
castrate them all so they can't pollute the rest of the future gene pool.
BRONZE Member
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
Posted:
Originally Posted By: StoneOriginally Posted By: hamamelisOh and Stone, Originally Posted By: stoneAs far as wild animals go, I think all wild indigenous animals should be protected.
Originally Posted By: hamamelisare you including rats and mosquitos in that?
It’s a very simple statement. I think all wild indigenous animals should be protected. What’s wrong with wanting to protect native species?
As far as the rest of the question goes. Mosquitoes are insects, and I’m not getting drawn into the vermin debate again.
It's not a simple statement at all, if you reserve the right to pick and chose your own exceptions. Meerkats are treated as vermin in the countries they're from (little pests, steal chickens..) Insects are animals. Animal doesn't just mean 'vertebrate'.
On my way to work right now, I'll try get back to this later...
Originally Posted By: StoneOriginally Posted By: hamamelisOh and Stone, Originally Posted By: stoneAs far as wild animals go, I think all wild indigenous animals should be protected.
Originally Posted By: hamamelisare you including rats and mosquitos in that?
It’s a very simple statement. I think all wild indigenous animals should be protected. What’s wrong with wanting to protect native species?
As far as the rest of the question goes. Mosquitoes are insects, and I’m not getting drawn into the vermin debate again.
It's not a simple statement at all, if you reserve the right to pick and chose your own exceptions. Meerkats are treated as vermin in the countries they're from (little pests, steal chickens..) Insects are animals. Animal doesn't just mean 'vertebrate'.
On my way to work right now, I'll try get back to this later...
THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!
If that's okay with you?
journeyman
99 posts
Location: canada
99 posts
Location: canada
Posted:
why do people consider meerkats vermin? I don't know much about meerkats, but as I understand them they are much like racoons and fox's combined in the ways they can come to interfere with human settlements.
It doesn't take much to protect your farm or homestead from fox's and racoons. Most farmers here in canada love racoons and fox's, and sure they will trap and kill them when they cause to much trouble, they also appreciate them as living creatures. Not treat them like vermin like they would consider true nuisance animals like crows, ferrets fishers, mice etc..
I find it perplexing people are so jump to classify wild life as vermin.
Im no vegetarian, I have eatten food I hunted, but I also have a kinship and respect for all animals.
why do people consider meerkats vermin? I don't know much about meerkats, but as I understand them they are much like racoons and fox's combined in the ways they can come to interfere with human settlements.
It doesn't take much to protect your farm or homestead from fox's and racoons. Most farmers here in canada love racoons and fox's, and sure they will trap and kill them when they cause to much trouble, they also appreciate them as living creatures. Not treat them like vermin like they would consider true nuisance animals like crows, ferrets fishers, mice etc..
I find it perplexing people are so jump to classify wild life as vermin.
Im no vegetarian, I have eatten food I hunted, but I also have a kinship and respect for all animals.
The less people know the more they believe
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: hamamelis It's not a simple statement at all, if you reserve the right to pick and chose your own exceptions. Meerkats are treated as vermin in the countries they're from (little pests, steal chickens..) Insects are animals. Animal doesn't just mean 'vertebrate'.
On my way to work right now, I'll try get back to this later...
hamamelis, you read a lot more into my statement than was intended. What I was thinking about at the time was - Mammals in danger on the planet of the doomed.
You said earlier that many pets would not survive in the wild. This is simply not true because pets like cats and dogs gone wild cause havoc with endangered native species. I think this is a people problem not an animal problem.
If meerkats are a problem in their homeland, then obviously nature is out of balance, and the only the only way to fix the problem is to restore the natural balance to the ecosystem. Perhaps this is where in-situ conservation is better solution rather than ex-situ conservation.
Originally Posted By: hamamelis It's not a simple statement at all, if you reserve the right to pick and chose your own exceptions. Meerkats are treated as vermin in the countries they're from (little pests, steal chickens..) Insects are animals. Animal doesn't just mean 'vertebrate'.
On my way to work right now, I'll try get back to this later...
hamamelis, you read a lot more into my statement than was intended. What I was thinking about at the time was - Mammals in danger on the planet of the doomed.
You said earlier that many pets would not survive in the wild. This is simply not true because pets like cats and dogs gone wild cause havoc with endangered native species. I think this is a people problem not an animal problem.
If meerkats are a problem in their homeland, then obviously nature is out of balance, and the only the only way to fix the problem is to restore the natural balance to the ecosystem. Perhaps this is where in-situ conservation is better solution rather than ex-situ conservation.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: OED emphasis by me
1. collect. Animals of a noxious or objectionable kind: a. Orig. applied to reptiles, stealthy or slinking animals, and various wild beasts; now, except in U.S. and Austr. (see sense b), almost entirely restricted to those animals or birds which prey upon preserved game, crops, etc. {dag}Also in phr. beast of vermin.
Not the faintest idea what meerkats eat, but I can see how they'd meet the description along with foxes and racoons (what I understand of what racoons do anyway, we don't have them).
Originally Posted By: OED emphasis by me
1. collect. Animals of a noxious or objectionable kind: a. Orig. applied to reptiles, stealthy or slinking animals, and various wild beasts; now, except in U.S. and Austr. (see sense b), almost entirely restricted to those animals or birds which prey upon preserved game, crops, etc. {dag}Also in phr. beast of vermin.
Not the faintest idea what meerkats eat, but I can see how they'd meet the description along with foxes and racoons (what I understand of what racoons do anyway, we don't have them).
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
BRONZE Member
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
Posted:
They're pretty omnivorous, very fond of eggs and young chicks- they also burrow a lot, which makes them very unpopular with farmers. I got that description from a South African farmer, who was trying to sell stuffed (real) ones, and didn't get why that wouldn't work in the UK very well when toy ones sold so well.
Originally Posted By: firetom How do zoo keepers live with the knowledge of keeping animals far away from their natural habitat? I mean look at Cheetas, Lions, Leopards - how do you justify to yourself to keep them in captivity? That always has puzzled me (same with Circus'). Maybe you can get me the right idea?
Well, for one thing, as I've said- animals are not idealists- they don't read books and get all worked up about their own rights- and if they look content, and act content- and breed, personally, I reckon they probably are content. Really, the more you see the reality of animals in well-cared for captivity, the more you realise animals don't react the same as us, and do not have the same desires, or the desires we think they *should* have. With a few exceptions (migratory species, for example) so long as animals have a territory that's their own, food, water, a mate, and a hidey hole/climbing area/somewhere to dig, depending on species, they don't really *want* anything else. Some smarter animals will get bored, and need things to play with, and for things to change a bit (not too much) every now and again. Remember, that list is what they'd be struggling to acheive their whole lives in the wild, and it would need to be defended.
Very few of the animals in zoos in the UK are taken from the wild- I'd say about 95% are born in captivity- and, as I've said, will actively try and break back in if they escape (and it's amazing how often, when fights break out or when youngsters reach the age they'd normally 'leave home', that animals do escape- you suddenly realise they could have done it all along, but never felt the need to..) . Out of the final 5%, I'd say 3% are 'rescue'- orphaned by hunters or confiscated by customs from smugglers, or unwanted pets and only about 2% are intentionally captured. In recent years they have been pretty much exclusively from animal populations in imminent danger of being wiped out. Yes, the ideal would be to protect the whole ecosystem in situ, and that happens as much as possible- but especially when it comes to predators, it's understandably very hard to persuade people living locally that they need to live in order for the system to have a chance of regenerating in the future- for example, one of the species I used to work with was the Madagascan fossa (nothing like that Madagascar film, they're gorgeous slinky, solitary animals, and an amazingly strong animal for their size)
As the human population of Madagascar has exploded since western medicine reached the rural areas, the forested areas (despite the local traditions of respecting nature) have been devestated in order to grow food (I believe the population has gone up around 400% in the last 50 years, it's pretty scary really..) and suddenly the fossas have nowhere to live- their normal prey, lemurs, are getting rarer and rarer- but are at least able to live in reserves happily near humans- so they've been moving closer to the villages, and changing their diet to hunt chickens, and livestock (and they have been recorded as attacking children..)
Yes, replanting the forests would be the best option- but there's a lot of people, and nowhere else for them to grow food. It's a very poor country, there's no way any ecotourism could develop for a nocturnal and very very hard to spot osbcure predator- though there are schemes trying to protect the animals in their native habitat- I really cannot see how leaving the fossas living near villages (which were the ones caught up to start the breeding program) to be shot be the villagers- who are, after all, only doing what they need to to live-is a better alternative than breeding them in places where people will pay money to see, which can then be used to protect their wild relatives, and when (if..) the current problems are over, they can be re-released..
Oh, and Originally Posted By: stone This is simply not true because pets like cats and dogs gone wild cause havoc with endangered native species. Well, yep, this is true- but the majority of individuals will die. There's a reason why you don't see mobs of wild chihuahuas terrorising the streets..
Even in the most sucessful re-release schemes to date, where animals are gradually weaned off supplementary food, only about 85% of them have survived until the end of the program- but those who do will generally have young who can cope a lot better- it's normally the second (and third.. and fouth..) generations of introduced species which cause the problems. Animals used to being cared for just don't recognise predators- and have no fear of hunters.. and aren't used to hunting for their own food so can starve, because they've never had to try very hard before.. Cats cause havoc largely because they are fed by people, but still live semi-wild- they can live at much higher population densities than any natural predator.
They're pretty omnivorous, very fond of eggs and young chicks- they also burrow a lot, which makes them very unpopular with farmers. I got that description from a South African farmer, who was trying to sell stuffed (real) ones, and didn't get why that wouldn't work in the UK very well when toy ones sold so well.
Originally Posted By: firetom How do zoo keepers live with the knowledge of keeping animals far away from their natural habitat? I mean look at Cheetas, Lions, Leopards - how do you justify to yourself to keep them in captivity? That always has puzzled me (same with Circus'). Maybe you can get me the right idea?
Well, for one thing, as I've said- animals are not idealists- they don't read books and get all worked up about their own rights- and if they look content, and act content- and breed, personally, I reckon they probably are content. Really, the more you see the reality of animals in well-cared for captivity, the more you realise animals don't react the same as us, and do not have the same desires, or the desires we think they *should* have. With a few exceptions (migratory species, for example) so long as animals have a territory that's their own, food, water, a mate, and a hidey hole/climbing area/somewhere to dig, depending on species, they don't really *want* anything else. Some smarter animals will get bored, and need things to play with, and for things to change a bit (not too much) every now and again. Remember, that list is what they'd be struggling to acheive their whole lives in the wild, and it would need to be defended.
Very few of the animals in zoos in the UK are taken from the wild- I'd say about 95% are born in captivity- and, as I've said, will actively try and break back in if they escape (and it's amazing how often, when fights break out or when youngsters reach the age they'd normally 'leave home', that animals do escape- you suddenly realise they could have done it all along, but never felt the need to..) . Out of the final 5%, I'd say 3% are 'rescue'- orphaned by hunters or confiscated by customs from smugglers, or unwanted pets and only about 2% are intentionally captured. In recent years they have been pretty much exclusively from animal populations in imminent danger of being wiped out. Yes, the ideal would be to protect the whole ecosystem in situ, and that happens as much as possible- but especially when it comes to predators, it's understandably very hard to persuade people living locally that they need to live in order for the system to have a chance of regenerating in the future- for example, one of the species I used to work with was the Madagascan fossa (nothing like that Madagascar film, they're gorgeous slinky, solitary animals, and an amazingly strong animal for their size)
As the human population of Madagascar has exploded since western medicine reached the rural areas, the forested areas (despite the local traditions of respecting nature) have been devestated in order to grow food (I believe the population has gone up around 400% in the last 50 years, it's pretty scary really..) and suddenly the fossas have nowhere to live- their normal prey, lemurs, are getting rarer and rarer- but are at least able to live in reserves happily near humans- so they've been moving closer to the villages, and changing their diet to hunt chickens, and livestock (and they have been recorded as attacking children..)
Yes, replanting the forests would be the best option- but there's a lot of people, and nowhere else for them to grow food. It's a very poor country, there's no way any ecotourism could develop for a nocturnal and very very hard to spot osbcure predator- though there are schemes trying to protect the animals in their native habitat- I really cannot see how leaving the fossas living near villages (which were the ones caught up to start the breeding program) to be shot be the villagers- who are, after all, only doing what they need to to live-is a better alternative than breeding them in places where people will pay money to see, which can then be used to protect their wild relatives, and when (if..) the current problems are over, they can be re-released..
Oh, and Originally Posted By: stone This is simply not true because pets like cats and dogs gone wild cause havoc with endangered native species. Well, yep, this is true- but the majority of individuals will die. There's a reason why you don't see mobs of wild chihuahuas terrorising the streets..
Even in the most sucessful re-release schemes to date, where animals are gradually weaned off supplementary food, only about 85% of them have survived until the end of the program- but those who do will generally have young who can cope a lot better- it's normally the second (and third.. and fouth..) generations of introduced species which cause the problems. Animals used to being cared for just don't recognise predators- and have no fear of hunters.. and aren't used to hunting for their own food so can starve, because they've never had to try very hard before.. Cats cause havoc largely because they are fed by people, but still live semi-wild- they can live at much higher population densities than any natural predator.
THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!
If that's okay with you?
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Well, one thing is that animals don't have much of the capacity to be idealistic - it's much about getting food and not become eaten.
Humans are the only ones who change their environment in order to survive (to that THAT extent), the others simply adapt. Whether or not that is a good thing, I don't quite know (looking at the problems coming with it). However humans chose to walk that path and that's what it is (for that instant in time). If we wouldn't know better, we would all feel as 'content' (or fate-struck if you may) and not change much. I've just been to Delhi, hey that looks like a bunch of people who don't change too much about their environment right there...
Even if animals would get all worked up about their rights - what would that help them, facing a bunch of shotguns? We just happen to have the better equipment when it comes to defend our territory.
Just because a species breeds, dosn't really mean that they are "content" - even when kept in captivity. I strongly oppose that notion. Life has a tendency just wanting to perpetuate itself - no matter what the consequences - up to a certain saturation.
If I wouldn't know ... my girlfriend, maybe I wouldn't miss her around? Thus, if a Cheetah has never experienced the hunt and running at it's pace - how should it miss it? I only remember that black panther in our zoo, the way it was walking up and down and that mix of sadness, anger and resignation in its eyes. But maybe that's only been my projection.
I have to admit that I'm split on the subject of keeping animals in a cage - no matter how much it resembles its natural habitat. Maybe I get too much reminded of people, living in the captivity of a socio-economic system...
But that's getting too far offtopic now.
Thanks for giving me an idea of how zookeepers cope, if I was to post some of my other (sarcastic) thoughts, it would not help to keep you calm.
As to the extinction of species: so far nobody really has an idea just how many species there really are on this planet and as far as I'm informed, all but 5% of the species that ever existed on planet earth got extinct in the past few million or so years. Don't get me wrong, I am *pro* wildlife conservation - a lot more than it might seem. And for that I agree that more people need that scheme... yet I fear that (as in Madagascar or anywhere else) the own (comfi) survival is always more important than that of others...
MG how far did I get off? need rest
Well, one thing is that animals don't have much of the capacity to be idealistic - it's much about getting food and not become eaten.
Humans are the only ones who change their environment in order to survive (to that THAT extent), the others simply adapt. Whether or not that is a good thing, I don't quite know (looking at the problems coming with it). However humans chose to walk that path and that's what it is (for that instant in time). If we wouldn't know better, we would all feel as 'content' (or fate-struck if you may) and not change much. I've just been to Delhi, hey that looks like a bunch of people who don't change too much about their environment right there...
Even if animals would get all worked up about their rights - what would that help them, facing a bunch of shotguns? We just happen to have the better equipment when it comes to defend our territory.
Just because a species breeds, dosn't really mean that they are "content" - even when kept in captivity. I strongly oppose that notion. Life has a tendency just wanting to perpetuate itself - no matter what the consequences - up to a certain saturation.
If I wouldn't know ... my girlfriend, maybe I wouldn't miss her around? Thus, if a Cheetah has never experienced the hunt and running at it's pace - how should it miss it? I only remember that black panther in our zoo, the way it was walking up and down and that mix of sadness, anger and resignation in its eyes. But maybe that's only been my projection.
I have to admit that I'm split on the subject of keeping animals in a cage - no matter how much it resembles its natural habitat. Maybe I get too much reminded of people, living in the captivity of a socio-economic system...
But that's getting too far offtopic now.
Thanks for giving me an idea of how zookeepers cope, if I was to post some of my other (sarcastic) thoughts, it would not help to keep you calm.
As to the extinction of species: so far nobody really has an idea just how many species there really are on this planet and as far as I'm informed, all but 5% of the species that ever existed on planet earth got extinct in the past few million or so years. Don't get me wrong, I am *pro* wildlife conservation - a lot more than it might seem. And for that I agree that more people need that scheme... yet I fear that (as in Madagascar or anywhere else) the own (comfi) survival is always more important than that of others...
MG how far did I get off? need rest
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
journeyman
99 posts
Location: canada
99 posts
Location: canada
Posted:
I do believe most species can be just as content in captivity as the wild, with a lot of good zoo keeping done. Many zoo's don't have skilled enough professionals, or enough space or enough money to do the job. So animals aren't as content as they could be.
But most respectable zoo's know how to keep their animals from atleast being malcontent.
I have been around domestic dogs my whole life most dog owners don't even try to make their dogs as happy as they can. All dogs are individuals, and all breeds have unique issues. For example a lot of people have high strung dogs that never get enough excersize, many shepard dogs are never as happy as they can be unless they have free reign of the country side like in a far.
But the dogs aren't unhappy, they just aren't as happy as a pig in $*%^. This is the way I see zoo animals. I know my dog fiends for any chance he gets to be off leash in the woods, he's not happy with dog parks as much as he is with the wilderness.
A tiger is content if it has a god habbitat in a zoo, but im sure it wants for more, even if it was raised in captivity. It may be considerably content, but part of it desires the challenge of stalking it's prey over miles of jungle and pounceing on it. But the tiger is still happy. and because of it is a zoo tiger, it will be unhappy or even dieing if it has to learn how to hunt in the wild after knowing nothing but a zoo.
A good book I read recently that discusses a lot of stuff about zoo's is life of pi. It's just an amazing book period, I reccomend it to anyone.
EDITED_BY: railspinner (1223569083)
I do believe most species can be just as content in captivity as the wild, with a lot of good zoo keeping done. Many zoo's don't have skilled enough professionals, or enough space or enough money to do the job. So animals aren't as content as they could be.
But most respectable zoo's know how to keep their animals from atleast being malcontent.
I have been around domestic dogs my whole life most dog owners don't even try to make their dogs as happy as they can. All dogs are individuals, and all breeds have unique issues. For example a lot of people have high strung dogs that never get enough excersize, many shepard dogs are never as happy as they can be unless they have free reign of the country side like in a far.
But the dogs aren't unhappy, they just aren't as happy as a pig in $*%^. This is the way I see zoo animals. I know my dog fiends for any chance he gets to be off leash in the woods, he's not happy with dog parks as much as he is with the wilderness.
A tiger is content if it has a god habbitat in a zoo, but im sure it wants for more, even if it was raised in captivity. It may be considerably content, but part of it desires the challenge of stalking it's prey over miles of jungle and pounceing on it. But the tiger is still happy. and because of it is a zoo tiger, it will be unhappy or even dieing if it has to learn how to hunt in the wild after knowing nothing but a zoo.
A good book I read recently that discusses a lot of stuff about zoo's is life of pi. It's just an amazing book period, I reccomend it to anyone.
EDITED_BY: railspinner (1223569083)
The less people know the more they believe
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
It's one thing to get upset, and call for the public execution of a child because he feeds a lizard to a croc. A pretty natural thing to do in overall scheme of things; we all feed our pets, right. Mind you, I didn’t see any signs saying "Do Not Feed the Animals". However, I think most of it has to do with a basic lack of understanding of animals, especially wild animals kept in captivity.
Originally Posted By: hamamelis Well, for one thing, as I've said- animals are not idealists- they don't read books and get all worked up about their own rights- and if they look content, and act content- and breed, personally, I reckon they probably are content. Really, the more you see the reality of animals in well-cared for captivity, the more you realise animals don't react the same as us, and do not have the same desires, or the desires we think they *should* have
hamamelis, I find that line of reasoning disturbing. It’s the same argument farmers use to justify battery hen egg production, keeping cows chained to milking machines and producing hamburgers in squalid feed lots down in Manitoba.
Originally Posted By: hamamelisWell, yep, this is true- but the majority of individuals will die. There's a reason why you don't see mobs of wild chihuahuas terrorising the streets..
Dunno about chihuahuas, but we do have wild dog problems in Australia.
wild dogs
Originally Posted By: railspinnerMany zoo's don't have skilled enough professionals, or enough space or enough money to do the job. So animals aren't as content as they could be.
Well, then perhaps they should shut down those zoos.
Originally Posted By: railspinnerI have been around domestic dogs my whole life most dog owners don't even try to make their dogs as happy as they can. All dogs are individuals, and all breeds have unique issues. For example a lot of people have high strung dogs that never get enough excersize, many shepard dogs are never as happy as they can be unless they have free reign of the country side like in a far.
railspinner, being around animals a long time does not an expert make. Dogs are basically grey wolves, a pack animal. If they are unhappy, it’s probably because their owner doesn’t understand that a pack needs a leader. And get this, dogs don’t need that much exercise.
It's one thing to get upset, and call for the public execution of a child because he feeds a lizard to a croc. A pretty natural thing to do in overall scheme of things; we all feed our pets, right. Mind you, I didn’t see any signs saying "Do Not Feed the Animals". However, I think most of it has to do with a basic lack of understanding of animals, especially wild animals kept in captivity.
Originally Posted By: hamamelis Well, for one thing, as I've said- animals are not idealists- they don't read books and get all worked up about their own rights- and if they look content, and act content- and breed, personally, I reckon they probably are content. Really, the more you see the reality of animals in well-cared for captivity, the more you realise animals don't react the same as us, and do not have the same desires, or the desires we think they *should* have
hamamelis, I find that line of reasoning disturbing. It’s the same argument farmers use to justify battery hen egg production, keeping cows chained to milking machines and producing hamburgers in squalid feed lots down in Manitoba.
Originally Posted By: hamamelisWell, yep, this is true- but the majority of individuals will die. There's a reason why you don't see mobs of wild chihuahuas terrorising the streets..
Dunno about chihuahuas, but we do have wild dog problems in Australia.
wild dogs
Originally Posted By: railspinnerMany zoo's don't have skilled enough professionals, or enough space or enough money to do the job. So animals aren't as content as they could be.
Well, then perhaps they should shut down those zoos.
Originally Posted By: railspinnerI have been around domestic dogs my whole life most dog owners don't even try to make their dogs as happy as they can. All dogs are individuals, and all breeds have unique issues. For example a lot of people have high strung dogs that never get enough excersize, many shepard dogs are never as happy as they can be unless they have free reign of the country side like in a far.
railspinner, being around animals a long time does not an expert make. Dogs are basically grey wolves, a pack animal. If they are unhappy, it’s probably because their owner doesn’t understand that a pack needs a leader. And get this, dogs don’t need that much exercise.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
journeyman
99 posts
Location: canada
99 posts
Location: canada
Posted:
Im not claiming to be an expert, im qualifying my experience with dogs to demostrate where I derive my opinion from.
a lot of "experts" are ridicilous. I saw a documtnery about chimpanzee's one time where they claimed chimpanzee's are the only animal smart enough to use a false alert call to trick it's mates into running away from food or something it wants.
Ive seen dogs go out and start barking, just to get another dog to run out and start baring at whatever the first dog is. then the first dog runs in and steals the second dogs bed.
If you rely on experts for what they know, then you don't know much
many experts claim a dog can only really learn about 40 diffrent commands.
It's not difficult to train a smart dog 200+ commands if you are good at training dogs and have a passion for it.
dogs aren't basicly a grey wolf. Their are tons of diffrence between grey wolf's and dogs. How do I know? I have been around lots of dog wolf mix's, and the behaviroual diffrence are completly obvious to anyone who is familar with dogs.
Im not claiming to be an expert, im qualifying my experience with dogs to demostrate where I derive my opinion from.
a lot of "experts" are ridicilous. I saw a documtnery about chimpanzee's one time where they claimed chimpanzee's are the only animal smart enough to use a false alert call to trick it's mates into running away from food or something it wants.
Ive seen dogs go out and start barking, just to get another dog to run out and start baring at whatever the first dog is. then the first dog runs in and steals the second dogs bed.
If you rely on experts for what they know, then you don't know much
many experts claim a dog can only really learn about 40 diffrent commands.
It's not difficult to train a smart dog 200+ commands if you are good at training dogs and have a passion for it.
dogs aren't basicly a grey wolf. Their are tons of diffrence between grey wolf's and dogs. How do I know? I have been around lots of dog wolf mix's, and the behaviroual diffrence are completly obvious to anyone who is familar with dogs.
The less people know the more they believe
BRONZE Member
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Stone
Originally Posted By: hamamelis Well, for one thing, as I've said- animals are not idealists- they don't read books and get all worked up about their own rights- and if they look content, and act content- and breed, personally, I reckon they probably are content. Really, the more you see the reality of animals in well-cared for captivity, the more you realise animals don't react the same as us, and do not have the same desires, or the desires we think they *should* have
hamamelis, I find that line of reasoning disturbing. It’s the same argument farmers use to justify battery hen egg production, keeping cows chained to milking machines and producing hamburgers in squalid feed lots down in Manitoba.
How? I've seen some pretty disturbing films and photos of animals kept in those situations- and they don't look content.. they don't act content.. That was sort of a central point..
I find it disturbing how a lot of people project their own desires onto animals- and decide that is what they MUST want, because that is how they would feel 'in that situation'. We associate cages with prisons, and all the negativity from that- a lot of animals will have their own small territory in the wild, (if they're lucky enough to win one) and will never leave it until they're forced out, or die. Some zooS hav had to remove bars from their enclosures, because of the human negative associations- when they can actually be a really good climbing frame, and significantly add to the enclosure- from the animals point of view. If you built a cage round your back garden, would your dog really care less? A lot of so called animal rights protestors are prone to getting human ideals and animal needs mixed up- and do things like 'releasing tropical animals to go free into the wild!' to die in the first frost.
Most animals will not successfully give birth and rear young if they are at all stressed. Farm animals do not rear their own young- and chickens have been bred for hundreds of generations to lay eggs in almost any conditions, before anyone tries to draw a parallel- they are very far from typical. Yes, there's a drive to breed, but if animals are unhappy, they don't put the effort into rearing (what would be the point, if the situation wasn't good enough? their instincts tell them that if they're stressed, they need to be on guard, and ready to run- and you can't do that if you're distracted by trying to rear babies.. far better to save your energy for when you get somewhere better)
By the way, a lot of 'pacing' behaviour in carnivores seems to be basically trying to make the time go faster before they're fed.. the fossas I used to work with did it every day just before dinner, but wouldn't bother in the evenings or mornings when they weren't due a meal- indicating it wasn't boredom, or an attempt to get out.
So.. what do you think should be done with the animals living in the zoos closed for lack of funds? Re-release? that's even more expensive.. Re-home them in other, better zoos? In what space? The place I was at was tiny- we still got offered at least 3 or 4 unwanted pets a week- larger places must get literally hundreds.. the classic one was the red-eared slider terrapin, I knew someone who worked in a council run free entry zoo in Leeds- they started off a pond with 10 of those, accepted about 10 more as donations... and when they counted up what was in the pond at the end of the year, they had over 50... last I heard, without officially accepting any more, they were at over 100 and had to build another pond..
Yes, there are dodgy places, and I'd join everyone else in calling for them to be closed down (don't get me started on one or two..) but they should be treated as individual cases, and not as though 'zoos are like this'- the list of species which *was* extinct in the wild and is now *not*, due to captive breeding schemes, is getting pretty long, and you need a pretty amazing reason to convince me at least that that is a bad thing.
Originally Posted By: Stone
Originally Posted By: hamamelis Well, for one thing, as I've said- animals are not idealists- they don't read books and get all worked up about their own rights- and if they look content, and act content- and breed, personally, I reckon they probably are content. Really, the more you see the reality of animals in well-cared for captivity, the more you realise animals don't react the same as us, and do not have the same desires, or the desires we think they *should* have
hamamelis, I find that line of reasoning disturbing. It’s the same argument farmers use to justify battery hen egg production, keeping cows chained to milking machines and producing hamburgers in squalid feed lots down in Manitoba.
How? I've seen some pretty disturbing films and photos of animals kept in those situations- and they don't look content.. they don't act content.. That was sort of a central point..
I find it disturbing how a lot of people project their own desires onto animals- and decide that is what they MUST want, because that is how they would feel 'in that situation'. We associate cages with prisons, and all the negativity from that- a lot of animals will have their own small territory in the wild, (if they're lucky enough to win one) and will never leave it until they're forced out, or die. Some zooS hav had to remove bars from their enclosures, because of the human negative associations- when they can actually be a really good climbing frame, and significantly add to the enclosure- from the animals point of view. If you built a cage round your back garden, would your dog really care less? A lot of so called animal rights protestors are prone to getting human ideals and animal needs mixed up- and do things like 'releasing tropical animals to go free into the wild!' to die in the first frost.
Most animals will not successfully give birth and rear young if they are at all stressed. Farm animals do not rear their own young- and chickens have been bred for hundreds of generations to lay eggs in almost any conditions, before anyone tries to draw a parallel- they are very far from typical. Yes, there's a drive to breed, but if animals are unhappy, they don't put the effort into rearing (what would be the point, if the situation wasn't good enough? their instincts tell them that if they're stressed, they need to be on guard, and ready to run- and you can't do that if you're distracted by trying to rear babies.. far better to save your energy for when you get somewhere better)
By the way, a lot of 'pacing' behaviour in carnivores seems to be basically trying to make the time go faster before they're fed.. the fossas I used to work with did it every day just before dinner, but wouldn't bother in the evenings or mornings when they weren't due a meal- indicating it wasn't boredom, or an attempt to get out.
So.. what do you think should be done with the animals living in the zoos closed for lack of funds? Re-release? that's even more expensive.. Re-home them in other, better zoos? In what space? The place I was at was tiny- we still got offered at least 3 or 4 unwanted pets a week- larger places must get literally hundreds.. the classic one was the red-eared slider terrapin, I knew someone who worked in a council run free entry zoo in Leeds- they started off a pond with 10 of those, accepted about 10 more as donations... and when they counted up what was in the pond at the end of the year, they had over 50... last I heard, without officially accepting any more, they were at over 100 and had to build another pond..
Yes, there are dodgy places, and I'd join everyone else in calling for them to be closed down (don't get me started on one or two..) but they should be treated as individual cases, and not as though 'zoos are like this'- the list of species which *was* extinct in the wild and is now *not*, due to captive breeding schemes, is getting pretty long, and you need a pretty amazing reason to convince me at least that that is a bad thing.
THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!
If that's okay with you?
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
Thanks Hama for reminding me of why I need to find some time to visit the Melbourne Zoo so I can fully shake off the trauma of visiting an Eastern European one
Thanks Hama for reminding me of why I need to find some time to visit the Melbourne Zoo so I can fully shake off the trauma of visiting an Eastern European one
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
hamamelis, what you say may be true. But, it seems to me like it’s a huge event when a wild animal breeds in captivity, mainly because it’s all over the nightly news. Then they tell me that female gorillas that breed in captivity, don’t learn nurturing skills. And I suspect that many of the captive breeding programmes probably involve artificial insemination, which is ok in the short term, but eventually the gene pool disintegrates and they become sterile.
So, what’s the long term solution?
Regardless of the cost, the only real long term solution is to preserve the natural environments for wild animals. I’d suggest the first step would be to convince people to stop eating so much meat; which we don’t need. I don’t think it’s wrong for people to project their own desires onto animals, otherwise it becomes impossible to see their plight. In the end, I don’t think change will happen until we start seeing our daily steak as Bambi, Daisy or Hazel.
Originally Posted By: railspinnerdogs aren't basicly a grey wolf. Their are tons of diffrence between grey wolf's and dogs. How do I know? I have been around lots of dog wolf mix's, and the behaviroual diffrence are completly obvious to anyone who is familar with dogs.
railspinner, fair point. Sometimes I forget that you guys grow up with wolves, bears and cougars. Or as stout calls them “red in tooth and claw”. Though, I think we can learn a lot from experts like “the dog whisper”, and “Dr Harry”. I think you will find that all the experts agree that the ancestry of dogs stemming from the gray wolf, and the importance of understanding pack mentality.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1223647207)
hamamelis, what you say may be true. But, it seems to me like it’s a huge event when a wild animal breeds in captivity, mainly because it’s all over the nightly news. Then they tell me that female gorillas that breed in captivity, don’t learn nurturing skills. And I suspect that many of the captive breeding programmes probably involve artificial insemination, which is ok in the short term, but eventually the gene pool disintegrates and they become sterile.
So, what’s the long term solution?
Regardless of the cost, the only real long term solution is to preserve the natural environments for wild animals. I’d suggest the first step would be to convince people to stop eating so much meat; which we don’t need. I don’t think it’s wrong for people to project their own desires onto animals, otherwise it becomes impossible to see their plight. In the end, I don’t think change will happen until we start seeing our daily steak as Bambi, Daisy or Hazel.
Originally Posted By: railspinnerdogs aren't basicly a grey wolf. Their are tons of diffrence between grey wolf's and dogs. How do I know? I have been around lots of dog wolf mix's, and the behaviroual diffrence are completly obvious to anyone who is familar with dogs.
railspinner, fair point. Sometimes I forget that you guys grow up with wolves, bears and cougars. Or as stout calls them “red in tooth and claw”. Though, I think we can learn a lot from experts like “the dog whisper”, and “Dr Harry”. I think you will find that all the experts agree that the ancestry of dogs stemming from the gray wolf, and the importance of understanding pack mentality.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1223647207)
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
"Breeding in captivity" ain't too convincing to me as in regards of "animals being content" - sorry to say that. A decent shag in jail if opportunity arises - why not?
My "projection" on animals might completely be failing reality... given that. I'm no expert. Just hoping that zoos are not be used as an excuse for "well we extinct them in the wild, but at least we can breed them in captivity"... in this context I would think it's better to videotape them, keep their genetic material and let them fall prey to civilization...
To me, "freedom" is an irreplaceable good, which not even human affection can truly substitute for. As for domesticated animals (like cats and dogs) its a different story though - maybe my double standards... given that. Whereas I don't support big dogs or cats exclusively kept in flats and generally oppose fishtanks and birdcages (the latter IMHO is cruelty).
I accept the passion you have for your profession and - as indicated before - don't necessarily judge a character based upon it. You're an intelligent, compassionate person - there is no doubt about that. Also I never tried to offend you or zookeepers in general, only tried to make a point (most likely not *so* well worded). Definitely you're not the same as butchers, as you prolong and nurture life - and they end it.
Just tried to point out - and started all this strolling - that we tend to create boxes, which in turn is not serving the issue itself... that's all I tried to emphasize.
"Breeding in captivity" ain't too convincing to me as in regards of "animals being content" - sorry to say that. A decent shag in jail if opportunity arises - why not?
My "projection" on animals might completely be failing reality... given that. I'm no expert. Just hoping that zoos are not be used as an excuse for "well we extinct them in the wild, but at least we can breed them in captivity"... in this context I would think it's better to videotape them, keep their genetic material and let them fall prey to civilization...
To me, "freedom" is an irreplaceable good, which not even human affection can truly substitute for. As for domesticated animals (like cats and dogs) its a different story though - maybe my double standards... given that. Whereas I don't support big dogs or cats exclusively kept in flats and generally oppose fishtanks and birdcages (the latter IMHO is cruelty).
I accept the passion you have for your profession and - as indicated before - don't necessarily judge a character based upon it. You're an intelligent, compassionate person - there is no doubt about that. Also I never tried to offend you or zookeepers in general, only tried to make a point (most likely not *so* well worded). Definitely you're not the same as butchers, as you prolong and nurture life - and they end it.
Just tried to point out - and started all this strolling - that we tend to create boxes, which in turn is not serving the issue itself... that's all I tried to emphasize.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Just thinking out loud here...
But whose to say that animals are concerned with being happy in the sense that we as humans are preoccupied with the idea. For all we know, contentment in having all your basic needs met does equal happiness for an animal. No worries about finding food, no worries about finding and fighting for a mate, no worries about that abscessed tooth that makes eating a chore, no worries about predators...seems to me eliminating those stresses might just lead to what we call happiness....to the mind of an animal.
If we factor in the idea that nature's "prime directive" is continuation of the species with the "individual" being only a part of that "greater plan" applying the idea of happiness as we. as a species, are constantly questing for, might not be as "important" to the mind of an animal as we might think.
We as a species have the opportunity to live 'as nature intended" that is as hunter gatherers mainly concerned with survival, but it's only when we have those survival needs met do we concern ourselves with the greater philosophical ideal of happiness. The power of reason might just be working against us in this regard.
Stone, I didn't coin the phrase red in tooth and claw, I just used it..
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/red-in-tooth-and-claw.html
Just thinking out loud here...
But whose to say that animals are concerned with being happy in the sense that we as humans are preoccupied with the idea. For all we know, contentment in having all your basic needs met does equal happiness for an animal. No worries about finding food, no worries about finding and fighting for a mate, no worries about that abscessed tooth that makes eating a chore, no worries about predators...seems to me eliminating those stresses might just lead to what we call happiness....to the mind of an animal.
If we factor in the idea that nature's "prime directive" is continuation of the species with the "individual" being only a part of that "greater plan" applying the idea of happiness as we. as a species, are constantly questing for, might not be as "important" to the mind of an animal as we might think.
We as a species have the opportunity to live 'as nature intended" that is as hunter gatherers mainly concerned with survival, but it's only when we have those survival needs met do we concern ourselves with the greater philosophical ideal of happiness. The power of reason might just be working against us in this regard.
Stone, I didn't coin the phrase red in tooth and claw, I just used it..
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/red-in-tooth-and-claw.html
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Originally Posted By: StonePerhaps the kid was Aboriginal, given that this is outback Australia we are talking about, and not down town suburbia.
Personally I'd be more careful, jumping such conclusions...
Maybe the whole topic boils down to:
- do animals contemplate beyond their natural drives?
- do animals have a soul?
- do animals have a religion?
Definitely they can suffer, develop depression, experience joy and other mental states that might be comparable to human conditions. So why are we depriving them of those conditions that would make us look really really even worse when treating them as we currently do?
Why are insects considered animals 2nd class? I'm still missing an answer to that one and go to bed now....
Originally Posted By: StonePerhaps the kid was Aboriginal, given that this is outback Australia we are talking about, and not down town suburbia.
Personally I'd be more careful, jumping such conclusions...
Maybe the whole topic boils down to:
- do animals contemplate beyond their natural drives?
- do animals have a soul?
- do animals have a religion?
Definitely they can suffer, develop depression, experience joy and other mental states that might be comparable to human conditions. So why are we depriving them of those conditions that would make us look really really even worse when treating them as we currently do?
Why are insects considered animals 2nd class? I'm still missing an answer to that one and go to bed now....
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
journeyman
99 posts
Location: canada
99 posts
Location: canada
Posted:
stone yeah. Im not saying they aren't very close to wolves, and to understand domestic dogs deeply you need to know a lot about wolves and wolf pack behaviour.
domestic dogs are far less inclined towards pack mentality then wolves. Not many people have the heart, knowledge and patience to safely raise wolf/domestic breed mixes. They will often attack their owners if they feel they are stronger then they are and wish to take the position of dominance. If you try to dominate them like you would a domestic dog challenging your dominance (the way I did this with my dog when he was younger was flipping him on his back and towering over him, or biteing his lip gently while he was flipped on his back if he was being really bratty) could cause a wolf or wolf mix to attack you. You can't over dominate them because they just can't take it (good look flipping any dog with wolf in it on it's back BTW)
Domestic dogs also all have unique desires. Wolves desire lots of open space, running off leash, and wilderness, amongst other things.
But you take a labradour retriver, and all it wants in life is to swim, and retrive anything and everything. a content german shepard desires to please it's owner doing tasks which it is trained to do. Australian sheppards fiend for shepparding sheep (or gaggles of playing children or a bunch of ducks) etc etc etc..
I met a old lady in vancouver last year who had a pure rain wolf mix, which are rare wolves from the queen charolete islands. Her son rescued it from a construction site, someone had captured a litter of them and tried to burn them alive, only one survived and it took her son a week to corner it, he brought it to his mom who is wheel chair bound (he thought it was some type of border collie cross) as a companion, but it grew into a full sized wolf. I had a long talk with her about it and she said it was the most well behaved dog she ever had, it had no aggression in it and was always loyal and ready to listen to her.
This shows just how their is no rules to dogs, their is an exception to every one you can come up with, this rain wolf defied conventional wisdome about pet wild animals and showed just how every dog truelly is a strong individual. Pretty neat stuff I think (huge dog lover)
Oh and a good quote on projecting ourselves onto dogs.
"A dog is not 'almost human' and I know of no greater insult to the canine race than to describe it as such. The dog can do many things which man cannot do, never could do and never will do." - John Holmes
EDITED_BY: railspinner (1223650996)
stone yeah. Im not saying they aren't very close to wolves, and to understand domestic dogs deeply you need to know a lot about wolves and wolf pack behaviour.
domestic dogs are far less inclined towards pack mentality then wolves. Not many people have the heart, knowledge and patience to safely raise wolf/domestic breed mixes. They will often attack their owners if they feel they are stronger then they are and wish to take the position of dominance. If you try to dominate them like you would a domestic dog challenging your dominance (the way I did this with my dog when he was younger was flipping him on his back and towering over him, or biteing his lip gently while he was flipped on his back if he was being really bratty) could cause a wolf or wolf mix to attack you. You can't over dominate them because they just can't take it (good look flipping any dog with wolf in it on it's back BTW)
Domestic dogs also all have unique desires. Wolves desire lots of open space, running off leash, and wilderness, amongst other things.
But you take a labradour retriver, and all it wants in life is to swim, and retrive anything and everything. a content german shepard desires to please it's owner doing tasks which it is trained to do. Australian sheppards fiend for shepparding sheep (or gaggles of playing children or a bunch of ducks) etc etc etc..
I met a old lady in vancouver last year who had a pure rain wolf mix, which are rare wolves from the queen charolete islands. Her son rescued it from a construction site, someone had captured a litter of them and tried to burn them alive, only one survived and it took her son a week to corner it, he brought it to his mom who is wheel chair bound (he thought it was some type of border collie cross) as a companion, but it grew into a full sized wolf. I had a long talk with her about it and she said it was the most well behaved dog she ever had, it had no aggression in it and was always loyal and ready to listen to her.
This shows just how their is no rules to dogs, their is an exception to every one you can come up with, this rain wolf defied conventional wisdome about pet wild animals and showed just how every dog truelly is a strong individual. Pretty neat stuff I think (huge dog lover)
Oh and a good quote on projecting ourselves onto dogs.
"A dog is not 'almost human' and I know of no greater insult to the canine race than to describe it as such. The dog can do many things which man cannot do, never could do and never will do." - John Holmes
EDITED_BY: railspinner (1223650996)
The less people know the more they believe
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: StoutStone, I didn't coin the phrase red in tooth and claw, I just used it.
Thanks for the information on “red in tooth and claw”. I’m thinking it’s time to read one of Richard Dawkins books. The Ancestor's Tale is currently in bookshops.
Regarding the greater philosophical ideal of happiness. The power of reason might work for us if we ever got out of our survival “rat race” mode. I’m not sure if you ever followed up on Buddhism. From their point of view, all the unhappiness in the world is caused by chasing happiness. This is explained in the Twelve Nidanas.
Originally Posted By: Fire TomPersonally I'd be more careful, jumping such conclusions...
How so Fire Tom? You said something similar earlier about assuming that those outside the western world might have different standards regarding zoos. I wasn’t intentionally being derogatory. I was simply pointing that people from a culture going back 70,000 years in Australia, might see things differently to white fellas.
Btw, if anyone is in Australia, then the much anticipated series, The First Australian starts Sunday night on SBS.
Originally Posted By: railspinnerstone yeah. Im not saying they aren't very close to wolves, and to understand domestic dogs deeply you need to know a lot about wolves and wolf pack behaviour.
That about sums it up. As far as the position dominance goes. I live next door to an American pit bull, which are supposedly banned in Australia. The dog is terribly unhappy, and barks constantly when the owners are out, which is often. I just totally ignore the dog, and I’m hoping this is the best way to get on with it.
Nice quote.
Originally Posted By: StoutStone, I didn't coin the phrase red in tooth and claw, I just used it.
Thanks for the information on “red in tooth and claw”. I’m thinking it’s time to read one of Richard Dawkins books. The Ancestor's Tale is currently in bookshops.
Regarding the greater philosophical ideal of happiness. The power of reason might work for us if we ever got out of our survival “rat race” mode. I’m not sure if you ever followed up on Buddhism. From their point of view, all the unhappiness in the world is caused by chasing happiness. This is explained in the Twelve Nidanas.
Originally Posted By: Fire TomPersonally I'd be more careful, jumping such conclusions...
How so Fire Tom? You said something similar earlier about assuming that those outside the western world might have different standards regarding zoos. I wasn’t intentionally being derogatory. I was simply pointing that people from a culture going back 70,000 years in Australia, might see things differently to white fellas.
Btw, if anyone is in Australia, then the much anticipated series, The First Australian starts Sunday night on SBS.
Originally Posted By: railspinnerstone yeah. Im not saying they aren't very close to wolves, and to understand domestic dogs deeply you need to know a lot about wolves and wolf pack behaviour.
That about sums it up. As far as the position dominance goes. I live next door to an American pit bull, which are supposedly banned in Australia. The dog is terribly unhappy, and barks constantly when the owners are out, which is often. I just totally ignore the dog, and I’m hoping this is the best way to get on with it.
Nice quote.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
You might not have meant it derogatory but it seems to be a sensitive topic (as the history of this thread has shown) - I mean hey... no pun, but:
Originally Posted By: WikiAccording to the 2001 census, Australian Aborigines make up approximately 17% of the population of Alice Springs, and 29% of the Northern Territory.
Thus your statement has a staggering 71 - 83% chance of being incorrect...
Now prove the same to my assumption... (sorry to quote Wiki though..)
Originally Posted By: StoneRegarding the greater philosophical ideal of happiness. The power of reason might work for us if we ever got out of our survival “rat race” mode. I’m not sure if you ever followed up on Buddhism. From their point of view, all the unhappiness in the world is caused by chasing happiness. This is explained in the Twelve Nidanas.
Apart from not knowing which lineage of Buddhism you would be referring to (and the fact that Tibetan and Thai Buddhists do kill and eat animals) - I would *assume* that zoo animals are pretty close to enlightenment, as they seem to give into their fate and 'stop chasing happiness'. Which then would make mankind facilitating spiritual growth of animals by voluntarily torturing, imprisoning and killing animals - which, in this line of reasoning, would make us their gatekeepers to Nirvana...
This certainly would not apply to the American pitbull next door (at this point at least) - however I tried to point out the chance that animals develop mental disorders (when held in captivity at least) and the dog barking all day might just be there... btw: you might not be ignoring the dog but it's careless owner (IMHO)...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1223706729)
You might not have meant it derogatory but it seems to be a sensitive topic (as the history of this thread has shown) - I mean hey... no pun, but:
Originally Posted By: WikiAccording to the 2001 census, Australian Aborigines make up approximately 17% of the population of Alice Springs, and 29% of the Northern Territory.
Thus your statement has a staggering 71 - 83% chance of being incorrect...
Now prove the same to my assumption... (sorry to quote Wiki though..)Originally Posted By: StoneRegarding the greater philosophical ideal of happiness. The power of reason might work for us if we ever got out of our survival “rat race” mode. I’m not sure if you ever followed up on Buddhism. From their point of view, all the unhappiness in the world is caused by chasing happiness. This is explained in the Twelve Nidanas.
Apart from not knowing which lineage of Buddhism you would be referring to (and the fact that Tibetan and Thai Buddhists do kill and eat animals) - I would *assume* that zoo animals are pretty close to enlightenment, as they seem to give into their fate and 'stop chasing happiness'. Which then would make mankind facilitating spiritual growth of animals by voluntarily torturing, imprisoning and killing animals - which, in this line of reasoning, would make us their gatekeepers to Nirvana...
This certainly would not apply to the American pitbull next door (at this point at least) - however I tried to point out the chance that animals develop mental disorders (when held in captivity at least) and the dog barking all day might just be there... btw: you might not be ignoring the dog but it's careless owner (IMHO)...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1223706729)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
Well, Tom, I believe in all buddhism, only humans are capable of escaping samsara, but your argument would work if we took it as humans being facilitators to these animals reaching a more elevated incarnation in the future, possibly one that would allow them to escape samsara.
Well, Tom, I believe in all buddhism, only humans are capable of escaping samsara, but your argument would work if we took it as humans being facilitators to these animals reaching a more elevated incarnation in the future, possibly one that would allow them to escape samsara.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Hi Stone,,,I'm treating the follow up on Buddhism as an ongoing project, it's a rather slow process as there's some assumptions I'm unwilling to make in order to follow the "religious" aspect ( which IMO seems to be the most commonly pursued and talked about facet ) meaning my practical application of Buddhism tack is going nowhere fast. Unfortunately, I never got a copy of Guide to The Buddhist Path, as the bookstore I ordered it from closed down...good thing it wasn't prepaid.
I'm still working on this difference between contentment and happiness being a purely human endeavour and I thought I had a couple of examples where animals have left a life of contentment in order to pursue their happiness. I'll have to think about it more, as those animals may have been content, but there might have been stressors in those contented lives that negated that contentment. Also, trying to work in the idea of enlightenment and it's relationship to contentment and happiness is proving rather interesting.
At this point I may assert that enlightenment equals contentment with that apparently widely elusive concept of happiness being a purely human pursuit and suggest that if animals were at all "religious", they'd be Buddhists.
I might just be on crack with this line of thinking though.
I've had a similar situation to your pit bull one, IMO, the dog is not content because it's needs as a gregarious ( pack ) animal are not being met. There's nothing you can do really, except make repeated calls to whomever deals with noise and animal cruelty issues. Maybe get the neighbours on side too, I'm sure nobody likes listening to this dog bark out his loneliness and misery.
Of course, it's a pit bull, which is the canine equivalent of a handgun and most people don't get that breed unless they're trying to convey an image. Chances are, the owner doesn't give a rip about the dog's mental state and just might like mistreating in order to "make it mean"
So what do you figure...are wild animals possibly walking the 4/8 ? Might they be in an enlightened stat of mind ?
Hi Stone,,,I'm treating the follow up on Buddhism as an ongoing project, it's a rather slow process as there's some assumptions I'm unwilling to make in order to follow the "religious" aspect ( which IMO seems to be the most commonly pursued and talked about facet ) meaning my practical application of Buddhism tack is going nowhere fast. Unfortunately, I never got a copy of Guide to The Buddhist Path, as the bookstore I ordered it from closed down...good thing it wasn't prepaid.
I'm still working on this difference between contentment and happiness being a purely human endeavour and I thought I had a couple of examples where animals have left a life of contentment in order to pursue their happiness. I'll have to think about it more, as those animals may have been content, but there might have been stressors in those contented lives that negated that contentment. Also, trying to work in the idea of enlightenment and it's relationship to contentment and happiness is proving rather interesting.
At this point I may assert that enlightenment equals contentment with that apparently widely elusive concept of happiness being a purely human pursuit and suggest that if animals were at all "religious", they'd be Buddhists.
I might just be on crack with this line of thinking though.
I've had a similar situation to your pit bull one, IMO, the dog is not content because it's needs as a gregarious ( pack ) animal are not being met. There's nothing you can do really, except make repeated calls to whomever deals with noise and animal cruelty issues. Maybe get the neighbours on side too, I'm sure nobody likes listening to this dog bark out his loneliness and misery.
Of course, it's a pit bull, which is the canine equivalent of a handgun and most people don't get that breed unless they're trying to convey an image. Chances are, the owner doesn't give a rip about the dog's mental state and just might like mistreating in order to "make it mean"
So what do you figure...are wild animals possibly walking the 4/8 ? Might they be in an enlightened stat of mind ?
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
And btw Stone, heard of any "Karma by not acting"? (as I said: not sure which lineage of Buddhism is yours):
So you manage to 'ignore' the barking Pitbull next door... great meditational exercise for you if you succeed, innit? Next thing you know is that this Pitbull runs out on the street and kills a kid - or is it only me who just thought it sounds like "another classified dog bound to snap due to continued neglect of its owners..." and neighbors
And btw Stone, heard of any "Karma by not acting"? (as I said: not sure which lineage of Buddhism is yours):
So you manage to 'ignore' the barking Pitbull next door... great meditational exercise for you if you succeed, innit?
Next thing you know is that this Pitbull runs out on the street and kills a kid - or is it only me who just thought it sounds like "another classified dog bound to snap due to continued neglect of its owners..." and neighbors the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Hi Stout, I can understand some of those “religious” reservations because I was more than a little “freaked-out” the first time I participated in a seven stage Puja. So, I’m thinking about starting a thread on Buddhism where people can “discuss” the practical aspects of Buddhism.
Originally Posted By: StoutSo what do you figure...are wild animals possibly walking the 4/8 ? Might they be in an enlightened state of mind ?
I’m not sure what you mean by 4/8. And, at risk of bringing up more misunderstandings about Buddhism, I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the myth about people who create bad karma in their lives being reincarnated as animals.
The pit bull. I don’t think the owners of the pit bull are trying to make it mean. I think they got it for status, but don’t really have a clue about owning or training dogs.
Originally Posted By: Fire Tomre Stone: You might not have meant it derogatory but it seems to be a sensitive topic (as the history of this thread has shown) - I mean hey... no pun, but:
Fire Tom, give the obvious skills shown with the goanna, croc and other reptiles, all I’m suggesting is there may be more to this, than meets the eye. And along with Buddhism, and other topics, this seems like another example of censoring what people can and cannot say.
Originally Posted By: Fire TomNow prove the same to my assumption...
Fire Tom, I’m not sure that that your point is relevant. However, what I d say is it’s difficult to establish accurate figures for a mobile population, given the current methods used by ABS to collect census data. A more realistic estimate, from the Desert Knowledge CRC, would be about 40%.
Originally Posted By: Fire TomApart from not knowing which lineage of Buddhism you would be referring to (and the fact that Tibetan and Thai Buddhists do kill and eat animals) - I would *assume* that zoo animals are pretty close to enlightenment, as they seem to give into their fate and 'stop chasing happiness'. Which then would make mankind facilitating spiritual growth of animals by voluntarily torturing, imprisoning and killing animals - which, in this line of reasoning, would make us their gatekeepers to Nirvana.
Fire Tom I live in the west, so I’m a western Buddhist. If you want a label then perhaps Mahayana will do. Though like MNS, I believe in all Buddhism.
As to your *assumptions* regarding Buddhist ethics. I suggest you learn a bit more about Buddhist ethics before making unfounded judgements.
Originally Posted By: Fire TomThis certainly would not apply to the American pitbull next door (at this point at least) - however I tried to point out the chance that animals develop mental disorders (when held in captivity at least) and the dog barking all day might just be there... btw: you might not be ignoring the dog but it's careless owner (IMHO)...
……And btw Stone, heard of any "Karma by not acting"? (as I said: not sure which lineage of Buddhism is yours)
I think you will find that there is a big difference between people keeping domesticated animals like dogs, compared to caging wild animals.
I’d suggest your "Karma by not acting… great meditation exercise" statements are meant to be inflame. The dog is confined in a back yard. We have talked to the authorities, and neighbours. The owners say they are responsible dog owners. And personally, I’m prepared to put up with the barking rather than having the animal destroyed. Basically, I think the owners just don’t understand dogs.
Hi Stout, I can understand some of those “religious” reservations because I was more than a little “freaked-out” the first time I participated in a seven stage Puja. So, I’m thinking about starting a thread on Buddhism where people can “discuss” the practical aspects of Buddhism.
Originally Posted By: StoutSo what do you figure...are wild animals possibly walking the 4/8 ? Might they be in an enlightened state of mind ?
I’m not sure what you mean by 4/8. And, at risk of bringing up more misunderstandings about Buddhism, I’m surprised that no one has mentioned the myth about people who create bad karma in their lives being reincarnated as animals.
The pit bull. I don’t think the owners of the pit bull are trying to make it mean. I think they got it for status, but don’t really have a clue about owning or training dogs.
Originally Posted By: Fire Tomre Stone: You might not have meant it derogatory but it seems to be a sensitive topic (as the history of this thread has shown) - I mean hey... no pun, but:
Fire Tom, give the obvious skills shown with the goanna, croc and other reptiles, all I’m suggesting is there may be more to this, than meets the eye. And along with Buddhism, and other topics, this seems like another example of censoring what people can and cannot say.
Originally Posted By: Fire TomNow prove the same to my assumption...
Fire Tom, I’m not sure that that your point is relevant. However, what I d say is it’s difficult to establish accurate figures for a mobile population, given the current methods used by ABS to collect census data. A more realistic estimate, from the Desert Knowledge CRC, would be about 40%.
Originally Posted By: Fire TomApart from not knowing which lineage of Buddhism you would be referring to (and the fact that Tibetan and Thai Buddhists do kill and eat animals) - I would *assume* that zoo animals are pretty close to enlightenment, as they seem to give into their fate and 'stop chasing happiness'. Which then would make mankind facilitating spiritual growth of animals by voluntarily torturing, imprisoning and killing animals - which, in this line of reasoning, would make us their gatekeepers to Nirvana.
Fire Tom I live in the west, so I’m a western Buddhist. If you want a label then perhaps Mahayana will do. Though like MNS, I believe in all Buddhism.
As to your *assumptions* regarding Buddhist ethics. I suggest you learn a bit more about Buddhist ethics before making unfounded judgements.
Originally Posted By: Fire TomThis certainly would not apply to the American pitbull next door (at this point at least) - however I tried to point out the chance that animals develop mental disorders (when held in captivity at least) and the dog barking all day might just be there... btw: you might not be ignoring the dog but it's careless owner (IMHO)...
……And btw Stone, heard of any "Karma by not acting"? (as I said: not sure which lineage of Buddhism is yours)
I think you will find that there is a big difference between people keeping domesticated animals like dogs, compared to caging wild animals.
I’d suggest your "Karma by not acting… great meditation exercise" statements are meant to be inflame. The dog is confined in a back yard. We have talked to the authorities, and neighbours. The owners say they are responsible dog owners. And personally, I’m prepared to put up with the barking rather than having the animal destroyed. Basically, I think the owners just don’t understand dogs.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Hi Stone, I googled Puja, and I can't say it's something I'd be interested in other than knowing what it actually is and what benefit a participant might hope to gain from performing it. Now I know.
By 4/8 I was using shorthand for the Four Nobel truths and the Eightfold Path, concepts, that as I've previously stated are very difficult for me to find fault with...and I tried to.
See, that myth about Karma and being reborn as an animal ( I've made references to this too, something along the lines of being reborn as a hagfish ) is one of the assumptions I'm unwilling to make..IE, I refuse to believe it as it's just another one of those examples of using fear of what might/will happen in the afterlife in order to enforce "the rules"
With domestic dogs, I quite often hear crap like " I don't want my pet to rule my life " as an excuse for leaving their pet alone for extended periods of time. These people, I figure should have either cats or tropical fish,because, depending on the breed, dogs are pack animals and tend to stress out if they're left out of the pack....maybe your frequently out neighbours might consider a second dog, just to keep the first one company.
Quote:I think you will find that there is a big difference between people keeping domesticated animals like dogs, compared to caging wild animals
Yes, I agree...a very big difference.
Hi Stone, I googled Puja, and I can't say it's something I'd be interested in other than knowing what it actually is and what benefit a participant might hope to gain from performing it. Now I know.
By 4/8 I was using shorthand for the Four Nobel truths and the Eightfold Path, concepts, that as I've previously stated are very difficult for me to find fault with...and I tried to.
See, that myth about Karma and being reborn as an animal ( I've made references to this too, something along the lines of being reborn as a hagfish ) is one of the assumptions I'm unwilling to make..IE, I refuse to believe it as it's just another one of those examples of using fear of what might/will happen in the afterlife in order to enforce "the rules"
With domestic dogs, I quite often hear crap like " I don't want my pet to rule my life " as an excuse for leaving their pet alone for extended periods of time. These people, I figure should have either cats or tropical fish,because, depending on the breed, dogs are pack animals and tend to stress out if they're left out of the pack....maybe your frequently out neighbours might consider a second dog, just to keep the first one company.
Quote:I think you will find that there is a big difference between people keeping domesticated animals like dogs, compared to caging wild animals
Yes, I agree...a very big difference.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Hi Stout, that’s a great tip on my neighbours getting a second dog.
The Sevenfold Puja is designed to arouse the Bodhicitta, which is the will to enlightenment for all sentient beings. From a more practical aspect, meditation is the key to the any self development. I think the fear of being re born an animal may have been used as a parable, in the past, to convey the message of living a good life.
Have to rush, thanks for your input
Hi Stout, that’s a great tip on my neighbours getting a second dog.
The Sevenfold Puja is designed to arouse the Bodhicitta, which is the will to enlightenment for all sentient beings. From a more practical aspect, meditation is the key to the any self development. I think the fear of being re born an animal may have been used as a parable, in the past, to convey the message of living a good life.
Have to rush, thanks for your input
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
journeyman
99 posts
Location: canada
99 posts
Location: canada
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Stout
Of course, it's a pit bull, which is the canine equivalent of a handgun and most people don't get that breed unless they're trying to convey an image. Chances are, the owner doesn't give a rip about the dog's mental state and just might like mistreating in order to "make it mean"
What? The equivalent of a hand gun? Man their are pitbull bans ariseing all over the world, in the last year 3 major municipalitys in canada have enacted pitbull bans. It's statements like that that really bother me. It is true many pitbull owners have their dogs because they think they are "tough" or whatever. their is also all kinds of pitbull owners who just like the breed.
Pitbulls are not human aggresive typically, the ones that maul people are raritys. they are known to put up with extreme amounts of abuse before they turn human aggresive. they do have a natural inclination towards animal aggression that can be a handfull for many dog owners (who don't want a fighting dog like some scum bags do)
Did you know pitbull breeders often get rotweilers and shepards to guard their kennels because pitbulls are terrible guard dogs, even over their own litters.
The pitbull bans are only going to result in scum bag dog owners who want tough and aggresive dogs to resort to dog breed that are a lot more dangerous. the problem isn't the breed it's the owners, and the owners aren't going away. Mark my word in 10 year the next breed you hear about in sensationalized media about dog mauilings will be rotweilers, ridgebacks or some other large breed powerful dog. In the 50's the popular image of pitbulls was a gentle, family dog.
20 years ago the feared dog was sheppards, before that standard size poodles.
Their is so many myths about pitbulls it's ridicilous.
for one thing, what most people classify as a pitbull isn't a pitbull, What is a pitbull anyways? Only one breed could be considered a pitbull and that is theamerican pit bull terrier. most people consider pitbulls either american pit bull terriers, american staffordshire terrire, staffordshord bull terrier, or any dog that has short hair and vaguely resembles a 'pit bull'
Pitbulls don't have lockjaw. no canine has a jaw that locks. What people mistake for 'lockjaw' is a dog not wanting to let go. All dogs are capable of biteing someone and not letting go. Pitbulls also don't have terribly strong bites compared to many other breeds. many dogs, even small breed dogs can cause serious damage if they attack someone.
PS-depending on the statistics you use, pitbulls are typically the 5 or 6th most reported dog in instance involveing dog attacks. Why the reputation? Ignorance.
EDITED_BY: railspinner (1223866672)
Originally Posted By: Stout
Of course, it's a pit bull, which is the canine equivalent of a handgun and most people don't get that breed unless they're trying to convey an image. Chances are, the owner doesn't give a rip about the dog's mental state and just might like mistreating in order to "make it mean"
What? The equivalent of a hand gun? Man their are pitbull bans ariseing all over the world, in the last year 3 major municipalitys in canada have enacted pitbull bans. It's statements like that that really bother me. It is true many pitbull owners have their dogs because they think they are "tough" or whatever. their is also all kinds of pitbull owners who just like the breed.
Pitbulls are not human aggresive typically, the ones that maul people are raritys. they are known to put up with extreme amounts of abuse before they turn human aggresive. they do have a natural inclination towards animal aggression that can be a handfull for many dog owners (who don't want a fighting dog like some scum bags do)
Did you know pitbull breeders often get rotweilers and shepards to guard their kennels because pitbulls are terrible guard dogs, even over their own litters.
The pitbull bans are only going to result in scum bag dog owners who want tough and aggresive dogs to resort to dog breed that are a lot more dangerous. the problem isn't the breed it's the owners, and the owners aren't going away. Mark my word in 10 year the next breed you hear about in sensationalized media about dog mauilings will be rotweilers, ridgebacks or some other large breed powerful dog. In the 50's the popular image of pitbulls was a gentle, family dog.
20 years ago the feared dog was sheppards, before that standard size poodles.
Their is so many myths about pitbulls it's ridicilous.
for one thing, what most people classify as a pitbull isn't a pitbull, What is a pitbull anyways? Only one breed could be considered a pitbull and that is theamerican pit bull terrier. most people consider pitbulls either american pit bull terriers, american staffordshire terrire, staffordshord bull terrier, or any dog that has short hair and vaguely resembles a 'pit bull'
Pitbulls don't have lockjaw. no canine has a jaw that locks. What people mistake for 'lockjaw' is a dog not wanting to let go. All dogs are capable of biteing someone and not letting go. Pitbulls also don't have terribly strong bites compared to many other breeds. many dogs, even small breed dogs can cause serious damage if they attack someone.
PS-depending on the statistics you use, pitbulls are typically the 5 or 6th most reported dog in instance involveing dog attacks. Why the reputation? Ignorance.
EDITED_BY: railspinner (1223866672)
The less people know the more they believe
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Originally Posted By: StoneI’d suggest your "Karma by not acting… great meditation exercise" statements are meant to be inflame.
You 'suggest' or you 'assume' (again)? nothing of that kin intended...
Even though I have spent maybe the first 20 years of my life in close(st) contact to dogs, I couldn't call myself an "expert" in the subject but do know that some dogs tend to escape their confinement (as from my experience) when the opportunity arises. Personally I would rather have a psychotic dog put down than another kid dying from an attack (which has been the reason for such dogs getting banned)... but that's just me.
I did ask for your lineage of Buddhism, no need to jump on me for that reason
However, I guess this thread has gotten so far off topic, that (to me) it's pointless to contribute any further.
Originally Posted By: StoneI’d suggest your "Karma by not acting… great meditation exercise" statements are meant to be inflame.
You 'suggest' or you 'assume' (again)?
nothing of that kin intended...Even though I have spent maybe the first 20 years of my life in close(st) contact to dogs, I couldn't call myself an "expert" in the subject but do know that some dogs tend to escape their confinement (as from my experience) when the opportunity arises. Personally I would rather have a psychotic dog put down than another kid dying from an attack (which has been the reason for such dogs getting banned)... but that's just me.
I did ask for your lineage of Buddhism, no need to jump on me for that reason
However, I guess this thread has gotten so far off topic, that (to me) it's pointless to contribute any further.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Hi Railspinner
It's the owners I was referring to when I made the equivalent to a handgun statement, not the breed itself. These dogs have had bad reputation and given the stigma that's been attached to the breed for the last twenty years you have to question the motivation of someone getting a breed that pretty much everyone is afraid of.
IMO running around with a pit bull ( yes an American Staffordshire Terrier ) is pretty the much the same thing as the open carry policy that some US states allow. The message here is "fear me, I'm badass" and anyone claiming that they "just happen too like the breed" is most likely just saying that as more of an excuse than anything else.
The problem isn't so much their attacking humans, as it is with attacking other dogs. For instance, locally we had a guy running around with a pack of five of these things in a van and letting them run off leash in dog parks...
cbc story here
I'm figuring the reputation has to do more with media hype and I fully agree there are more dangerous breeds out there...like those fluffy innocent looking Chow Chows.
Quote:However, I guess this thread has gotten so far off topic
Yes, it was bound too, we can only say "this kid needs help" so many times, and it's not like AP did any follow up
Thread drift can be good too.
Hi Railspinner
It's the owners I was referring to when I made the equivalent to a handgun statement, not the breed itself. These dogs have had bad reputation and given the stigma that's been attached to the breed for the last twenty years you have to question the motivation of someone getting a breed that pretty much everyone is afraid of.
IMO running around with a pit bull ( yes an American Staffordshire Terrier ) is pretty the much the same thing as the open carry policy that some US states allow. The message here is "fear me, I'm badass" and anyone claiming that they "just happen too like the breed" is most likely just saying that as more of an excuse than anything else.
The problem isn't so much their attacking humans, as it is with attacking other dogs. For instance, locally we had a guy running around with a pack of five of these things in a van and letting them run off leash in dog parks...
cbc story here
I'm figuring the reputation has to do more with media hype and I fully agree there are more dangerous breeds out there...like those fluffy innocent looking Chow Chows.
Quote:However, I guess this thread has gotten so far off topic
Yes, it was bound too, we can only say "this kid needs help" so many times, and it's not like AP did any follow up
Thread drift can be good too.
journeyman
99 posts
Location: canada
99 posts
Location: canada
Posted:
stout I see what your saying now, I thought you were being another fear monger of pitbulls.
Their are lots of reasons why people have pitbulls, many of which aren't for the image. They are fun breeds with lots of energy. Personally I would never have one because of the potential problem of their animal aggression and the way people perceive them. especially the cops (if I ever wanted to pass through ontario I would have to have a muzzle on my dog if it was a pitbull the entire time due to their retarded pitbull laws) muzzles usually create aggression in dogs, and they certainly cause a fair bit of fear when average people see you walking a hannibal lector looking dog.
short haired dogs are really sensitive to cold weather to, im glad my mutt has shaggy hair. canada has long winters.
stout I see what your saying now, I thought you were being another fear monger of pitbulls.
Their are lots of reasons why people have pitbulls, many of which aren't for the image. They are fun breeds with lots of energy. Personally I would never have one because of the potential problem of their animal aggression and the way people perceive them. especially the cops (if I ever wanted to pass through ontario I would have to have a muzzle on my dog if it was a pitbull the entire time due to their retarded pitbull laws) muzzles usually create aggression in dogs, and they certainly cause a fair bit of fear when average people see you walking a hannibal lector looking dog.
short haired dogs are really sensitive to cold weather to, im glad my mutt has shaggy hair. canada has long winters.
The less people know the more they believe
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Railspinner, those types of misunderstandings are typical in this format. Although we mostly endeavour to be clear, it doesn't always happen.
For reasons the same as yours, a pitbill would be one of the last breeds I'd get if I were looking to get a dog. I'm more into mutts myself...large mutts, and it's just not practical to get myself a dog right now.
Hannibal Lecter looking dog...
I know exactly the look you're referring to with those big wire cage muzzles. How apropos.
Railspinner, those types of misunderstandings are typical in this format. Although we mostly endeavour to be clear, it doesn't always happen.
For reasons the same as yours, a pitbill would be one of the last breeds I'd get if I were looking to get a dog. I'm more into mutts myself...large mutts, and it's just not practical to get myself a dog right now.
Hannibal Lecter looking dog...
I know exactly the look you're referring to with those big wire cage muzzles. How apropos. BRONZE Member
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
Posted:
Originally Posted By: FireTom"Breeding in captivity" ain't too convincing to me as in regards of "animals being content" - sorry to say that. A decent shag in jail if opportunity arises - why not? [/qute]
Uhh.. I don't think you thought that through- have sex in jail- sure, but would you want to raise a kid in there..?
[quote=FireTom]"
My "projection" on animals might completely be failing reality... given that. I'm no expert. Just hoping that zoos are not be used as an excuse for "well we extinct them in the wild, but at least we can breed them in captivity"... in this context I would think it's better to videotape them, keep their genetic material and let them fall prey to civilization...
Ok. I see it very differently. I don't see the point in having a freezer full of DNA in the hope that some time in the future someone will figure out a way of building a fake uterus big enough to grow.. say... an elephant. Which will then be brought up with no contact with its own species, and would likely grow up with severe behavioural problems which would be very hard to ever get over. I cannot see how that would be better.m Sorry.
Originally Posted By: FireTom"Breeding in captivity" ain't too convincing to me as in regards of "animals being content" - sorry to say that. A decent shag in jail if opportunity arises - why not?
[/qute] Uhh.. I don't think you thought that through- have sex in jail- sure, but would you want to raise a kid in there..?
[quote=FireTom]"
My "projection" on animals might completely be failing reality... given that. I'm no expert. Just hoping that zoos are not be used as an excuse for "well we extinct them in the wild, but at least we can breed them in captivity"... in this context I would think it's better to videotape them, keep their genetic material and let them fall prey to civilization...
Ok. I see it very differently. I don't see the point in having a freezer full of DNA in the hope that some time in the future someone will figure out a way of building a fake uterus big enough to grow.. say... an elephant. Which will then be brought up with no contact with its own species, and would likely grow up with severe behavioural problems which would be very hard to ever get over. I cannot see how that would be better.m Sorry.
THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!
If that's okay with you?
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [boy 7 break * zoo feed * anilmal * croc] we found the following existing topics.
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com