Indian wildlife rangers to be paid reward for every poacher they shoot

[mlp]

It seems strange to me that you are 'sending' them to death by releasing them. Wasn't that already the situation they faced, if you (the... um... pound-operative. Whatever the term for that is) had not removed them from it? Why would providing some reprieve from that make it your responsibility to do it continually, in spite of not being the cause of it?

You and some others on here seem to be assuming that most of the animals in shelters/pounds are ferals. They're not. The vast majority of feral cats never make it to a pound/shelter; they live and die (almost always horrible deaths) on the streets. For ferals, the best solution, IMO, is aggressive TNR programs, so that the same miserable fate isn't visited upon generation after generation.

Almost all of the animals at pounds/shelters are companion animals who have been taken there by their humans, or have been dumped along the road by their humans, or who have been seized because of abuse/severe neglect by their humans. They do not have survival skills.

So I ask you - is it better for these animals to die slow lingering deaths from starvation, disease and/or injuries, or is it better for them to die a quick and fairly painfree death?

As for "responsibility" - I believe in a collective responsibility that all of us humans have for these nonhumans that have been created by, misused and abandoned by, our fellow humans.

Being veg*n is easy. Being an armchair philosopher and critic is easy. The people for whom I have respect are those who actually do something to help nonhumans.

 

[Dedalus]

So I ask you - is it better for these animals to die slow lingering deaths from starvation, disease and/or injuries, or is it better for them to die a quick and fairly painfree death?

As for "responsibility" - I believe in a collective responsibility that all of us humans have for these nonhumans that have been created by, misused and abandoned by, our fellow humans.

Being veg*n is easy. Being an armchair philosopher and critic is easy. The people for whom I have respect are those who actually do something to help nonhumans.

Word.

 

[led.boots]

The vast majority of dogs and cats and other animals warehoused in shelters around this country are perfectly wonderful companion animals with no behavioral *issues* at all. That's not the point, not the reason they have no homes. The feral cats aren't kept caged - they go to the kill room immediately, if they end up at the pound/shelter - the vast majority die on the streets.

I think that every single cat and dog in this country should be neutered/spayed. I think that humans behave abominably to the companion animal species. Again, all of that is pretty much beside the point with respect to the question I posed to you, which question was posed in the context of grim reality, not in the context of a world where humans magically started behaving responsibly.

And in that grim reality, you currently have hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of pet cats currently warehoused in shelters, with no hope for a home, and a somewhat smaller, although still obscenely large, number of dogs likewise warehoused, with tens of thousands of additional animals coming into that system daily. What are you going to do - leave them warehoused for the rest of their lives, or set them loose on the streets, terrified, with little to no survival skills, to be preyed on by the humans who have already let them down so badly?

It's easy to say that its unethical to kill these healthy animals (and I never call it euthanasia). My point is that it's even less ethical to send them to long, lingering, fear and pain filled deaths on the streets.

I *was* thinking more of the feral cats. It seems even worse to put down the animals who could fit into a human household. Of course no one wants them wandering around starving and being attacked by coyotes, or in cages in a shelter. But is dead better? I don't know what the answer is, maybe free sterilization of pets? Low-cost veterinary care? I guess I'm back in my magic land garnering no respect.

 

[mlp]

I *was* thinking more of the feral cats. It seems even worse to put down the animals who could fit into a human household. Of course no one wants them wandering around starving and being attacked by coyotes, or in cages in a shelter. But is dead better? I don't know what the answer is, maybe free sterilization of pets? Low-cost veterinary care? I guess I'm back in my magic land garnering no respect.

Oh, trust me - I would love to see money put into an all encompassing spay/neuter program - within just a couple of years, the pet overpopulation problem could be solved, and in the long run, it would be so much cheaper than continuing to fund shelters and killing millions of homeless pets every year. But in a society where so many balk at providing health care for their fellow humans, that isn't likely to occur any time soon.

 

[Ansciess]

Oh, trust me - I would love to see money put into an all encompassing spay/neuter program - within just a couple of years, the pet overpopulation problem could be solved, and in the long run, it would be so much cheaper than continuing to fund shelters and killing millions of homeless pets every year. But in a society where so many balk at providing health care for their fellow humans, that isn't likely to occur any time soon.

Even if it were free, there is resistance to spay/neuter. I've seen first-hand that some people are too lazy and uncaring to make the effort to do it, even if it's just a drive or bus ride to the shelter to have it done for free - you literally have to pick up their animal and do it for them. And then some people philosophically are such ******* idiots - you even see them on veg forums sometimes - that they don't want to "interfere" with animals' reproductive cycles. They'd literally rather create colonies of feral cats that they abandon or refuse to feed than do the humane thing. I've seen this exact scenario even when I have offered - begged - to take the cats in - do all the work and pay for it all myself - absolute hostility, threats against me, and refusal to allow spay/neuter of "their" cats, that they subsequently abandon.

 

[Ansciess]

But is dead better?

Yes. When you've seen enough starving cats, cats with open wounds and missing infected eyes, cats who have literally frozen to death for lack of shelter - death is better than long suffering. These aren't wild animals with adequate defenses to fend for themselves.

 

[led.boots]

So sad.

 

[mlp]

Even if it were free, there is resistance to spay/neuter. I've seen first-hand that some people are too lazy and uncaring to make the effort to do it, even if it's just a drive or bus ride to the shelter to have it done for free - you literally have to pick up their animal and do it for them. And then some people philosophically are such ****ing idiots - you even see them on veg forums sometimes - that they don't want to "interfere" with animals' reproductive cycles. They'd literally rather create colonies of feral cats that they abandon or refuse to feed than do the humane thing. I've seen this exact scenario even when I have offered - begged - to take the cats in - do all the work and pay for it all myself - absolute hostility, threats against me, and refusal to allow spay/neuter of "their" cats, that they subsequently abandon.

Yes. When you've seen enough starving cats, cats with open wounds and missing infected eyes, cats who have literally frozen to death for lack of shelter - death is better than long suffering. These aren't wild animals with adequate defenses to fend for themselves.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[K-II]

You and some others on here seem to be assuming that most of the animals in shelters/pounds are ferals. They're not. The vast majority of feral cats never make it to a pound/shelter; they live and die (almost always horrible deaths) on the streets. For ferals, the best solution, IMO, is aggressive TNR programs, so that the same miserable fate isn't visited upon generation after generation.

Almost all of the animals at pounds/shelters are companion animals who have been taken there by their humans, or have been dumped along the road by their humans, or who have been seized because of abuse/severe neglect by their humans. They do not have survival skills.

I wasn't implying they were feral (that seems to mean something different to me anyway, I tend to only call animals feral if they live in the wild or at least more rural areas, without much exposure to humans), the question was referring to the fact that (presumably) you were not actually the cause of their situation being what it was.

So I ask you - is it better for these animals to die slow lingering deaths from starvation, disease and/or injuries, or is it better for them to die a quick and fairly painfree death?

Interesting thought. Obviously they would suffer the least if they were killed quickly and (as far as they knew) without warning. Is that better though? In our case, doing that without consent would certainly be frowned upon. Faced with a similar fate, some of us would choose either way - to die now, or to take our chances regardless of how low they were - so to kill us in that way would be depriving us of that choice. A cat or dog in that situation doesn't understand the choice the way we do (that we know of) so it always chooses the same thing: to go on living as long as it can. There may be some exceptions (or not), but generally speaking animals don't seem to consider suicide an option, possibly because they don't understand that their own viewpoint can end (and I can't blame them, as many if not most humans seem to share that opinion), nor presumably do they think it will go anywhere in an 'afterlife' sense, so their only option is to continue until they can't.

Though 'can't' might be misleading. I mean they are mentally as well as physically unable to go on, because they do occasionally give up while they could physically continue. As an example of what I mean: there is (or has been - I don't keep up) a way of testing anti-depressant medications using animals' will to live. If the drug is successful in such a test, rats (it could be anything, but iirc they used rats in the one I heard about) which are on the medication will swim for longer before giving up than those which aren't. In this case, there's no way out of the water, so swimming is all that keeps them from death. I've seen a similar state in animals caught by a predator (usually a cat or dog), where even though they can move and are plainly not hidden, they just stop trying to escape after if proves futile enough times. Some turn out to be mortally wounded or maybe die of exhaustion, but others if confiscated can eventually recover and go on their way. The choice for them seems to be present in its own way, but it takes a lot for them to give up.

So, if we consider their opinions important in spite of being less informed, I think it would almost definitely be better for them to take their chances. We tend not to let less intelligent animals (including people to varying extents) make certain choices for themselves though. Unfortunately, since we would not all make the same choice even knowing as much as we do about the situation, it's hard to really say which is better. You seem to favour less suffering at the expense of a future you aren't very optimistic about, whereas I would choose to try to fend for myself and risk a worse death for the extra bit of life and the small chance that I would adapt to that environment. In summary, I have no idea which is better for them.

As for "responsibility" - I believe in a collective responsibility that all of us humans have for these nonhumans that have been created by, misused and abandoned by, our fellow humans.

Being veg*n is easy. Being an armchair philosopher and critic is easy. The people for whom I have respect are those who actually do something to help nonhumans.

I will assume this answers my initial question then, since you would become guilty of causing their situation by inheritance or something. Maybe association. I'm not really sure of the exact word.

 

[K-II]

Are you saying that since as their rescuer you did not put them in the position where they are [starving/freezing/struggling in whatever way] on the street that you should not feel the responsibility to complete the rescue such that you might knowingly put them back in that same position? If you're saying that, that would put you in the majority opinion of not feeling any particularly responsibility or need to help these homeless/abandoned/abused/starving/struggling animals. But rescuers think about this very differently, feel that it's not o.k. to turn their backs on these animals, and are why most of the US does not look like a third world country in terms of seeing companion animals suffering appalling conditions every time you walk out your front door.

I would think of it in much the same way as giving someone change to buy lunch with.

 

[K-II]

But is dead better?

'Sometimes'

 

[mlp]

Yeah, intentional suicide is not really a concept for most nonhumans, although a very stressed or unhappy animal will just stop eating and drinking. Pain has the same effect. I've had to forcefeed a number of animals to get them through a crisis that was temporary in nature.

What animals will certainly do is try their best to flee from situations which cause them pain and/or fear. Whether they would consciously choose death over never ending pain and fear is a matter of speculation. It's a matter of speculation even for humans, because it's muddied by so many factors for humans - everthing from societal and religious tabboos on suicide to the hope, no matter how forlorn and remote, that someohow things will get better, if we just hang on.

 

[Ansciess]

I would think of it in much the same way as giving someone change to buy lunch with.

But the world in which someone can go buy lunch is a world that humans have set up for themselves and brought animals they have domesticated into. Domestic animals rely on human help (they're not wild), but they're not able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a job, or go to a welfare office for foodstamps, or go live in their parents' basement or whatever. They're not even able to commit suicide.

It would be more like seeing a toddler struggling to survive, and occasionally throwing them some bread and saying your job is done.

 

[K-II]

Yeah, intentional suicide is not really a concept for most nonhumans, although a very stressed or unhappy animal will just stop eating and drinking. Pain has the same effect. I've had to forcefeed a number of animals to get them through a crisis that was temporary in nature.

What animals will certainly do is try their best to flee from situations which cause them pain and/or fear. Whether they would consciously choose death over never ending pain and fear is a matter of speculation. It's a matter of speculation even for humans, because it's muddied by so many factors for humans - everthing from societal and religious tabboos on suicide to the hope, no matter how forlorn and remote, that someohow things will get better, if we just hang on.

I tend to prefer assuming they would attempt to survive even if they were aware of their chances. Partly because it's what I would do, but also because even in humans it seems to be the default behaviour. Considering the people who kept on going through things like gulags and concentration camps, various famines in places like Africa, and probably more things that don't come to mind right now, I think as a rule we still feel our survival instincts very heavily. Sure, we can choose to die, and no doubt a lot of people did in those situations ('do' perhaps for Africa), but I don't think it would have been close to the number who continued until death. Obviously I have no statistics on that, it just seems like a majority killing themselves before they could die or be killed would be something pretty well known.

So, assuming animals would react similarly if they were able to understand the choice, I'd probably be doing what most of them would want by letting them take their chances. Of course, this is assuming they're not terminally ill or anything, just looking at a bleak future.

But the world in which someone can go buy lunch is a world that humans have set up for themselves and brought animals they have domesticated into. Domestic animals rely on human help (they're not wild), but they're not able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a job, or go to a welfare office for foodstamps, or go live in their parents' basement or whatever. They're not even able to commit suicide.

Some of them rely on human help. Others can and do learn to survive, even though their quality of life is not what it might have been had they been kept in a home somewhere. But that part they do have in common with humans. I sometimes wonder what's become of people I've helped in the past, but I don't blame myself for their fate at all, even if I'm part of the same society that's directly or indirectly caused their misfortune and more or less abandoned them.

It would be more like seeing a toddler struggling to survive, and occasionally throwing them some bread and saying your job is done.

So wait... if you're in support of mercy killing... what role do you play in this analogy?

 

[Ansciess]

Some of them rely on human help. Others can and do learn to survive, even though their quality of life is not what it might have been had they been kept in a home somewhere.

What are you basing this on? As a rule you find feral cat populations clustered around human communities, not in the forest or wild where there are no humans (or this would be a very special climate and prey situation in which they would truly be able to fend for themselves). They don't need to live in a home, but they're not wild animals.

So wait... if you're in support of mercy killing... what role do you play in this analogy?

I haven't seen any sick, freezing, starving toddlers wandering around alone outside my door yet (and with no public services to help them), so it hasn't come up.

 

[Muggle]

If there really is no hope for a dog/cat of finding a good home and they are really stressed by being in kennels/cattery then I think euthanasia is the kindest option.

Actually, if I can help it no pet of mine will ever die a "natural" death. If they're terminal and their condition and quality of life will keep deteriorating I see it as being completely selfish on my part for forcing them to suffer because I don't want them to die just yet. Of course, then comes trying to figure out when exactly the quality of their life is going to get really bad regardless of what medication etc they can have and that is really hard to figure out. But I think with all our dogs that we've put to sleep we did judge the right moment.
But that's just me. I would rather a pet of mine be surround by those that love them, having a needle injected and then just going to sleep before their heart stops rather than dying over days/weeks and most likely being conscious and knowing they are about to die just before they do. I can't put an animal through that sort of pain.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Is it really wrong to value human life over animal life if one must choose? Should being unwilling to kill a human to protect a pets life preclude one from having a pet?

Your dog would give his life for you. I think there is indeed something very wrong when you would prefer to let some intruder kill him, than try to kill that intruder, just because it is human. Most humans do nothing to earn the devotion of the animals they live with, and they certainly don't deserve it. I find that imbalance quite tragic and depressing.

As to the original topic, I have no problem with this policy. Since I am not a human supremacist, I can think of no logical nor moral reason why any human should be immune to or protected from the suffering and death which they are more than happy to visit upon anyone who can't get away from them.

 

[K-II]

What are you basing this on? As a rule you find feral cat populations clustered around human communities, not in the forest or wild where there are no humans (or this would be a very special climate and prey situation in which they would truly be able to fend for themselves). They don't need to live in a home, but they're not wild animals.

That isn't really surprising. A city or town means more food (waste, food left outdoors for pets, rodents and pigeons and other small things we encourage, like european rabbits in places we've cleared and filled with grass) which means more of them can live in the same place. Human communities are also where they come from in the first place, and we continue making more of them. Then of course the more of them are together there the greater the opportunities to breed. Those that disperse further away wouldn't be able to maintain that sort of density.

Feral cats (along with foxes, and less commonly dogs) do exist in less populated areas. Around here if you drive long distances between towns overnight, you'll see a few eventually. Farmers occasionally shoot them, and in protected forests there's aerial baiting (poison) for 'all of the above'. As for places with no humans, it's a bit hard to tell, I'm not usually there... and I might disqualify it if I was. I've heard of islands (as in coastal, with no humans) around with high populations of them, strangely enough. I think a few years back I read an article about a campaign to poison all the ones living on a certain island to save some kind of endangered thing living there.

I haven't seen any sick, freezing, starving toddlers wandering around alone outside my door yet (and with no public services to help them), so it hasn't come up.

They do seem rarer. Too slow to outrun predators I suppose (and noisy, for that matter).

 

[jeneticallymodified]

since when have euthanasia to prevent distressing lives lived in small crates in shelters, or horrid slow lingering deaths on the streets, been the only two options? because they're really NOT.

 

[mlp]

since when have euthanasia to prevent distressing lives lived in small crates in shelters, or horrid slow lingering deaths on the streets, been the only two options? because they're really NOT.

Actually they are, unless a whole lot more people step up and adopt the ones currently in shelters/pounds, plus everyone antes up to spay/neuter. And the trend in the U.S. is in the opposite direction - over two million fewer households include companion animals, for a net loss of homes for over ten million cats and dogs. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...120822_1_pet-insurance-pet-ownership-pet-dogs