A question of ethics

[scotrace]

A Plug

I wanted to add that Bulldogs today are big snoring babies. They are uncut and unaltered in any way - even the dewclaws are left in place. Almost all vets remove them from every other type of dog or mixed breed pup soon after birth.

 

[Paisley]

Never mind on the snopes.com Mr. Ed / zebra thing, it was an in-house prank apparently.

I've heard that zebras can't really be domesticated. They live among such vicious predators that through natural selection, their personality is much more feisty than that of horses. And horses can be snotty.

 

[Section10]

All animals are property. It is only since Walt Disney that people have made them family members. The last dog I had died 4 years ago. It was a good dog and I missed it when it was gone. It lived outside all year and fortunately we were isolated enough so it could roam unchained. I think it was generally a happy and contented animal. We got along very well. Once (before I had a dog) my nearest neighbor's dog got loose and found it's way to my place and got into my chicken coop. I came home and the dog was still there in the midst of mayhem and I shot it right on the spot. I brought it to my neighbor in a gunny sack and dropped it on his front steps. He understood and his wife didn't. Nobody called the cops and I'm still a free man. I didn't charge him for the chickens and he didn't charge me for the dog. They are property.
Having said that, I do believe it is a wise and prudent thing to take good care of what we own and deliberate cruelty or neglect is certainly wrong.

 

[Spitfire]

"Honey, there's that cat again. fouling our flowerbed."
"I'll take care of that"
......BLAM!!!!!!

"Hey, the neighbours kids threw their football in here again..."
....BLAM!!!!
hisssssssss......

"There's that milkman again..."
BLAM!!!!!!
"But honey...."

 

[scotrace]

All animals are property. It is only since Walt Disney that people have made them family members. The last dog I had died 4 years ago. It was a good dog and I missed it when it was gone. It lived outside all year and fortunately we were isolated enough so it could roam unchained. I think it was generally a happy and contented animal. We got along very well. Once (before I had a dog) my nearest neighbor's dog got loose and found it's way to my place and got into my chicken coop. I came home and the dog was still there in the midst of mayhem and I shot it right on the spot. I brought it to my neighbor in a gunny sack and dropped it on his front steps. He understood and his wife didn't. Nobody called the cops and I'm still a free man. I didn't charge him for the chickens and he didn't charge me for the dog. They are property.
Having said that, I do believe it is a wise and prudent thing to take good care of what we own and deliberate cruelty or neglect is certainly wrong.

But you see, your "free to roam" dog no doubt contributed to a very serious overpopulation problem, and his unwanted offspring wound up in a shelter, or dumped along the road. It's a fair bet that he also raided a few coops himself in his "roaming," as well as causing an unknown amount of property damage.
You might have been better served to just call the neighbor to come get his dog out of your coop, and charge him for the chickens, allowing he and his wife to decide proper punishment for what was, as you say, their property.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

All animals are property. It is only since Walt Disney that people have made them family members. The last dog I had died 4 years ago. It was a good dog and I missed it when it was gone. It lived outside all year and fortunately we were isolated enough so it could roam unchained. I think it was generally a happy and contented animal. We got along very well. Once (before I had a dog) my nearest neighbor's dog got loose and found it's way to my place and got into my chicken coop. I came home and the dog was still there in the midst of mayhem and I shot it right on the spot. I brought it to my neighbor in a gunny sack and dropped it on his front steps. He understood and his wife didn't. Nobody called the cops and I'm still a free man. I didn't charge him for the chickens and he didn't charge me for the dog. They are property.
Having said that, I do believe it is a wise and prudent thing to take good care of what we own and deliberate cruelty or neglect is certainly wrong.

My sentiments exactly!

 

[Fatdutchman]

Around here, cats are shot regularly. They are bad about tearing up garbage and strewing it around.

Kids' footballs in the yard don't cause damage (usually). Milkmen don't cause trouble either (usually)...besides, there haven't been milkmen here in 30 or 40 years!

 

[Spitfire]

"besides, there haven't been milkmen here in 30 or 40 years!"
Guess they have all been shot You know what they say about milkmen

 

[Feraud]

please Lord, do not reincarnate me as an animal...

The apathy I sense towards things that are not exactly like us is disturbing.
This thread kind of reminds me of the eating animals thread. There was a, "if it fits in my mouth I am gonna eat it" attitude professed by some. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but I am just saying..

To avoid any future confusion or pigeonholing, I am a firearm collector, hunter, parent, pet owner and generally open minded fellow .

 

[feltfan]

It is only since Walt Disney that people have made them family members.

Of course this is totally historically inaccurate. Dogs have
been welcomed as family members for centuries and probably
longer. But if you don't read literature or history you won't know this.
Hell, I could disprove this assertion with family photographs.

I am sorry you are unable to perceive or enjoy the emotional
richness dogs have to offer.

 

[Flying Scotsman]

All animals are property. It is only since Walt Disney that people have made them family members. The last dog I had died 4 years ago. It was a good dog and I missed it when it was gone. It lived outside all year and fortunately we were isolated enough so it could roam unchained. I think it was generally a happy and contented animal. We got along very well. Once (before I had a dog) my nearest neighbor's dog got loose and found it's way to my place and got into my chicken coop. I came home and the dog was still there in the midst of mayhem and I shot it right on the spot. I brought it to my neighbor in a gunny sack and dropped it on his front steps. He understood and his wife didn't. Nobody called the cops and I'm still a free man. I didn't charge him for the chickens and he didn't charge me for the dog. They are property.

What an amazingly unenlightened, backwards, 19th century, selfish, self-centered, inhumane attitude.

Let's hope that the uncounted pups that your unfixed dog made while he was "roaming" didn't all starve, get euthanized, or get shot, as well.

I guess taking the dog to his owner and getting him to pay for the "property" you lost was too much effort, huh? Did you let your temper overcome any thought of any better way to handle the situation? Or did you just give in to your first inclination, which was to kill something?

Having said that, I do believe it is a wise and prudent thing to take good care of what we own and deliberate cruelty or neglect is certainly wrong.

Well, you failed.

Good judgement comes from experience, and a lotta that comes from bad judgement.

I'd say you've exhibited that in spades.

 

[Flying Scotsman]

As for the original question, about tail docking and ear cropping, etc.

IF the procedure had a purpose other than just mere vanity, such as preventing or correcting a problem like continually damaged and bleeding ears due to the work the animal was doing, etc., then it MIGHT be acceptable.

Inflicting pain on an animal because we don't like the way it looks is, in my opinion and generally speaking, wrong. That's just a shortcut way of making a designer dog or cat.

An example...dewclaws used to be removed because, in part, working dogs can get them caught on things and ripped off (although, I'm at a loss as to why we don't see wolves and coyotes with missing dewclaws). The prevention of a common problem with this procedure might have been okay. It's pretty unlikely that my two slackard lay-about house pets will have that problem, so there is no need to remove them.

Ear cropping is now done almost entirely for vanity's sake.

I tend to try to follow this standard:

Nonmaleficence

Vertebrate animals are sentient. This principle entails that the minimization of distress, pain, and suffering is a moral imperative...procedures that cause pain or distress in humans may cause pain or distress in other sentient animals.

 

[LadyDeWinter]

I am sitting here shaking my head in disbelieve.:rage: That must be a nightmare, am I dreaming or is this true. I sometimes don't understand some peoples attitude towards animals. I say too leave the animals alone, they are NO property.

 

[Fatdutchman]

I got that 19th century attitude beat!!! I have an 18th century attitude!!!

Animals are animals, people are people, and the two are not the same, never have been, never will be. We should use nature responsibly, but animals should NEVER be equated with mankind in any way. What a sad state the world is in....

 

[Pilgrim]

"Your dog is your property, and no, it doesn't have "rights", but neither is it "right" to be cruel to an animal by inflicting undue pain upon it."

The first two assertions in that statement are legal facts, and I strongly agree with the third assertion.

It is not debatable that in the U.S., the legal system regards pets as the property of the owner. Pets and livestock are property by legal definition.

Court cases do, however, make it clear that the legal system regards it as the owner's (note the term "owner") responsibility to care for and maintain those animals in a humane way. Therefore, the property owner's (note term) rights are not absolute. Animals cannot be "mistreated" or treated "inhumanely", whatever those words mean - and the terms basically have no meaning unless they are defined in a court case. But we hae all seen and heard horror stories about cats, dogs and livestock that have been neglected, starved and mistreated in ways that have resulted in legal action against the owners.

I accept the fact that animals are property in our legal system, but I also believe strongly that the owner has an ethical responbility to treat those animals - their property - in a caring and humane fashion. I suspect that all those on this forum share that sentiment, but how we individually define "caring and humane" differs widely.

Some (a few) are OK with cropping ears; many are not. Some are OK with de-clawing cats; others are not. Etc., etc. This is the area where judgment and personal values and opinions enter, so it is not surprising that we hold a diverse set of opinions as to what "ethical" treatment of animals actually is.

The ethics of the situation can be debated. The question of whether animals have status as property is determined by the legal system, and I do not view it as debatable in any meaningful sense. Ownership is a legal construct. If one disagrees with such definitions under law, the alternative in the U.S. is to make an attempt to change those definitions through the legal system.

 

[fortworthgal]

I am sitting here shaking my head in disbelieve.:rage: That must be a nightmare, am I dreaming or is this true. I sometimes don't understand some peoples attitude towards animals. I say too leave the animals alone, they are NO property.

I agree. I posted a couple of pages back, and I really wish I had not come back to read this thread any further, because I am appalled by some of the things that have been said. I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that people living in the 21st century would harbor these attitudes, and I do not like feeling this way about fellow Loungers.

I believe it was Mahatma Gandhi who said, "The greatness of a nation and it's moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated."

 

[Viola]

Even granted animals are property, I cannot for the life of me see the point of owning an outside dog that roams. I like dogs for companionship, burglar deterrance, being able to walk in iffy areas late at night, general entertainment, and keeping the bed warm.

Can't do any of that if its off harrassing the neighbors, and its likely to get hurt/killed, can't find it when you want it, and it isn't guarding diddly squat.

Right now my system is much simpler. If I want to find the Akita, he's lying in foot traffic in the kitchen or right behind my wheely computer chair like an Evel Knievel ramp. If I want to find the staffie, she's sleeping in somebody's bed. Neither is likely to get hit by a car in those locations.lol

-Viola

 

[Dixon Cannon]

I got that 19th century attitude beat!!! I have an 18th century attitude!!!

Animals are animals, people are people, and the two are not the same, never have been, never will be. We should use nature responsibly, but animals should NEVER be equated with mankind in any way. What a sad state the world is in....

My sentiments, exactly!

-dixon cannon

 

[Dixon Cannon]

"Your dog is your property, and no, it doesn't have "rights", but neither is it "right" to be cruel to an animal by inflicting undue pain upon it."

The first two assertions in that statement are legal facts, and I strongly agree with the third assertion.

It is not debatable that in the U.S., the legal system regards pets as the property of the owner. Pets and livestock are property by legal definition.

Court cases do, however, make it clear that the legal system regards it as the owner's (note the term "owner") responsibility to care for and maintain those animals in a humane way. Therefore, the property owner's (note term) rights are not absolute. Animals cannot be "mistreated" or treated "inhumanely", whatever those words mean - and the terms basically have no meaning unless they are defined in a court case. But we hae all seen and heard horror stories about cats, dogs and livestock that have been neglected, starved and mistreated in ways that have resulted in legal action against the owners.

I accept the fact that animals are property in our legal system, but I also believe strongly that the owner has an ethical responbility to treat those animals - their property - in a caring and humane fashion. I suspect that all those on this forum share that sentiment, but how we individually define "caring and humane" differs widely.

Some (a few) are OK with cropping ears; many are not. Some are OK with de-clawing cats; others are not. Etc., etc. This is the area where judgment and personal values and opinions enter, so it is not surprising that we hold a diverse set of opinions as to what "ethical" treatment of animals actually is.

The ethics of the situation can be debated. The question of whether animals have status as property is determined by the legal system, and I do not view it as debatable in any meaningful sense. Ownership is a legal construct. If one disagrees with such definitions under law, the alternative in the U.S. is to make an attempt to change those definitions through the legal system.

Bravo! Well stated!
-dixon cannon

 

[Fatdutchman]

While it should be obvious that people did treat their pets with love long before Walt Disney came along (you all know about the ewe lamb, right?), Disney and others have had an IMMENSE impact on the attitude people have towards animals today, though quite inadvertently. Animals were given personalities that they don't have, and raised generations of people saying things like "don't kill the cute little piggy"...

Now, of course, movie and TV producers are actively using cartoons as "animal rights" propaganda.

Walt Disney was known as rather conservative, and was a staunch and vocal anti communist...I'm sure he would be quite despised today!lol

What have I done?....I killed the wabbit! Poor wittle bunny!