Animal Manslaughter?

[Balagor]

@Maigrets

If only I could give multiple kudos, you would have another. I can only add that another example on the lack of human intellingence is, why are animals called "killers" "slaugters" when they kill a human?

 

What do we then call those who exterminated buffaloes/wolwes/lions/tigers/rhinos/what ever? Slaugters or intelligent humans?

[Ihoe]

why do we spend so much time saying what should and should not be done instead of doing something about it?

 

Take a look at your neighbours sometime...not the people who live next door, but people who touch your life one way or another every day. A lot of them lack the true intelligence gene in my opinion, and I'm not referring to people with intellectual or other disabilities. Some behave and display no more intelligence than a chimpanzee, which if observed in it's natural habitat, demonstrates the worst of human traits.

 

that is totally correct, thing is, in the world of today, with the simplicity of day to day facts, people can't/ won't use their brain power, with the knowledge of scientists in a course of 7000 years ready at your disposal inside a book, you really don't have to burden your brain for finding why fire burns. the human brain is not as simple as a seagull's, it is hard for one commoner to use it, as I recall, I read somewhere that the so called Einstein only used 5% of his brain's total power.

 

*ON topic*

 

what happens when you enter someone Else's territory? in common, something bad.

 

same goes for animals, if you are entering "their" domain (by instincts) you are causing harm, whether physically or mentally, so you punishment is what the animal does to you, how do you punish them is your own business, not the government or any others', I just don't see them in stance to say what should and should not be done in that matter.

 

if the animal has a "master" (I just find the title of owner offensive), then it's the government's decision to punish the master based on fair laws. no 2,500 dollar fine for a scratch. this should be done to teach the master a lesson, to learn he must teach his pet/ whatever manners so they are not a nuisance.

 

if an organization puts a whale in display (this has nothing to do with a fact stated in this discussion) for tourists/ visitors to see, it's their responsibility to deal with any damages caused.

 

if another killer dolphin/ shark comes and eats a couple of people at the beach, no one (in my opinion), no one has the right to punish them, this is just God's/ Nature's way, you can't punish someone for trying to survive, and animals need to consume/ eat/ whatever to survive.

 

believe me, an animal has no reason to attack you unless it is mentally sick/ hungry/ afraid. they don't get depressed over watching a movie like humans do, so if one attacks or harms a human, they have a reason, and if it is mental (rabies for example), they should be treated (if caught) and if they cannot be treated, be put out of their misery.

 

long statement,

I doubt anyone will read the whole of it lol,

then again, it's my opinion.

[Kendo 2]

I've found over two dozen definitions for 'intelligence', and that's just looking at the filtered tripe available on-line. The definitions depend on what 'experts' think, tempered by whatever agenda they're tied to.

 

One thing that doesn't lie is the hard science of what constitutes the brain functions for 'intelligence'. Homo sapiens are the ONLY animals on this planet that have them.

 

Lower animals on this planet can not solve math problems with two unknown variables. That means they can't reason and are thus 'dumb animals'. Several posts in this thread by people who do not share my views freely admit the animals who have killed people are NOT RESPONSIBLE for their actions. It can't be both ways, folks. Either they're intelligent and know what they've done OR they're just dumb animals. There is no happy medium.

 

That glob of grey goo floating between our ears is almost identical to that of higher apes. Guess what the BIG difference is? The neurons on the surface of our brains are more advanced. The standard hypothosis is we evolved that way, since apes and humans share a common ancestor.

 

Back in the late 70's there was a wave of research teaching great apes American sign language. Two things were discovered right off the bat:

 

1) when asked, the apes had no concept of a 'tomorrow'. They just couldn't make the leap. The researchers made the logical deduction if the apes didn't understand the concept then they couldn't plan for it. (btw, ants and squirrles storing food is not forethought and planning. That's instinct since they'll do it whether food is readily available or not.) Only Homo sapiens plan for the future.

2) when shown a banana, an orange and a bandana the apes could identify each object without hesitation. When asked to identify the objects that rhymed they couldn't do that either. They don't have the cognitive faculties for advanced thought. Only Homo sapiens have cognitive thoughts. (Later CATs and MRIs proved it.)

 

Humans are intelligent and animals are NOT. Having a case of animal 'smarts' where they can adapt and react to the environment is not intelligence, that's instincts and the natural want to survive.

 

So animals that kill humans earn a bullet and their human owners need to be held accountable.

 

*ducks behind nearest cover to avoid being pelted with rotten produce...that's instinct :)*

[Ihoe]

So animals that kill humans earn a bullet and their human owners need to be held accountable.

 

*ducks behind nearest cover to avoid being pelted with rotten produce...that's instinct :)*

lol, then again, who shoots/ puts/ whatever the bullet causes the moral dilemma. I agree with most of your post.

[Kendo 2]

So animals that kill humans earn a bullet and their human owners need to be held accountable.

 

*ducks behind nearest cover to avoid being pelted with rotten produce...that's instinct :)*

lol, then again, who shoots/ puts/ whatever the bullet causes the moral dilemma. I agree with most of your post.

 

Kendo will snuff the whale, I don't have a problem with that at all. In fact, if I had been there I would have grabbed the carving knife they were using to slice the roast beef for their get-together dinner, dove into the water and stabbed that big Ef-er until it stopped attacking the trainer or I DIED TRYING TO SAVE HER. That would have been the right thing for anyone to do who was there. Instead about 3 dozen people stood by and did nothing as that stupid beast pinned that poor girl to the bottom of the tank and MASHED the air out of her until she drown. 36 cowards and not one MAN worth his salt to do anything.

 

I agree about animal attacks in the wild, with exceptions. Once humans step into the wilderness (the beach included) they are stepping into a wilderness area. Swimming three feet off of the beach is the same thing as taking a nature walk in the freak'n Amazon. No telling what you'll bump into and you're assuming the risk. BUT..

 

*in the early 1900's a tiger shark effectively shut down the beaches in New Jersey, killing several people. Maybe the shark thought the swimmers were seals or whatever...still a menace and it had to go. (Peter Benchly's 'Jaws'.)

 

*in the 1920's ONE leopard in the then Belgian Congo killed and ATE 39 people (it hung them in trees like gazelles) and depopulated an entire village. It was later caught in the act by Belgian troops and shot.

 

*during the Vietnam War, the Hmong people reported that tigers would follow rocket and mortar fire and dine on the remains of VC troops.

 

*in India a government-funded program was set up to provide electrified human dummies to rural villagers so they can deter tiger attacks and teach the tigers not to eat the remains of flood victims.

 

So once a big predator realizes that humans are still a part of the food chain they need to GO. As in bang-bang-you're-dead GO. You see, in all of these instances regular prey animals were readily available but humans were still attacked. That's because we're not FAST like seals and antelopes. We're an easy meal.

 

And rabies? 100% fatal in animals (usually) and it will damn-near smoke-test a person too, even with the series of injections to stall it's progress.

 

I'm also shocked that anyone agrees with ANYTHING I have to say about this subject. And I'll lay three-to-one odds with the vig and a push I'll never see one stinking Kudos for using facts and not misguided or dubious information when I post.

[Ihoe]

So animals that kill humans earn a bullet and their human owners need to be held accountable.

 

*ducks behind nearest cover to avoid being pelted with rotten produce...that's instinct :)*

lol, then again, who shoots/ puts/ whatever the bullet causes the moral dilemma. I agree with most of your post.

 

Kendo will snuff the whale, I don't have a problem with that at all. In fact, if I had been there I would have grabbed the carving knife they were using to slice the roast beef for their get-together dinner, dove into the water and stabbed that big Ef-er until it stopped attacking the trainer or I DIED TRYING TO SAVE HER. That would have been the right thing for anyone to do who was there. Instead about 3 dozen people stood by and did nothing as that stupid beast pinned that poor girl to the bottom of the tank and MASHED the air out of her until she drown. 36 cowards and not one MAN worth his salt to do anything.

 

I agree about animal attacks in the wild, with exceptions. Once humans step into the wilderness (the beach included) they are stepping into a wilderness area. Swimming three feet off of the beach is the same thing as taking a nature walk in the freak'n Amazon. No telling what you'll bump into and you're assuming the risk. BUT..

 

*in the early 1900's a tiger shark effectively shut down the beaches in New Jersey, killing several people. Maybe the shark thought the swimmers were seals or whatever...still an menace and it had to go. (Peter Benchly's 'Jaws'.)

 

*in the 1920's ONE leopard in the then Belgian Congo killed and ATE 39 people (it hung them in trees like gazelles) and depopulated an entire village. It was later caught in the act by Belgian troops and shot.

 

*during the Vietnam War, the Hmong people reported that tigers would follow rocket and mortar fire and dine on the remains of VC troops.

 

*in India a government-funded program was set up to provide electrified human dummies to rural villagers so they can deter tiger attacks and teach the tigers not to eat the remains of flood victims.

 

So once a big predator realizes that humans are still a part of the food chain they need to GO. As in bang-bang-you're-dead GO. You see, in all of these instances regular prey animals were readily available but humans were still attacked. That's because we're not FAST like seals and antelopes. We're an easy meal.

 

And rabies? 100% fatal in animals (usually) it and will damn-near smoke-test a person too, even with the series of injections to stall it's progress.

 

I'm also shocked that anyone agrees with ANYTHING I have to say about this subject. And I'll lay three-to-one odds with the vig and a push I'll never see one stinking Kudos for using facts and not misguided or dubious information when I post.

I agree, again, when anything is a menace, it must be "taken care of", whether human or animal, it's for our own kind's sake, that's what we do with criminals, we put them away from the society. even if it makes a paradox with what I said before, I agree, then again, you need to view every aspect of a matter to understand it.

 

tigers are well known to attack villages (I don't know if the same goes for any other canine), but some of these are exceptional periods (I still agree that they, if are a nuisance must be "taken care of"), they hardly happen (to my knowledge), if someone goes swimming in an area (for example) that says "Shark residency" they are asking for it, whether the outcome is being eaten, beaten, injured or nothing.

[ginnyfizz]

The example of the horse that can't be broken is a testament to this. Punishing a beast that doesn't understand why it's being beaten or dominated for not conforming is hardly superior. I champion the animal for not allowing it's spirit to be broken, even if it dies in the process. It still won't have understood why, but will be proof of human failing. My father was like this and it did him no good in the end. Of his worst character flaws mental and physical domination was the worst. It's ugly and damaging to everyone concerned and I saw first hand the "other" side of humane treatment.

 

Maigrets, I have backed and schooled all manner of horses including some real nutjobs. The very worst are those where people have previously let them have their own way too much and not got the dominance over them. Spinal units are littered with people who didn't get mentally topside with their horses. How else can you back something that weighs half a darned ton? It sounds like you would call all people who handle and train horses evil, now I am truly sorry about your father being as he was, but do not tar all horse and stock men and women with his brush. Now how do you think a charging horse, or a steer for that matter, is going to react if you try to reason with it? Take no notice whatsoever, that's what. I have worked on both cattle farms and horse studs and believe me, you DO have to exert control. Otherwise multiple instances of equines and bovines could be doing damage to other people. Although I guess they don't matter. Tell that to the farmers in the UK who have been prosecuted for running cattle on their own land, ramblers take a walk over it, their doggy annoys the cows and the cows rampage (since they have calves)and then trample the ramblers to death. BTW the farmer would get prosecuted if they closed the footpaths as well.

 

Countrymen and women can't win on this it seems. A favourite pastime of mine, hunting live quarry with dogs, got banned ostensibly on cruelty grounds, but in actual fact on reverse snobbery grounds by our Labour Government. Since which time, the illegal snares and leghold traps have made a comeback. Much more drawn out than being torn to pieces by a pack of hounds. Mind you, some very naughty chickens actually attacked and killed a fox that invaded their coop the other night. All hail Dude the cockerel and his four lady friends....

[slygothmog]

Countrymen and women can't win on this it seems. A favourite pastime of mine, hunting live quarry with dogs, got banned ostensibly on cruelty grounds, but in actual fact on reverse snobbery grounds by our Labour Government

.

 

You can easily open a can of worms here in England with that statement.

You will have to excuse me i am not very good at expressing my views in writing, but i will say it was not banned ostensibly, but because it is cruel. And it was because the people of England put pressure on the goverment and not because of reverse snobbery.

[ginnyfizz]

Countrymen and women can't win on this it seems. A favourite pastime of mine, hunting live quarry with dogs, got banned ostensibly on cruelty grounds, but in actual fact on reverse snobbery grounds by our Labour Government

.

 

You can easily open a can of worms here in England with that statement.

You will have to excuse me i am not very good at expressing my views in writing, but i will say it was not banned ostensibly, but because it is cruel. And it was because the people of England put pressure on the goverment and not because of reverse snobbery.

 

ROFL. Worms...eh heh...you kind of rose to the BAIT there.....

 

The People demanded it. Funny I never noticed that, when 400,000 of us marched against the ban we got more applause than boos. Wonder how many kills you have seen up close?

[slygothmog]

The People demanded it. Funny I never noticed that, when 400,000 of us marched against the ban we got more applause than boos. Wonder how many kills you have seen up close?

 

There's alot more than 400,000 people in England , sorry but in a democracy majority rules.

I used to work on a sheep farm, i have seen what a ramblers dog can do.