I can't believe that this type of thing still happens, especially in a such a progressive place like Whistler. Not only could these dogs likely have been given away, there was absolutely no reason they had to be slaughtered in such a brutal manner. Even more astounding is that the person who shot and slit the throats of the dogs is being compensated by WorkSafe BC (he claims he was ordered to do this although the company disputes this). Currently the BC SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and the RCMP (Police) are looking into this. Criminal charges seem likely (and deservedly so in my opinion).
Excerpts from a couple newspapers:
WHISTLER, B.C.— The RCMP and the B.C. SPCA are now investigating the slaughter of about 100 sled dogs in Whistler, B.C., an incident the SPCA called “an absolute massacre.”
The SPCA’s Marcie Moriarty says the description of the April 2010 incident is an “absolutely criminal code offence.”
Staff. Sgt. Steve LeClair, of Whistler RCMP, confirmed his detachment has opened a file, but the primary investigator on the case will be the SPCA.
Documents obtained by CKNW radio reveal about 100 healthy sled dogs were killed in a mass slaughter in Whistler last April 21 and 23.
According to the WorkSafe B.C. documents obtained by the station, an employee of Outdoor Adventures Whistler has been compensated for post-traumatic stress disorder after being ordered to shoot the animals.
The documents reveal bookings for dog sled tours collapsed after the Olympics and when the company could not find homes for its animals, it ordered the cull.
“What is extremely upsetting is to read what he described - some of them requiring mulitple shots, his having to slit their throats, dogs faces being blown off and they were still running around, dogs that he thought had been dead, that he put in what he described as a mass grave and he looks back and sees her trying to climb out,”
A news release from the company says it did not instruct the general manager to carry out the killings. The company was aware of the “euthanization” of dogs, the release states. “But it was our expectation that it was done in a proper, legal and humane manner,” the news release says. Company officials only became aware of the incident on Friday.
I bet nothing bad will even happen to them. You can pretty much torture and destroy an animal and get a very small time in prison or a small little fee and community service.
Whyyy.. Why WOULD YOU DO THIS! *sob* Oh man... After reading the article though. They said they were getting rid of the dogs. Not in this kind of way I am assuming, because that's just disgusting.
I wonder if his company offered him the means to do it in a "proper, legal and humane manner" or just told him to do it with full knowledge that there was only one way he had the resources to see it done.
I also find it funny that the article actually quotes the SPCA on their description of the morality of what happened, as if they're some sort of authority and their 'opinion' that it's a "slaughter" somehow counts as additional information, instead of simply openly admitting the article's own stance on the issue, let alone letting the readers make their own judgement for a single moment.
On February 01 2011 10:54 RedLuck wrote: Yeah heard it on the radio today... so sick. Even if someone was "ordered" to do this I can't see how'd they still go through with it. So sad.
Im not saying that I agree with this, but when your life is directly tied to your entire life you do what your told or your family goes hungry
I mean it'a always sad when human incompetance leads to the suffering of animals but this is just a tradgedy.
Thos dogs probably could have been given away to local kids or something? Did they really need to be put down? And in such a horrific manner?
It just feels so much more sickening when this sorta shit happens to dogs. They're so inteligent...and capable of such companionship...I know this sounds sappy, but when I look at my dog I can definatly see the love in his eyes. I've come to be able to understand some of his more subtle characteristics. Like when he's hungry, I can just tell from looking at him, and the look on his face.
I don't know how anyone could even bring themselves to do this. We do after all call them "Mans best friend"
This story is a bit more dramatic because it is dogs, which we human feel more connected to than any other animal somehow. Still, I don't think this is rational in any way.
According to the WorkSafe B.C. documents obtained by the station, an employee of Outdoor Adventures Whistler has been compensated for post-traumatic stress disorder after being ordered to shoot the animals.
I think this would be quite a normal response, which should indicate that this is wrong. Best wishes to him.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How can you sleep at night? Humanity dictates that we all have compassion for other living things. You must be sick in the head or worse.. Christian.
If this was in Florida, they would be sentenced for first degree murder. Florida's laws against killing a dog is considered as to killing a human. Fuck these guys, I get so angry when I read stories like these.
On February 01 2011 10:54 RedLuck wrote: Yeah heard it on the radio today... so sick. Even if someone was "ordered" to do this I can't see how'd they still go through with it. So sad.
Im not saying that I agree with this, but when your life is directly tied to your entire life you do what your told or your family goes hungry
The manager who performed the killings stopped working for them shortly after the incident although the reason why is not given. Perhaps one of his superiors found out about this and fired him and tried to keep this quiet?
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
You're terrible . Humans are just animals too you know...
“What is extremely upsetting is to read what he described - some of them requiring mulitple shots, his having to slit their throats, dogs faces being blown off and they were still running around, dogs that he thought had been dead, that he put in what he described as a mass grave and he looks back and sees her trying to climb out,”
This almost makes me want to vomit.
Animals that are not capable of malevolence, purely innocent creatures, being slaughtered to save money. I'm pretty sure the human race doesn't deserve to exist.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How can you sleep at night? Humanity dictates that we all have compassion for other living things. You must be sick in the head or worse.. Christian.
User was temp banned for this post.
what the hell? your saying that all christains are stuck up people who dont care about dogs? wow, just wow
If the owners couldn't find home's for the animals I believe it would have been moral to have the animals put down. However the manner in which this was handled is disgusting, just another fine example of man's willingness to sacrifice moral ground to maximize profits. $100 to be a decent human being or $1 for a bullet. Oh well, its Canada killing dogs like that is a worse offense then selling weed. They will most likely get hit pretty hard in court.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
You're terrible . Humans are just animals too you know...
No , human's are not animal's. Animals are driven by instinct not emotions that you or I experience. We have the capability to be driven by instinct but one a whole were are different.
I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
On February 01 2011 10:58 alffla wrote: WTF can't imagine canadians would do something like this
wtf...... at least use lethal injnection or something if they really had to kill them
this is so sad
We also beat the shit out of seals using clubs..
Man is disgusting, it's the 21st century and this still happens is completely wrong. These dogs we're trained athletes, I'm sure they could be given away or even let loose would be better then is massacre. Hope this company goes under BIG TIME.
On February 01 2011 11:24 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
That thought is just disgusting. ""JUST WORKERS NO BIG, They have no right to live"" ??? What.. Okay, so if I have dogs that I train and use every day, etc it's fine if I massacre them? They are just simply dogs, not pets? idk what you mean by that.
I thought about this a bit further and wondered why there is such an uproar about these dogs when there are animals out there living a horrid life in a dark and gloomy place and then massacred by the quantity to feed.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How can you sleep at night? Humanity dictates that we all have compassion for other living things. You must be sick in the head or worse.. Christian.
User was temp banned for this post.
LOL i was wondering y u got banned until reading the last word but on topic y dont they donate the dogs to people to needs them in the arctic, KILLING ANIMALS FOR NOTHING IS WORST ETHICAL CRIME EVER! (caps are needed for the dogs)
WOAH THIS IS SO WASTEFUL! Someone could have eaten or used those furs! I wonder if Husky furs are valuable... or if their meat can be used for anything. At the very least use them for scientific research instead of killing useful commodities.
Who cares about the animals though. People suffer far worse fates than this and are actually intelligent enough to be able to live in fear and realization of it. Oh yeh dont forget about abortion where they stick scissors into babies heads and necks. Oh wait I bet no one cares about that but THE POOR DOGGY WOGGIES! sigh... humanity...
Should have paid me to kill those dogs I would have done it without crying about PTSD. Or maybe I should cry and get a bunch of money like the liberals (but use it to fund America/Republicans/NRA).
Slitting their throats seems too risky and difficult and time consuming. I dont know how thick those dog sleds fur are but I imagine they are quite thick to protect from the cold. I could see decapitating them with a chainsaw though. Personally I'd use a rifle b/c I dont want a bunch of dog blood on me and it would be fun to practice aiming. Bullets are pretty cheap but that cattle gun they use to execute cattle might be cheaper. Pretty sure the bullets are cheaper though.
On February 01 2011 11:24 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
?? Really? You think it's okay to kill 100 dogs because they are "working" dogs and not pets?
And what the hell are you talking about "if other options were explored but not possible" lol there are ALWAYS other options than just straight killing.
Another company that does dogsledding in Whistler claims that it is always able to find homes for its dogs after retirement. I think this was a straight cost-saving measure, however they're going to lose way more than they saved now that this has come out publicly. Serves them right.
If they had to put them down, like many said, should have done so in a more humane manner. I'm sure those dogs helped them make enough $ to do so.
@Blitzkrieger - defending this by pointing at other wrongs is stupid, both should be addressed and fixed if there are problems. Its like saying don't worry about providing cold medicine when we have HIV to worry about. If you wanted to take this router you'd be better off talking about livestock treatment
On February 01 2011 11:35 blitzkrieger wrote: People suffer far worse fates than this and are actually intelligent enough to be able to live in fear and realization of it.
Also, if you were to be shot in the face and continued to run around alive, I'm sure your fear and pain would not differ from that of another animal's realization of it... Your post kind of made me wish you'd go through this "experience" as well, come out alive, and see if your view changes. Or maybe just so that you feel the pain
On February 01 2011 11:04 XsebT wrote: This story is a bit more dramatic because it is dogs, which we human feel more connected to than any other animal somehow. Still, I don't think this is rational in any way.
According to the WorkSafe B.C. documents obtained by the station, an employee of Outdoor Adventures Whistler has been compensated for post-traumatic stress disorder after being ordered to shoot the animals.
I think this would be quite a normal response, which should indicate that this is wrong. Best wishes to him.
"somehow"
how about the fact that we co-evolved and co-habitated together for millenia, and dogs have been one of the most important factors in human societies growth and evolution?
Disgusting story, lock the fucker up and throw away the damn key
On February 01 2011 11:35 blitzkrieger wrote: WOAH THIS IS SO WASTEFUL! Someone could have eaten or used those furs! I wonder if Husky furs are valuable... or if their meat can be used for anything. At the very least use them for scientific research instead of killing useful commodities.
Who cares about the animals though. People suffer far worse fates than this and are actually intelligent enough to be able to live in fear and realization of it. Oh yeh dont forget about abortion where they stick scissors into babies heads and necks. Oh wait I bet no one cares about that but THE POOR DOGGY WOGGIES! sigh... humanity...
Should have paid me to kill those dogs I would have done it without crying about PTSD. Or maybe I should cry and get a bunch of money like the liberals (but use it to fund America/Republicans/NRA).
Slitting their throats seems too risky and difficult and time consuming. I dont know how thick those dog sleds fur are but I imagine they are quite thick to protect from the cold. I could see decapitating them with a chainsaw though. Personally I'd use a rifle b/c I dont want a bunch of dog blood on me and it would be fun to practice aiming. Bullets are pretty cheap but that cattle gun they use to execute cattle might be cheaper. Pretty sure the bullets are cheaper though.
Epic trolling bro. For a second I thought I had signed into 4chan, not TeamLiquid
I think if anything the crime here is sending a man untrained in culling dogs to kill a massed amount of them without proper tools or help. Seeing as this man was probably emotionally attached to what he was working with it would have been better to get someone who didn't own the dogs to kill them. There is no doubt that they needed to die. Nobody wants to send 100 wild dogs into whistler, or take the time and effort that would reduce efficiency in a business to give them away. In some places people are killed for being inefficient. Why would anyone think twice about killing a lesser species?
On February 01 2011 11:13 MapleFractal wrote: If the owners couldn't find home's for the animals I believe it would have been moral to have the animals put down. However the manner in which this was handled is disgusting, just another fine example of man's willingness to sacrifice moral ground to maximize profits. $100 to be a decent human being or $1 for a bullet. Oh well, its Canada killing dogs like that is a worse offense then selling weed. They will most likely get hit pretty hard in court.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
You're terrible . Humans are just animals too you know...
No , human's are not animal's. Animals are driven by instinct not emotions that you or I experience. We have the capability to be driven by instinct but one a whole were are different.
Yes, we are animals. We are just far more advanced than the rest, that's all. Killing 100 dogs isn't the same as killing 100 people, I agree, but it's still sick and immoral (in a situation like this).
And I hope you don't misunderstand me when I say killing dogs is more ok than killing people. From a neutral point of view (e.g nature), it's not worse to kill humans than dogs. What I mean is that we humans obviously "care" more about our own species (the fact that we care at all, is because of emotions, probably). And because we are vastly superior to animals in terms of intelligence, we also tend to see ourselves as something else than "animals". Truth is though, we are nothing but highly developed animals...at least in my opinion.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
You're terrible . Humans are just animals too you know...
No , human's are not animal's. Animals are driven by instinct not emotions that you or I experience. We have the capability to be driven by instinct but one a whole were are different.
I submit that you are grossly unqualified to make judgments on the emotional capacities of any living thing other than yourself.
I think it's illogical to get outraged about this kind of thing but turn a blind eye to the horrible treatment of farm animals. However that's how society has developed, this kind of speciesism is ingrained in our culture.
On February 01 2011 11:24 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
?? Really? You think it's okay to kill 100 dogs because they are "working" dogs and not pets?
And what the hell are you talking about "if other options were explored but not possible" lol there are ALWAYS other options than just straight killing.
I think they are animals bred and raised for a purpose. I think killing them is no worse than killing a cow for beef. I couldn't kill them personally because I have pet dogs which I love and I'd have way too much shit because of that but these aren't someones pet. Pigs are just as smart and we have no issue with killing them.
So the guy who actually shot 100 dogs, got compensated and let off the hook because he claimed PTSD? If he hadn't claimed PTSD he would have still been criminalized even if he was "ordered" to. He still chose to do it. That's ridiculous
damn that sucks... growing up in korea i've seen many dog abuse(80-early 90s), i even saw one burn to death with a torch, 15 minutes later being chopped to pieces to be cooked. from that i feel no shock when i hear news like this...however in this time and age, and especially in civilized world, this should not be allowed.
only thing i can think of is that they had no other way...but this obviously isn't true. whoever in charge probably didn't think much of it and just concluded: no dog = less money being wasted. he/she obviously didn't want to go through the hassle of finding them home...again this is no excuse since she/he could have just found a volunteer to do so through craigslist or something.
On February 01 2011 11:24 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
People seem to be misinterpreting what KwarK intended to say. The key words here are "if other options were explored but not possible". Clearly, the manner in which these sled dogs were "culled" is disgusting, and I dearly hope that the guy in charge of this is given his due penance. Perhaps even a lethal injection is a bit much to stomach for some of you (please note that my tone here is not meant to be mocking in the slightest). However, KwarK is not advocating that, as work dogs and not pets, he was fine with the huskies being put down. His point was that these dogs wouldn't have been fit for too much else other than being sled dogs. Despite these limitations, other options would invariably exist, and those options should have been pursued to the extent permitted by resources and time. If, and ONLY if, every one of those options didn't pan out, euthanasia should be considered the last resort.
It's regrettable and saddening, but not unreasonable.
I understand that many of you hold animal rights as highly as those of humans, and that they deserve the utmost respect. I happen to agree somewhat, but please don't let your zeal prevent you from letting others voice their opinions without being attacked for them.
On February 01 2011 11:24 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
?? Really? You think it's okay to kill 100 dogs because they are "working" dogs and not pets?
And what the hell are you talking about "if other options were explored but not possible" lol there are ALWAYS other options than just straight killing.
I think they are animals bred and raised for a purpose. I think killing them is no worse than killing a cow for beef. I couldn't kill them personally because I have pet dogs which I love and I'd have way too much shit because of that but these aren't someones pet. Pigs are just as smart and we have no issue with killing them.
To me, the two biggest issues are whether or not the killings are humane the intelligence of the animals involved. I would still have a pretty strong reaction to seeing/hearing about the mistreatment of farm animals. Up until doing some research just now, I had no idea pigs were so intelligent. I'm actually having a bit of a moral crisis about eating pork, ham and bacon now. :S
On February 01 2011 11:58 Kamais_Ookin wrote: This makes me sick, 100 dogs being slaughtered like that, why not just sell them to people or kill them in a much more humane way or let them go?
Does anyone what charge the man can face and how much prison time if at all?
what's the canadian law for animal abuse??
there was a incident in korea recently who abused a cat and put up pictures on a blog. only punishment was something along the lines of $300 fine. however, this incident did initiate reforming animal abuse laws.
Some of you guys are ridiculous. Should all slaughter house employees be prosecuted for killing animals? It's illogical to care about dogs but not pigs.
On February 01 2011 11:24 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
?? Really? You think it's okay to kill 100 dogs because they are "working" dogs and not pets?
And what the hell are you talking about "if other options were explored but not possible" lol there are ALWAYS other options than just straight killing.
I think they are animals bred and raised for a purpose. I think killing them is no worse than killing a cow for beef. I couldn't kill them personally because I have pet dogs which I love and I'd have way too much shit because of that but these aren't someones pet. Pigs are just as smart and we have no issue with killing them.
I agree with the general idea that for people who have read animal rights articles, this is nothing out of the ordinary in terms of how we humans treat animals. This is an article I came across a while back:
Around 10,000 years ago the European wild boar was domesticated and this gave rise to the pink domesticated pig that can be seen on factory farms world wide.
In the wild pigs live in herds of between 2 and 6 females and their recent offspring. Within this group a stable hierarchy forms based on age and size; with the older and larger females being the most dominant. During mating season, a male will enter the group and assume dominance of the group until mating has been successful.
During a typical day, pigs would spend their time foraging for food or sleeping in one of many nesting sites they have within their home range. These nests are made by the pigs arranging grass, twigs and other bedding materials. During the evening the whole herd will sleep together on a communal nest at the centre of the herd’s home range.
On a factory farm pigs are unable to carry out these important instinctual behaviours.
In New Zealand there are over 350,000 pigs on factory farms; most destined to be eaten.
They live in filthy crammed conditions, unable to display any of their natural behaviours such as foraging, nesting, forming hierarchies and in many cases even turning around.
Boars and Gilts Naturally, boars would leave their mother at 7 months of age. After this time they would primarily have a solitary life roaming a home range greater than 100 hectares in area.
On a factory farm boars are confined to individual stalls or small group pens. The close proximity to other boars can be stressful. The confinement leads to the boars suffering from boredom, frustration and a lack of exercise.
Sows who have not yet been bred are known as gilts and are often housed in small group pens.
Despite common perception; pigs are very clean animals and would naturally have a dunging area well separated from their sleeping nest. In group pens there are generally about 4 or 5 gilts in an area only a few square meters in area. This results in the pigs being covered in their own excrement. The high level of ammonia in the atmosphere also leads to urine scald.
Sow Stalls Over half of the sows in NZ are placed in dry sow stalls for either part or all of their 115 day pregnancy. When the sows are about to give birth they are transferred to a farrowing crate. Given that sows are either nursing young or are pregnant they are essentially confined for their entire life on the farm.
A sow’s home range would usually be upwards of 100 hectares. However on a factory farm they are restricted to an area that measures 60 centimetres by 2 metres. The sows can not turn around in these stalls; they can only sit, stand or lie down.
Sows have strong behavioural desires to root and forage. Confinement and barren living conditions mean that the sows cannot carry out these behaviours and they become bored and frustrated. This leads to the development of abnormal behaviours which the sows regularly repeat. These behaviours include bar chewing, sham chewing, head weaving and tongue rolling.
Sows have also shown behaviour indicative of learned helplessness and depression; this is apparent in sows who can be seen in the ‘dog-sitting’ position.
Confinement also harms the sows physically; frustration can cause the sows to bite the ears of neighbouring sows leaving them with open wounds. The constant contact wit the metal stall bars also leave the sows with cuts and scratches. The constant kneeling on a concrete floor results in calluses forming on the sows knees.
Sows confined to stalls are prone to developing overgrown toenails which result in lameness, foot injuries and leg and foot deformities.
Pigs have strong maternal instincts and confinement to a sow stall makes it impossible for the expectant mother to prepare for the birth of her litter. Before the birth, the mother sow would naturally prepare a special nest for her young. On a factory farm sows cannot do this and instead are moved to a new stall called a farrowing crate where she will give birth and attempt to care for her young.
Farrowing Crates Over 70 percent of all sows are confined to these crates for the birth of their young and will stay there for up to 6 weeks before being impregnated again and returned to a sow stall.
Farmers justify the use of farrowing crates by arguing that the piglets would be crushed to death by their mother if she was not confined. Piglets are generally only crushed under farm situations and in farrowing crates around 25 percent of piglets are crushed by their mothers. When sows are not confined to a small pen or crate they would normally perform a regular behaviour sequence when sitting and lying down to help minimise the chance of piglet crushing.
By day 3 the piglets are commonly subjected to surgical procedures with out anaesthetic. These procedures include tail clipping, ear notching, tooth clipping and castration. Pigs have a complex brain and series of pain receptors. Experts say that it is likely that the feeling of pain experienced by these piglets would be similar to that which humans would experience.
Piglets become stressed under farm situations and this can lead to tail biting. Rather than removing the cause of the problem farmers instead choose to remove part of the piglets’ tail. Pigs use their tail for communication and such usage is considerably impaired by this procedure.
Ear notching means a piglets ear is essentially hole punched for identification purposes.
The teeth of piglets are usually shortened in order to avoid damage to the mother’s udder and to the other piglets. Such damage often does not occur or is very minor. Shortening of the point teeth is usually carried out by clipping half of their initial length.
Castration is carried out on all male piglets that are not going to be retained for breeding. The principal purpose of this procedure is to prevent ‘boar taint’ in the flesh of older male pigs.
Fattening Pens In the wild piglets would be weaned at about 17 weeks of age but would remain with their mothers herd until they are at least 7 months old. On a factory farm the piglets are taken from their mothers at about 4 weeks old and placed in fattening pens or retained for breeding and sow ‘replacement’ purposes.
In a typical farm set up several hundred piglets from different litters are placed in a series of small pens in a dark concrete floored shed. The conditions are overcrowded and filthy. Like the boars and gilts, the piglets will quickly end up covered in their own excrement.
Pigs are very social and inquisitive animals with a complex brain. In a natural setting these piglets would be playing and learning by exploring their large home range with their mother and siblings. In these sheds piglets cannot do these things easily; this often leads to aggression and overeating.
Slaughter By the age of only 5 months these piglets are loaded on to trucks and transported to a slaughter house to be turned in to products for human consumption.
In 2005 over 750,000 pigs were slaughtered for their flesh.
At the slaughter house the piglets are unloaded and herded up shoots where they are stunned by a captive bolt pistol. Pigs have very thick skulls and this stunning does not always work.
Pigs are hoisted up by one leg on a conveyor belt. They then have their throats slit; some pigs will be fully conscious through this whole process.
The pigs then get submerged in a bath of boiling hot water to remove any hairs. Again studies have shown that some pigs will be fully conscious as they are scolded alive.
Pigs are not the only animal treated like this in New Zealand. Battery Hens, broiler hens, turkeys and ducks are all kept in similar conditions on factory farms where they too are treated like profit rather than living, breathing individuals who are capable of feeling pain, happiness and forming long lasting bonds with other animals.
Wow this is really disturbing. I thought we would ha tove moved past this by now. Did they atleast try to setup up adoption or sell the dogs? Im sure there are some families that would think a sled dog would be a cool pet. If they really just went out and killed these dogs...well, I hope protesters/acitivism groups can shut down a business. The lives of 100 dogs> a slightly nicer car for a few of the employees
On February 01 2011 11:13 MapleFractal wrote: If the owners couldn't find home's for the animals I believe it would have been moral to have the animals put down. However the manner in which this was handled is disgusting, just another fine example of man's willingness to sacrifice moral ground to maximize profits. $100 to be a decent human being or $1 for a bullet. Oh well, its Canada killing dogs like that is a worse offense then selling weed. They will most likely get hit pretty hard in court.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
You're terrible . Humans are just animals too you know...
No , human's are not animal's. Animals are driven by instinct not emotions that you or I experience. We have the capability to be driven by instinct but one a whole were are different.
....We're animals. Animals do have emotion on our level, especially in regards to pain and sadness.
The one thing we have over other animals that distinguishes our species is the frontal lobe of our brain. This allows higher functioning -- think calculus. Other than that we're VERY similar to other animals, considering that they've evolved with us as time has gone on. We're still animals anyway you slice it.
Sounds like when people were upset with the dolphin or seal or whale hunts. Animals are animals. We do terrible things to 100's of species every day. Just because one is "cute" shouldn't make it more of a crime.
That is fucking disgusting. Give the fucking dogs away, use some fucking common sense. I'm beginning to realise how disgusting the world actually is. I mean they are dogs and aren't considered the same as humans but still, that doesn't mean slaughtering them is ok. I'm gonna go give my dogs a hug now.
It's understandable that 100 dogs couldn't find homes, especially if the owners didnt have the forethought of having to give them away.
Assuming that the company/business did not have enough money for what they say is a more humane euthanasia, I think its alright if they shot the dogs. Strays lead miserable lives
WHat's messed up is that the guy who had to do the job did not know what he was doing and couldn't do the job swiftly, and painlessly. Should've at least asked around to see if someone knew how to do it better.
On February 01 2011 12:16 brain_ wrote: Horrible. As a former resident, I want to say that Whistler residents in general would never do something like this. The town must be in uproar.
o good. i was beginning to think Whistler was just a dog killing town. glad a former resident could stop by a vouch for their nobleness
but what do you mean in general they would never do something like this? like 60% of the time they don't kill dogs, but on friday-sunday it's open range.
So sad. I feel bad for the guy who did it too, if he was put up to it. Imagine? "Kill all of these dogs or you're fired, either that or they'll starve to death." And then the guy had no idea what he was doing. I would want to kill myself after that (assuming I had gone through with it, which of course I wouldn't have). Sad on so many levels.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
On February 01 2011 12:16 brain_ wrote: Horrible. As a former resident, I want to say that Whistler residents in general would never do something like this. The town must be in uproar.
o good. i was beginning to think Whistler was just a dog killing town. glad a former resident could stop by a vouch for their nobleness
but what do you mean in general they would never do something like this? like 60% of the time they don't kill dogs, but on friday-sunday it's open range.
o gawd
Way to breed sensationalism. I'm sure that Brain meant the residents of Whistler were morally upright enough (barring a few troublemakers) to never do this sort of thing. To assert that every resident of the town is a canine-slaying monster, because of one regrettable incident perpetrated by a handful, is ridiculous. And on top of that, did you honestly think that Brain implied some sort of grisly "open-range" shit occurred every weekend?
Perhaps you and I think differently about matters, but I find it incredibly difficult to misconstrue the intent behind his words, Albis. Ponder it for a little while longer, and please try and refrain from such wild conspiracy.
EDIT: Unless you were trolling. But if that's the case, you could have either done it better, or been funnier, and in my opinion, this topic warrants no disparagement in the first place.
A vegetarian is a person who won't eat anything that can have children. ~David Brenner
Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them. ~Samuel Butler, Note-Books, 1912
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian. ~Paul McCartney
How can you eat anything with eyes? ~Will Kellogg
Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant? I'm halfway through my fishburger and I realize, Oh my God. I could be eating a slow learner. ~Lynda Montgomery
Animals are my friends... and I don't eat my friends. ~George Bernard Shaw
We don't need to eat anyone who would run, swim, or fly away if he could. ~James Cromwell
Nothing more strongly arouses our disgust than cannibalism, yet we make the same impression on Buddhists and vegetarians, for we feed on babies, though not our own. ~Robert Louis Stevenson
My perspective of veganism was most affected by learning that the veal calf is a by-product of dairying, and that in essence there is a slice of veal in every glass of what I had thought was an innocuous white liquid - milk. ~Rynn Berry, quoted in Joanne Stepaniak, The Vegan Sourcebook, 1998
Recognize meat for what it really is: the antibiotic- and pesticide-laden corpse of a tortured animal. ~Ingrid Newkirk
I think if you want to eat more meat you should kill it yourself and eat it raw so that you are not blinded by the hypocrisy of having it processed for you. ~Margi Clark I do not like eating meat because I have seen lambs and pigs killed. I saw and felt their pain. They felt the approaching death. I could not bear it. I cried like a child. I ran up a hill and could not breathe. I felt that I was choking. I felt the death of the lamb. ~Vaslav Nijinsky
Truely man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men. ~Leonardo da Vinci
Would you kill your pet dog or cat to eat it? How about an animal you're not emotionally attached to? Is the thought of slaughtering a cow or chicken or pig with your own hands too much to handle? Instead, would hiring a hit-man to do the job give you enough distance from the emotional discomfort? What animal did you put a contract out on for your supper last night? Did you at least make sure that none went to waste and to take a moment to be grateful for its sacrifice? ~Anonymous
On February 01 2011 11:24 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
?? Really? You think it's okay to kill 100 dogs because they are "working" dogs and not pets?
And what the hell are you talking about "if other options were explored but not possible" lol there are ALWAYS other options than just straight killing.
I think they are animals bred and raised for a purpose. I think killing them is no worse than killing a cow for beef. I couldn't kill them personally because I have pet dogs which I love and I'd have way too much shit because of that but these aren't someones pet. Pigs are just as smart and we have no issue with killing them.
Whether they are someone's pets or not doesn't matter, their lives can be saved and slaughtering them is a horrible act. Honestly, the pig cow vs dog debate has been beaten to death and I don't even know why people still use this as an argument. Dogs were basically CREATED by humans, and they evolved to bond with us and we actually release a chemical called oxytocin when we interact with them (same when we interact with babies). This puts them ahead of animals that we just eat for food, like how we put humans lives before other animals. The world is grey sometimes you know.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How did this post not get a ban or at least a warning?
1) Inconsistent with basic morality 2) Inconsistent with the law 3) Probably a troll 4) If not 3, a terrible terrible person who I would want no affiliation with... I'm surprised TL mods don't feel the same way about this...
On February 01 2011 11:24 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
?? Really? You think it's okay to kill 100 dogs because they are "working" dogs and not pets?
And what the hell are you talking about "if other options were explored but not possible" lol there are ALWAYS other options than just straight killing.
I think they are animals bred and raised for a purpose. I think killing them is no worse than killing a cow for beef. I couldn't kill them personally because I have pet dogs which I love and I'd have way too much shit because of that but these aren't someones pet. Pigs are just as smart and we have no issue with killing them.
Whether they are someone's pets or not doesn't matter, their lives can be saved and slaughtering them is a horrible act. Honestly, the pig cow vs dog debate has been beaten to death and I don't even know why people still use this as an argument. Dogs were basically CREATED by humans, and they evolved to bond with us and we actually release a chemical called oxytocin when we interact with them (same when we interact with babies). This puts them ahead of animals that we just eat for food, like how we put humans lives are other animals. The world is grey sometimes you know.
Lots of people have pigs for pets, and lots of people eat dogs for food.
On February 01 2011 11:24 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
?? Really? You think it's okay to kill 100 dogs because they are "working" dogs and not pets?
And what the hell are you talking about "if other options were explored but not possible" lol there are ALWAYS other options than just straight killing.
I think they are animals bred and raised for a purpose. I think killing them is no worse than killing a cow for beef. I couldn't kill them personally because I have pet dogs which I love and I'd have way too much shit because of that but these aren't someones pet. Pigs are just as smart and we have no issue with killing them.
Whether they are someone's pets or not doesn't matter, their lives can be saved and slaughtering them is a horrible act. Honestly, the pig cow vs dog debate has been beaten to death and I don't even know why people still use this as an argument. Dogs were basically CREATED by humans, and they evolved to bond with us and we actually release a chemical called oxytocin when we interact with them (same when we interact with babies). This puts them ahead of animals that we just eat for food, like how we put humans lives are other animals. The world is grey sometimes you know.
Lots of people have pigs for pets, and lots of people eat dogs for food.
And every domesticated animal was created by humans...
On February 01 2011 11:24 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
?? Really? You think it's okay to kill 100 dogs because they are "working" dogs and not pets?
And what the hell are you talking about "if other options were explored but not possible" lol there are ALWAYS other options than just straight killing.
I think they are animals bred and raised for a purpose. I think killing them is no worse than killing a cow for beef. I couldn't kill them personally because I have pet dogs which I love and I'd have way too much shit because of that but these aren't someones pet. Pigs are just as smart and we have no issue with killing them.
Whether they are someone's pets or not doesn't matter, their lives can be saved and slaughtering them is a horrible act. Honestly, the pig cow vs dog debate has been beaten to death and I don't even know why people still use this as an argument. Dogs were basically CREATED by humans, and they evolved to bond with us and we actually release a chemical called oxytocin when we interact with them (same when we interact with babies). This puts them ahead of animals that we just eat for food, like how we put humans lives are other animals. The world is grey sometimes you know.
Lots of people have pigs for pets, and lots of people eat dogs for food.
Yes but dogs are more integrated into human lives... You know some humans live as pets too right? Lets all just slaughter them HOOOOOOORAY.
On February 01 2011 11:24 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
?? Really? You think it's okay to kill 100 dogs because they are "working" dogs and not pets?
And what the hell are you talking about "if other options were explored but not possible" lol there are ALWAYS other options than just straight killing.
I think they are animals bred and raised for a purpose. I think killing them is no worse than killing a cow for beef. I couldn't kill them personally because I have pet dogs which I love and I'd have way too much shit because of that but these aren't someones pet. Pigs are just as smart and we have no issue with killing them.
Whether they are someone's pets or not doesn't matter, their lives can be saved and slaughtering them is a horrible act. Honestly, the pig cow vs dog debate has been beaten to death and I don't even know why people still use this as an argument. Dogs were basically CREATED by humans, and they evolved to bond with us and we actually release a chemical called oxytocin when we interact with them (same when we interact with babies). This puts them ahead of animals that we just eat for food, like how we put humans lives are other animals. The world is grey sometimes you know.
Lots of people have pigs for pets, and lots of people eat dogs for food.
And every domesticated animal was created by humans...
No, every domesticated animal was domesticated by humans. Humans didn't create any animal that is used for consumption that didn't already exist in the wild. Haven't you people read Guns, Germs, and Steel?
On February 01 2011 11:24 KwarK wrote: I wouldn't have been able to kill them myself but these were working dogs, not pets. I don't see anything wrong with the decision to cull them if other options were explored but not possible.
?? Really? You think it's okay to kill 100 dogs because they are "working" dogs and not pets?
And what the hell are you talking about "if other options were explored but not possible" lol there are ALWAYS other options than just straight killing.
I think they are animals bred and raised for a purpose. I think killing them is no worse than killing a cow for beef. I couldn't kill them personally because I have pet dogs which I love and I'd have way too much shit because of that but these aren't someones pet. Pigs are just as smart and we have no issue with killing them.
Whether they are someone's pets or not doesn't matter, their lives can be saved and slaughtering them is a horrible act. Honestly, the pig cow vs dog debate has been beaten to death and I don't even know why people still use this as an argument. Dogs were basically CREATED by humans, and they evolved to bond with us and we actually release a chemical called oxytocin when we interact with them (same when we interact with babies). This puts them ahead of animals that we just eat for food, like how we put humans lives are other animals. The world is grey sometimes you know.
Lots of people have pigs for pets, and lots of people eat dogs for food.
And every domesticated animal was created by humans...
No, every domesticated animal was domesticated by humans. Humans didn't create any animal that is used for consumption that didn't already exist in the wild. Haven't you people read Guns, Germs, and Steel?
Very true, I was simply using the words he used. And while dogs probably weren't domesticated for consumption, there certainly isn't much evidence to suggest why they were domesticated at all.
At first I was shocked and appalled - how could anyone do such a thing to cute cuddly, "Balto"-esque sled dogs!??
Then I read Kwark's and Mani's responses and realized I suffered from the same "cuddly pet" syndrome as everyone else in the Western World raised on Disney movies and pet keeping.
However, the manner in which this was done is clearly wrong - although I've heard the slaughterhouses aren't much different to livestock.
I volunteer at a humane society in the province next door to whistler. I know our facility would taken those dogs in a heartbeat and either found them a loving home or humanely euthanized any dogs that would not be able to live their life happy with a family.( which is very rare, I havent met a healthy dog yet that hasnt found a home ) This is atrocious and I will be sure to follow the story and spread the word about this hell hole, I am shocked they STILL have dogs on the property..
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
You're terrible . Humans are just animals too you know...
No , human's are not animal's. Animals are driven by instinct not emotions that you or I experience.
On a related note, you can't simply take working dogs and give them to a good home where they warm themselves in front of the fire and play with the children. They have a completely different bond with humans than a pet dog would, despite being the same species. They're raised as a tool, they're still mans best friend but the nature of the relationship is completely different.
On February 01 2011 12:26 theBOOCH wrote: So sad. I feel bad for the guy who did it too, if he was put up to it. Imagine? "Kill all of these dogs or you're fired, either that or they'll starve to death." And then the guy had no idea what he was doing. I would want to kill myself after that (assuming I had gone through with it, which of course I wouldn't have). Sad on so many levels.
BULLsHIT to the guy who did it!! He is as bad or worse, you dont "put someone up" to kill a living creature for no reason. He SHOULD have contacted the BC humane society and informed them of such a thing, he works at a tourist attraction, its not like being the CEO of Microsoft and losing your job, he could have gone to tim hortons the next day and got a job.. hes a sick bastard like the rest and now trying to cover his ass...
On February 01 2011 12:53 KwarK wrote: On a related note, you can't simply take working dogs and give them to a good home where they warm themselves in front of the fire and play with the children. They have a completely different bond with humans than a pet dog would, despite being the same species. They're raised as a tool, they're still mans best friend but the nature of the relationship is completely different.
I don't know about this. The US Military retires* its working dogs to civilian households fairly easily, and those things are trained to kill people, not pull sleds.
*Yes, the Military retires its dogs, they stopped killing them a while ago. It's kinda funny when you think about it.
I dont condone any sort of domestic pet killing, animal shelters included. that being said, IF TOURISTS wern't paying money for these sled rides it would have NEVER happend. Think about that the next time you ride a horse and buggy in somewhere.
On February 01 2011 11:43 Dance. wrote: This is fucking sick. Hope this guy is put to death by being shot multiple times, having his throat slit, and his face blown off.
if he didnt do it someone else would have. The Company that ordered it should be condemned, Not him.
On February 01 2011 11:43 Dance. wrote: This is fucking sick. Hope this guy is put to death by being shot multiple times, having his throat slit, and his face blown off.
if he didnt do it someone else would have. The Company that ordered it should be condemned, Not him.
Then that hypothetical someone else would be on the block, not him.
On February 01 2011 11:43 Dance. wrote: This is fucking sick. Hope this guy is put to death by being shot multiple times, having his throat slit, and his face blown off.
if he didnt do it someone else would have. The Company that ordered it should be condemned, Not him.
Then that hypothetical someone else would be on the block, not him.
But he didn't refuse.
i agree. Hitler actually wasn't responsible for WW2 either. It was the people who followed his orders. thanks for pointing me towards this logic.
Well it did say they couldn't find anyone to take the dogs, so there was some looking done. Apparently not enough. (given someone earlier saying their nearby Human society would willingly take 100 dogs)
The option apparently was either kill them or release them to starve/survive in the wild, and the second option might not have been legal (as they might have caused trouble)
And in terms of responsibility.. the responsibility is with everyone in the chain of command... the CEO all the way down to the guy who pulled the trigger.
As for the question of eating a pet for food v. eating a meat animal for food.
Would someone burn their wedding dress for warmth?... not except in dire situations, that doesn't mean it is immoral to burn things, just that here is sentimental value that would be lost.
Most people wouldn't eat their pet... unless they were starving, then some would consider it.
A news release from the company says it did not instruct the general manager to carry out the killings. The company was aware of the “euthanization” of dogs, the release states. “But it was our expectation that it was done in a proper, legal and humane manner,” the news release says. Company officials only became aware of the incident on Friday.
What the hell is the big deal? Dogs are raised and slaughtered for meat in Korea, for example. I hope everyone that is freaking out about this is either a vegetarian or upset that the dogs were killed wastefully. I would absolutely hate killing them myself, but I won't pretend for a second that I'm against it happening any more than I'm against dogs being raised and slaughtered for meat.
And to the inevitable response of "the dogs weren't killed humanely": 1) what difference does it make? if you are against an animal being subjected to pain, how can you possibly justify killing it in any circumstance? 2) do you think when a dog dies for meat in korea, it is killed humanely every single time? I would venture a guess that of the thousands of dogs that are slaughtered a day in korea, over a hundred of those dogs die "inhumanely" due to accidents or carelessness..
I don't get it, this makes no sense. Why didn't these morons simply give the dogs away to animal care organizations, or simple families who want a pet? Sled dogs are fucking awesome.
On February 01 2011 13:06 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: What the hell is the big deal? Dogs are raised and slaughtered for meat in Korea, for example. I hope everyone that is freaking out about this is either a vegetarian or upset that the dogs were killed wastefully. I would absolutely hate killing them myself, but I won't pretend for a second that I'm against it happening any more than I'm against dogs being raised and slaughtered for meat.
Err I don't see the first point. The same people against this argument are probably against the slaughtering of farm animals. It's a big deal because the animals weren't just tamed for homes (and yes you can condition a trained animal over a long period of time to be 'home' friendly) or released into the wilderness (where it would have a difficult time learning to survive but at least would have a chance rather than being popped).
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How can you sleep at night? Humanity dictates that we all have compassion for other living things. You must be sick in the head or worse.. Christian.
User was temp banned for this post.
While I do love dogs, and would like to own a dog (or a cat) myself one day, I do feel that he has a point. You can categorize a dog as a living thing, an animal, or just as a dog, but in essence, it is a dog. I don't really feel that we as humans treat all living things the same; there is a certain sanctity about a select few living things (such as pets), and disregard for other living things (do we care if we kill bacteria when we wash our hands?). Vegetarians, at least to my understanding, condemn the killing of animals for food, and thus choose vegetables and fruits; yet aren't these all "living things"? Even if we narrow it down to just animals, my experiences suggest that we revere certain animals over others. Do we really feel all that bad if we kill a mosquito, or an ant? And even across different cultures, perceptions of animals will change; an animal that is a household pet in one country could be a delicacy in another. I'm not attacking any specific positions on this issue, I just feel that his opinion is not inherently wrong in any way. And btw, I wouldn't consider myself a Christian.
On February 01 2011 13:06 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: What the hell is the big deal? Dogs are raised and slaughtered for meat in Korea, for example. I hope everyone that is freaking out about this is either a vegetarian or upset that the dogs were killed wastefully. I would absolutely hate killing them myself, but I won't pretend for a second that I'm against it happening any more than I'm against dogs being raised and slaughtered for meat.
Err I don't see the first point. The same people against this argument are probably against the slaughtering of farm animals.
What I mean is I would hope that those same people are against eating meat entirely (or at least "smart" animals), hence vegetarians.
On February 01 2011 13:08 Touch wrote: I don't get it, this makes no sense. Why didn't these morons simply give the dogs away to animal care organizations, or simple families who want a pet? Sled dogs are fucking awesome.
Yeah, or simply call the SPCA or whatever they're called and let them know .and if there's any possible way for them to place the dogs in homes, euthanasia should be the last option.
On February 01 2011 13:06 AcrossFiveJulys wrote: What the hell is the big deal? Dogs are raised and slaughtered for meat in Korea, for example. I hope everyone that is freaking out about this is either a vegetarian or upset that the dogs were killed wastefully. I would absolutely hate killing them myself, but I won't pretend for a second that I'm against it happening any more than I'm against dogs being raised and slaughtered for meat.
Err I don't see the first point. The same people against this argument are probably against the slaughtering of farm animals.
What I mean is I would hope that those same people are against eating meat entirely (or at least "smart" animals), hence vegetarians.
Yeah okay that makes sense. Because otherwise they'd be hypocrites . Though I'm pretty sure these sleddogs aren't being slaughtered for food and are just being 'wasted'....but you already mentioned that. So yeah I see what you're saying.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How did this post not get a ban or at least a warning?
1) Inconsistent with basic morality 2) Inconsistent with the law 3) Probably a troll 4) If not 3, a terrible terrible person who I would want no affiliation with... I'm surprised TL mods don't feel the same way about this...
Why is it inconsistent with the law? The law in our country states that any animal killed for reasons that are not cruel, irregardless of the amount, is completely legal.
Its nuts like you that belong in a tree, talking about emotions when it comes to basic human reasoning. If it weren't for the millions of hours that farmers put into killing animals, working fields, and taking the best out of animals that would die in what seems like a heartbeat in the wilderness, we wouldn't have any food.
We give animals safety and security, worthless as they are to us otherwise, they owe us their lives, and they will always be our slaves. Maybe you don't like the term but its the truth and that's how it has always been for logical and correct reasons. Your food won't just pop magically up in the supermarket when you want it, a man has to toil from the earth to get it. Now you criticize those who work hard and put their face in the dirt for our country?
I feel true regret at the fact that a man who lives a regular life had to put so much effort in to kill 100 dogs but at least he's doing his part to keep the country moving forward and not dwelling on what to do with 100 now useless animals.
Why are you asking for a ban or a warning? If you don't feel comfortable with the opinions of others you should just leave.
Disclaimer, I love dogs, and if anyone touched my Zoey, I'd hurt them really badly, but I mean.. Sigh, this is sad and all, but everyone here is completely wrong imo. The same type of people trying to get involved in this is the reason why whale wars is so popular. ( I love whales, and think they're magnificent creatures am awed by them ) . Those people on their giant boats are taking the law into their own hands and committing piracy. As such, despite their oh-so noble cause, they're wrong. The Japanese are not breaking any law, despite the bullshit those dumbass captains are trying to feed you. The damn near same concept goes with this. These dogs are property, and I am going to agree with a few others in that that no one cries when they eat a burger, or fish, or their bacon. You think those are killed humanely? No, they're killed quickest, most efficient, and most cost-effective way. The two obvious major differences here were , a) the person who killed them was clearly an idiot with no idea what the hell he was doing and should be punished for not killing them instantly after he brought harm upon them, and b) there weren't any walls to protect the poor eyes of the awe-stricken community. Everyone is falling victim to the media. Because this is a subject everyone can feel bad about, everyone believes everything they hear. Keep in mind, the media is trying to make money, get hits, and sell newspapers, and they'll do it anyway possible.
For instance, 'The Orlando Sentinel', no one hates the Orlando Magic more than our newspaper.
EDIT: Mass euthanizng of animals is not always an option, especially in a place where tourism is your main source of income, with your business being sled tours. You think these people are rich? You think they make 40 grand a year? You think they have the money for lethal injection of 100 dogs? They don't have to put the effort into finding a volunteer because the dogs are their property. (Again, wrong, but who am I to tell him what to do with his money and property)
You think the media would be all over this for a mass killing of 100 bunnies? squirrels? birds? cows? wolves? Mosquitoes? Turkeys? Deer? Chickens? No, the only reason they make this public is because it's dogs. What about mass killings of Eagles? Monkeys? Baby Giraffes? Siberian Tigers? Great White Shards? Manatees? Yep. (Yes endangered species are listed, but that doesn't change my point)
Please please please don't fall victim to this media crap, because that's where our generation is going I fear. Believing what the media feeds us.
I feel true regret at the fact that a man who lives a regular life had to put so much effort in to kill 100 dogs but at least he's doing his part to keep the country moving forward and not dwelling on what to do with 100 now useless animals.
I'm just shocked silent as to how you can think like that. The first thing you go to is how bad it must be to be that guy and waste your time with this? Not the fact that he's killings dogs in the most disgusting ways imaginable. Him massacring 100 sled dogs who now have no sleds to pull is in no way going to move canada forward, if anything backwards.
Mass euthanasia should've been the absolute last option on the list. And if it was the only option then it should've been done humanely. If they couldn't afford a humane way then they don't kill the dogs. Simple as that. Also no one should've been forced to do what he did. They should've had some professional do it. Not someone who probably worked with the dogs everyday and grew bonds with them.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How did this post not get a ban or at least a warning?
1) Inconsistent with basic morality 2) Inconsistent with the law 3) Probably a troll 4) If not 3, a terrible terrible person who I would want no affiliation with... I'm surprised TL mods don't feel the same way about this...
Why is it inconsistent with the law? The law in our country states that any animal killed for reasons that are not cruel, irregardless of the amount, is completely legal.
Its nuts like you that belong in a tree, talking about emotions when it comes to basic human reasoning. If it weren't for the millions of hours that farmers put into killing animals, working fields, and taking the best out of animals that would die in what seems like a heartbeat in the wilderness, we wouldn't have any food.
We give animals safety and security, worthless as they are to us otherwise, they owe us their lives, and they will always be our slaves. Maybe you don't like the term but its the truth and that's how it has always been for logical and correct reasons. Your food won't just pop magically up in the supermarket when you want it, a man has to toil from the earth to get it. Now you criticize those who work hard and put their face in the dirt for our country?
I feel true regret at the fact that a man who lives a regular life had to put so much effort in to kill 100 dogs but at least he's doing his part to keep the country moving forward and not dwelling on what to do with 100 now useless animals.
Why are you asking for a ban or a warning? If you don't feel comfortable with the opinions of others you should just leave.
Killing 100 SLED dogs is moving Canada forward? How? What? I don't understand how your brain works.
Sled dogs aren't farm animals. I wouldn't care if they killed 100 chickens.. but 100 sled dogs? Intelligent animals? Are you too illiterate to tell the difference?
I honestly hope all canadians dont have similiar though processes, but its starting to look that way in this thread.
We give animals safety and security, worthless as they are to us otherwise, they owe us their lives, and they will always be our slaves
Try to convince any animal rights or perhaps the fucking police that killing 100 intelligent, thoughtful beings is morally or remotely right. They aren't your 'slaves'.. if you treat your dog like a slave then give me your address so I can have someone take your dog away from you.
And if your original argument was that it's ok for farmers to kill animals then fine.. that has absolutely no relevance to this thread because sled dogs aren't farm animals . Think before you post, thanks.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How did this post not get a ban or at least a warning?
1) Inconsistent with basic morality 2) Inconsistent with the law 3) Probably a troll 4) If not 3, a terrible terrible person who I would want no affiliation with... I'm surprised TL mods don't feel the same way about this...
Why is it inconsistent with the law? The law in our country states that any animal killed for reasons that are not cruel, irregardless of the amount, is completely legal.
Its nuts like you that belong in a tree, talking about emotions when it comes to basic human reasoning. If it weren't for the millions of hours that farmers put into killing animals, working fields, and taking the best out of animals that would die in what seems like a heartbeat in the wilderness, we wouldn't have any food.
We give animals safety and security, worthless as they are to us otherwise, they owe us their lives, and they will always be our slaves. Maybe you don't like the term but its the truth and that's how it has always been for logical and correct reasons. Your food won't just pop magically up in the supermarket when you want it, a man has to toil from the earth to get it. Now you criticize those who work hard and put their face in the dirt for our country?
I feel true regret at the fact that a man who lives a regular life had to put so much effort in to kill 100 dogs but at least he's doing his part to keep the country moving forward and not dwelling on what to do with 100 now useless animals.
Why are you asking for a ban or a warning? If you don't feel comfortable with the opinions of others you should just leave.
Killing 100 SLED dogs is moving Canada forward? How? What? I don't understand how your brain works.
Sled dogs aren't farm animals. I wouldn't care if they killed 100 chickens.. but 100 sled dogs? Intelligent animals? Are you too illiterate to tell the difference?
I honestly hope all canadians dont have similiar though processes, but its starting to look that way in this thread.
We give animals safety and security, worthless as they are to us otherwise, they owe us their lives, and they will always be our slaves
Try to convince any animal rights or perhaps the fucking police that killing 100 intelligent, thoughtful beings is morally or remotely right. They aren't your 'slaves'.. if you treat your dog like a slave then give me your address so I can have someone take your dog away from you.
We kill pigs all the time and they are more intelligent than dogs, so the intelligence part is kind of a bad argument, However, I completely agree with you. There is nothing good about slaughtering animals, if it absolutely had to be done, then do it in a "humane manner", but sounds like they didn't even bother trying to take the dogs to a no kill shelter, let alone a kill shelter first. Some of these dogs probably had decent chances at finding a home or family before being put down. These people just wanted to get the dogs out of their hair so they didn't have to pay or worry about them. Sounds kind of ridiculous if you ask me.
What I hate worse about reading sick shit like this, is reading what people post. Yeah, I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion and you can think what you want, and that's cool. But when I read people saying things like "they're just animals" and "it doesn't matter, who cares" it just really gets to me. Maybe it's my love for animals that makes me fail to comprehend how people can just be so careless about situations like this and not give a shit, but it makes me feel absolutely terrible and angry how some people can't have just a sliver of sympathy, and they simply don't give a fuck. I will never understand where some people get their logic from.
the reason this story seems so poignant is because they are dogs, "man's best friend". honestly, if you have no qualms about eating beef i cant see how you could be angry at this. yes it sucks that the dogs were killed inhumanely, but was there a cheaper alternative for the owner, assuming he could not keep or sell the dogs?
Pigs are generally considered more intelligent than dogs and yet I bet most of those making a fuss will eat bacon happily enough. It seems like the cull was carried out pretty poorly so I can see that being an issue, but the actual killing of useless animals that no one wants to care for isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.
Ah well, people are almost always illogical when it comes to animals they like.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How did this post not get a ban or at least a warning?
1) Inconsistent with basic morality 2) Inconsistent with the law 3) Probably a troll 4) If not 3, a terrible terrible person who I would want no affiliation with... I'm surprised TL mods don't feel the same way about this...
Why is it inconsistent with the law? The law in our country states that any animal killed for reasons that are not cruel, irregardless of the amount, is completely legal.
Its nuts like you that belong in a tree, talking about emotions when it comes to basic human reasoning. If it weren't for the millions of hours that farmers put into killing animals, working fields, and taking the best out of animals that would die in what seems like a heartbeat in the wilderness, we wouldn't have any food.
We give animals safety and security, worthless as they are to us otherwise, they owe us their lives, and they will always be our slaves. Maybe you don't like the term but its the truth and that's how it has always been for logical and correct reasons. Your food won't just pop magically up in the supermarket when you want it, a man has to toil from the earth to get it. Now you criticize those who work hard and put their face in the dirt for our country?
I feel true regret at the fact that a man who lives a regular life had to put so much effort in to kill 100 dogs but at least he's doing his part to keep the country moving forward and not dwelling on what to do with 100 now useless animals.
Why are you asking for a ban or a warning? If you don't feel comfortable with the opinions of others you should just leave.
Killing 100 SLED dogs is moving Canada forward? How? What? I don't understand how your brain works.
Sled dogs aren't farm animals. I wouldn't care if they killed 100 chickens.. but 100 sled dogs? Intelligent animals? Are you too illiterate to tell the difference?
I honestly hope all canadians dont have similiar though processes, but its starting to look that way in this thread.
We give animals safety and security, worthless as they are to us otherwise, they owe us their lives, and they will always be our slaves
Try to convince any animal rights or perhaps the fucking police that killing 100 intelligent, thoughtful beings is morally or remotely right. They aren't your 'slaves'.. if you treat your dog like a slave then give me your address so I can have someone take your dog away from you.
And if your original argument was that it's ok for farmers to kill animals then fine.. that has absolutely no relevance to this thread because sled dogs aren't farm animals . Think before you post, thanks.
Chickens are also "intelligent, thoughtful" beings as are fish and cows and Laptops.
The degree of 'intelligence' or amount of 'thought' may vary between a dog and a laptop, but don't imply that there is no mental type activity in the chicken or the fish... or for that matter in the proteins-DNA interactions of a bacteria. (no neurons, but why is that the only way 'intelligence' can be expressed)
Although sad I can't help but disagree with the people complaining about this. On a farm when a dog is past it's point of use you put it down, the sled dogs are farm dogs. These dogs where born raised and trained outside. You could never find enough houses with the right amount of space for these dogs and would you rather see them die like this or in a puddle of their own piss I a 4x4 foot cage in some SPCA.
first of all, i find this whole affair distasteful.
but i still have to say this. humans are animals but animals are not humans. think about it. if a dog with broken legs and a baby were drowning, which would you save? i don't think anybody here would be able to justify saving the dog instead of the baby to themselves personally. there is still a fundamental difference.
that being said, i don't believe animals should be treated cruelly for no reason. but let's be honest, where are you going to find 100 households for dogs every time something like this happens? thousands of animals are euthanized because people want to buy their pets from pet stores rather than adopt from pounds. this is reality. and lethal injection.. they're already afraid of losing money; i doubt they would invest so many resources getting rid of assets that they no longer want.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How did this post not get a ban or at least a warning?
1) Inconsistent with basic morality 2) Inconsistent with the law 3) Probably a troll 4) If not 3, a terrible terrible person who I would want no affiliation with... I'm surprised TL mods don't feel the same way about this...
Why is it inconsistent with the law? The law in our country states that any animal killed for reasons that are not cruel, irregardless of the amount, is completely legal.
Its nuts like you that belong in a tree, talking about emotions when it comes to basic human reasoning. If it weren't for the millions of hours that farmers put into killing animals, working fields, and taking the best out of animals that would die in what seems like a heartbeat in the wilderness, we wouldn't have any food.
We give animals safety and security, worthless as they are to us otherwise, they owe us their lives, and they will always be our slaves. Maybe you don't like the term but its the truth and that's how it has always been for logical and correct reasons. Your food won't just pop magically up in the supermarket when you want it, a man has to toil from the earth to get it. Now you criticize those who work hard and put their face in the dirt for our country?
I feel true regret at the fact that a man who lives a regular life had to put so much effort in to kill 100 dogs but at least he's doing his part to keep the country moving forward and not dwelling on what to do with 100 now useless animals.
Why are you asking for a ban or a warning? If you don't feel comfortable with the opinions of others you should just leave.
First off its very naive and simple minded to insist that emotions and reason are mutually exclusive terms. Having studied philosophy (mostly philosophy of logic and moral theory btw) for years, it is pretty apparent that just about anyone who is a thoughtful and well-educated person (in the field) is well aware of this. (Yes i'm aware that this is a an appeal to authority but its a lot shorter than explaining all of the reasons why that standpoint is wrong). Thats a complete aside however since you're either trolling and/or have a severe social disorder. Either way best of luck to ya bud.
Please will some mod look at this guy's post history. All of them are trolly garbage except for one where he asks for free stuff from someone who was giving away games for christmas.
On February 01 2011 13:51 GypsyBeast wrote: Although sad I can't help but disagree with the people complaining about this. On a farm when a dog is past it's point of use you put it down, the sled dogs are farm dogs. These dogs where born raised and trained outside. You could never find enough houses with the right amount of space for these dogs and would you rather see them die like this or in a puddle of their own piss I a 4x4 foot cage in some SPCA.
So blowing therirheads off was ok? Did you even read the thread fully? I'm amazed at the general ignorance in the responses to this thread.
What can I say but that some yuppies who live in the city will never know what its really like to work as hard as these men did. They have to put in the time and effort to provide a valuable service during a time of economic downturn.
The man who did this pleaded PTSD because he knew there would be a media shitstorm on his head if he didn't, he doesn't deserve this hatred.
I'm also trying to understand why the fuck Americans think their law is anything like our law or that any of the mass emotional bullshit verdicts that drop in the U.S.A are reflected in our legal system in the slightest?
The SPCA shouldn't have been given this case, they're rabid junkies looking for more "poor" animals to protect so they can spew ridiculous hatred onto others with the power that our government gave them. No doubt they protect animals from pointless destruction but in this case it makes no sense.
I see no cost effective alternative to culling, and to reason why its wrong, in a competitive environment like Whistler you need all the advantages you can get with business. You might think they're a big heartless corporation but as a matter of fact they're a small business that was driven to this due to a spike in business by the Olympics. Now they're probably fighting to just barely pay the rent and buy food and this scandal comes along to fuck them over?
I hate people who love animals more than humans, Hate, I would enjoy personally sending to jail every one of those son of a bitches who cause this type of pain to others without fully thinking the words that come out of their mouths. Freedom may allow you to say what you want but don't let your useless cry for emotional safety jeopardize the well being and LIVES of many hard workers.
Millions of dogs are killed every year at shelters.. including greyhounds which are bred just for people's entertainment and then slaughtered when they are no longer wanted. This is news because of the way they are killed. Killing animals should be done by somebody that knows what they are doing, not but a random guy with a shovel.
On February 01 2011 14:06 BlackJack wrote: this is not news because they are dogs..
Millions of dogs are killed every year at shelters.. including greyhounds which are bred just for people's entertainment and then slaughtered when they are no longer wanted. This is news because of the way they are killed. Killing animals should be done by somebody that knows what they are doing, not but a random guy with a shovel.
On February 01 2011 14:06 BlackJack wrote: this is not news because they are dogs..
Millions of dogs are killed every year at shelters.. including greyhounds which are bred just for people's entertainment and then slaughtered when they are no longer wanted. This is news because of the way they are killed. Killing animals should be done by somebody that knows what they are doing, not but a random guy with a shovel.
Random guy with a gun, who has euthanized dogs before, but also had veterinary assistance doing it.
I think the company pressured him to do it despite the fact the veterinarian that was going to assist him refused to do it. The holes in this story lead me to believe that. They "expected" my ass. If you expect it, have it done right, or don't have it done at all.
On February 01 2011 14:02 ReaverDrop! wrote: What can I say but that some yuppies who live in the city will never know what its really like to work as hard as these men did. They have to put in the time and effort to provide a valuable service during a time of economic downturn.
The man who did this pleaded PTSD because he knew there would be a media shitstorm on his head if he didn't, he doesn't deserve this hatred.
I'm also trying to understand why the fuck Americans think their law is anything like our law or that any of the mass emotional bullshit verdicts that drop in the U.S.A are reflected in our legal system in the slightest?
The SPCA shouldn't have been given this case, they're rabid junkies looking for more "poor" animals to protect so they can spew ridiculous hatred onto others with the power that our government gave them. No doubt they protect animals from pointless destruction but in this case it makes no sense.
I see no cost effective alternative to culling, and to reason why its wrong, in a competitive environment like Whistler you need all the advantages you can get with business. You might think they're a big heartless corporation but as a matter of fact they're a small business that was driven to this due to a spike in business by the Olympics. Now they're probably fighting to just barely pay the rent and buy food and this scandal comes along to fuck them over?
I hate people who love animals more than humans, Hate, I would enjoy personally sending to jail every one of those son of a bitches who cause this type of pain to others without fully thinking the words that come out of their mouths. Freedom may allow you to say what you want but don't let your useless cry for emotional safety jeopardize the well being and LIVES of many hard workers.
You're pretty fucking ignorant. No one cares that you're a hard ass wanna be farmer. Read the post. You can honestly justify 100 dogs getting slaughtered (that doesn't mean getting put to sleep IE the HUMANE way to kill an animal that needs to be put down), by guns some requiring multiple shots.. heads blown off etc. That's not humane, now reflect on your little brain and try to justify it again now than you understand the context.
I hate people who love animals more than humans, Hate, I would enjoy personally sending to jail every one of those son of a bitches who cause this type of pain to others without fully thinking the words that come out of their mouths. Freedom may allow you to say what you want but don't let your useless cry for emotional safety jeopardize the well being and LIVES of many hard workers.
[/quote]
So intelligent humans (ie people who don't make posts like you) who want to defend intelligent beings from slaughter love animals more than humans? ... no they just love animals. They also love humans. Thoughtful people just don't support the mindless and shortsighted slaughter. Again, if they were actually put to sleep then it would be a lot less big of a deal.
And finally, stop trying to represent "Canada" with your narrow and coldhearted thought processes. There's plenty of "Canadians" in this thread who don't support mindless slaughter. You may think everyone else thinks like you, and if they don't their 'treehuggers', but no, they just aren't thickheaded and respect life.
I have to say, it's a bit ironic that the level of outrage on TL.net (a site devoted to a gaming culture native to a country that EATS dogs), is much higher than I've seen on any other online outlet.
That being said, this is still sickening, and action should be taken.
EDIT: Just out of curiosity, for the people who are saying, they're only dogs, who gives a shit, do you think dogs can't feel pain? Are their pain receptors any less effective than the ones that would be firing like mad if a human had his face shot off by some no-aiming backwoods Canuck with rusty revolver?
I'm no bleeding heart. I've hunted animals from deer to doves, but I respect the animals and the sport. This kind of thing is as sick as "canned" hunting.
On February 01 2011 13:47 FuzzyJAM wrote: Pigs are generally considered more intelligent than dogs and yet I bet most of those making a fuss will eat bacon happily enough. It seems like the cull was carried out pretty poorly so I can see that being an issue, but the actual killing of useless animals that no one wants to care for isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.
Ah well, people are almost always illogical when it comes to animals they like.
I promise you, if these dogs were killed in a humane manner and then processed for food, I would have no ethical problems with it. I would feel a little automatic revulsion, simply because I've come to see dogs as pets, but I can realize that this is illogical. That is not what happened here. This is the kind of situation where one might apply the phrase "senseless waste of life." These dogs were killed in a cruel manner with absolutely no justification for their deaths. It only happened because they stopped being useful, and their owners were too lazy or shortsighted to find a solution.
On February 01 2011 14:02 ReaverDrop! wrote: What can I say but that some yuppies who live in the city will never know what its really like to work as hard as these men did. They have to put in the time and effort to provide a valuable service during a time of economic downturn.
The man who did this pleaded PTSD because he knew there would be a media shitstorm on his head if he didn't, he doesn't deserve this hatred.
I'm also trying to understand why the fuck Americans think their law is anything like our law or that any of the mass emotional bullshit verdicts that drop in the U.S.A are reflected in our legal system in the slightest?
The SPCA shouldn't have been given this case, they're rabid junkies looking for more "poor" animals to protect so they can spew ridiculous hatred onto others with the power that our government gave them. No doubt they protect animals from pointless destruction but in this case it makes no sense.
I see no cost effective alternative to culling, and to reason why its wrong, in a competitive environment like Whistler you need all the advantages you can get with business. You might think they're a big heartless corporation but as a matter of fact they're a small business that was driven to this due to a spike in business by the Olympics. Now they're probably fighting to just barely pay the rent and buy food and this scandal comes along to fuck them over?
I hate people who love animals more than humans, Hate, I would enjoy personally sending to jail every one of those son of a bitches who cause this type of pain to others without fully thinking the words that come out of their mouths. Freedom may allow you to say what you want but don't let your useless cry for emotional safety jeopardize the well being and LIVES of many hard workers.
Okay, at this point you're just speaking nonsense. It looks like you didn't even read the article. If you did, you'd have seen this quotation, right at the very beginning.
“Any dog sledder who culls dogs at the end of a season should be culled himself, as far as we’re concerned,” said Paul McCormick, head dog sledding guide for Wilderness Adventures, a Toronto-based company that runs dog-sledding trips through Canada’s Algonquin Park.
“You don’t go out and cull dogs,” he said. “We’re part of the largest dog sled operation in the world with 40 dogs and we never cull dogs. We retire them, they’re adopted ... there are a lot of alternatives.”
Clearly, you do not understand the dog-sled tour business the way you're trying to imply. Culling is not an established practice in the dog-sledding business, and it seems that there are many different options for retiring dogs that are no longer needed for work. Inhumane killing is not any kind of option, never mind the only option. The kind of situation you're presenting is ridiculously overdramatic. You think that people who oppose this "love animals more than humans?" I think most of us would be much more angry if this company was killing humans instead of animals, but that doesn't mean we're okay with the wholesale slaughter of animals for human convenience. Even your slave analogy is useless, because severe mistreatment (nevermind murder) of slaves was illegal even in countries where black people were considered subhuman. It's obvious that nobody loved slaves more than the slave-owning classes, but it was not legal or accepted to just kill them just because they were no longer necessary.
You're seriously saying that you want to send people to jail because of the pain they're causing by accusing others of being grossly negligent with responsibilities that they chose to accept? Nobody forced this company to take on these dogs, and it is never acceptable to take on a burden that you can't handle. The fact that thinking, feeling creatures suffered for this irresponsibility makes it all the worse. And you go as far to say that these complaints "jeopardize the well being and LIVES of many hard workers."? I don't think you said anything in this post that isn't ridiculous. If somebody actually rests their well-being on gross negligence of accepted duties and a complete disregard for the welfare of living beings (human or otherwise), I don't feel the need to protect them. And to say that their lives are at risk, because we consider it unacceptable for them to kill off unwanted animals? That's...there's no rebuttal to that. It's just not true. You gave absolutely nothing to support such a huge claim, so I don't feel that I need to say anything to counter it.
On February 01 2011 10:48 Deadlyhazard wrote: I bet nothing bad will even happen to them. You can pretty much torture and destroy an animal and get a very small time in prison or a small little fee and community service.
On February 01 2011 10:48 Deadlyhazard wrote: I bet nothing bad will even happen to them. You can pretty much torture and destroy an animal and get a very small time in prison or a small little fee and community service.
On February 01 2011 10:48 Deadlyhazard wrote: I bet nothing bad will even happen to them. You can pretty much torture and destroy an animal and get a very small time in prison or a small little fee and community service.
Anyways after freaking out a bit. I still don't understand why he would do that. They're dogs. Don't kill them. Imagine if it was you as the dog, I bet you wouldn't want to be killed by a random guy with a shovel right? Also why are people being so bitchy about these dogs and how the one person who killed all the dogs just jeopardized the peoples lives.
Few points here.
First. It takes a freaking lot of effort to train dogs. It's hard, and it takes a LOT of time.
Second. The dogs were killed, there goes all the trainers hard work and effort.
Third. The person who killed the dogs DID jeopardize some peoples lives. Those people, most likely the owners of the dog and business could have sold or at least found some way to use them.
Fourth. It's not legal to randomly kill animals.
Also ReaverDrop! what's wrong with you. Honestly. Why do you hate people who give affection to animals. Animals are great companions. Although we will never share the same connection with humans, they are still animals. Without them you would be screwed over anyways. Also why do you believe that there is no other cost effective alternative besides culling? I mean honestly, they could have been adopted OR SOMETHING! Killing them does nothing but letting them die uselessly.
Well dude who killed them. I hope you realize that you did something quite terrible. At least do it in some humane way next time. Just.
EDIT: Alright, i dunno why they ordered the cull actually. Wasn't pretty smart. Considering there were other alternatives to that. Well. That's fine. What's happened, has happened. You can't change that.
My reading of it was that he hated the dozen or so people who said they'd like to shoot/torture/maim the guy who culled the dogs. That seems fairly reasonable to me, but I could be wrong.
On February 01 2011 14:33 RyuChus wrote: First. It takes a freaking lot of effort to train dogs. It's hard, and it takes a LOT of time.
Second. The dogs were killed, there goes all the trainers hard work and effort.
Apparently, according to the organization, their efforts were already wasted because these dogs were used mainly for tourism, and when the tourists left, the dogs had nothing to do. Also they apparently tried to consider the other solutions, according to the article, but I think the organization is the main fault here.
Third. The person who killed the dogs DID jeopardize some peoples lives. Those people, most likely the owners of the dog and business could have sold or at least found some way to use them.
He also jeapordized his own. He was attacked during it. And, while I'm not sure what the part about letting the leash go meant, but it seems like he wasn't too keen on this either. He wasn't supervised by a veterinarian (because the vet refused) when he was called in to do this, so I'm sure he felt out of his element.
Fourth. It's not legal to randomly kill animals.
It's not random, just inhumane.
Well dude who killed them. I hope you realize that you did something quite terrible. At least do it in some humane way next time. Just.
I don't believe what he did was intentional. I don't like it, it doesn't justify it, but I am more disappointed with the company than him. They expected him to do it properly, but didn't seem to give a damn when the setup wasn't going quite right. I get the feeling their concern about it is mainly because otherwise they would get hit hard.
EDIT: Alright, i dunno why they ordered the cull actually. Wasn't pretty smart. Considering there were other alternatives to that. Well. That's fine. What's happened, has happened. You can't change that.
Again, the article notes that the other options were not available. I wonder the truth behind it.
some people are just really missing the point in this thread or are just trolling. nothing is equal to anything else. we humans are selfish beings so we can only judge on how that species benefits us. cows and pigs are fucking delicious and thats all they are good for pretty much. dogs have been known to do amazing things that benefit us like detect cancer, sniff drugs, help us in wars?? I mean to suggest that dog = pig = ant = spider = dumb poster is silly.
On February 01 2011 14:49 PhiGgoT wrote: some people are just really missing the point in this thread or are just trolling. nothing is equal to anything else. we humans are selfish beings so we can only judge on how that species benefits us. cows and pigs are fucking delicious and thats all they are good for pretty much. dogs have been known to do amazing things that benefit us like detect cancer, sniff drugs, help us in wars?? I mean to suggest that dog = pig = ant = spider = dumb poster is silly.
Exactly.
And to people who believe that killing animals in this fashion is OK because of the economic benefits, then that is telling about your own priorities and values. We don't all have to have the exact same values but imo if you think saving the hassle and expense of finding these dogs a home or care outweighs their standing as innocent living things then I feel sorry for you.
And btw, "we kill animals for food" =/= it is ok to have killed these dogs. Is =/= ought.
1) You should explore moral theory and learn a few things about how right/wrong works (hint: its not measured in dollars)
2) There is a social aspect to this as well. Killing 100 dogs for the sake of saving expenses is simply reprehensible in our society, and you thus hold antisocial views.
If you think that the benefit to the people is greater because their standing as rational beings (and the dogs as non-rational beings), then you are also implicitly making the argument that it would be OK to kill mentally disabled people to save $.
Either way you cut it, I see no plausible justification for what happened. Certainly the company is at fault for ordering the man to do this. He should have used his better judgment too however. If your boss tells you to rape a schoolgirl, what would you do? (yes not equivalent but both are illegal: you can't just take your dog out to the yard and shoot it in the face because you don't want to pay for its food anymore)
It really saddens me that several people in this thread are actually defending the actions of the man + company.
Well, this certainly is a shame. Killing such large quantiy of companion and working animals is sad, but I don't get why people are so up in arms.
Millions of chicks die every year because they are born with wrong gender. Cows tilt and move plenty of stuff and "help us win wars", but are killed for their meat. Pigs benefit us with their amazing smells just like dogs but they are also killed for their meat. Even a beloved racing horse gets shot if it breaks a leg.
I have to ask why dogs are so special.
"dog = pig = ant = spider"
Might not be true,
But it's also hard to accept
" Dog > other animals"
There should be a really good justificaition for such special treatment, but I frankly don't see one.
This entire issue just boils down to an individual's opinion on the rights of animals.
Some people consider themselves to be superior to animals and don't apply the same thought process when deciding if treatment of animals is cruel or acceptable.
Some people see all living creatures on the same level as themselves, in that they have a right to life just the same as we do. Financial burden is irrelevant to them, as life is precious above all else.
I find the former of the two to be slightly more primitive. Just because they haven't developed the same level as cognition as us doesn't mean they don't have every reason to live a relatively pain free life. If a life must be ended, with literally zero other options available, it must be done in the most humane way possible. I don't feel that killing them all was really the only option here, it was merely much easier than the alternatives. Even if killing them had been the only option, I'm certain a more humane way could have been decided upon.
Edit:
And to people who believe that killing animals in this fashion is OK because of the economic benefits, then that is telling about your own priorities and values. We don't all have to have the exact same values but imo if you think saving the hassle and expense of finding these dogs a home or care outweighs their standing as innocent living things then I feel sorry for you.
On February 01 2011 13:47 FuzzyJAM wrote: Pigs are generally considered more intelligent than dogs and yet I bet most of those making a fuss will eat bacon happily enough. It seems like the cull was carried out pretty poorly so I can see that being an issue, but the actual killing of useless animals that no one wants to care for isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.
Ah well, people are almost always illogical when it comes to animals they like.
I promise you, if these dogs were killed in a humane manner and then processed for food, I would have no ethical problems with it. I would feel a little automatic revulsion, simply because I've come to see dogs as pets, but I can realize that this is illogical. That is not what happened here. This is the kind of situation where one might apply the phrase "senseless waste of life." These dogs were killed in a cruel manner with absolutely no justification for their deaths. It only happened because they stopped being useful, and their owners were too lazy or shortsighted to find a solution.
On February 01 2011 14:02 ReaverDrop! wrote: What can I say but that some yuppies who live in the city will never know what its really like to work as hard as these men did. They have to put in the time and effort to provide a valuable service during a time of economic downturn.
The man who did this pleaded PTSD because he knew there would be a media shitstorm on his head if he didn't, he doesn't deserve this hatred.
I'm also trying to understand why the fuck Americans think their law is anything like our law or that any of the mass emotional bullshit verdicts that drop in the U.S.A are reflected in our legal system in the slightest?
The SPCA shouldn't have been given this case, they're rabid junkies looking for more "poor" animals to protect so they can spew ridiculous hatred onto others with the power that our government gave them. No doubt they protect animals from pointless destruction but in this case it makes no sense.
I see no cost effective alternative to culling, and to reason why its wrong, in a competitive environment like Whistler you need all the advantages you can get with business. You might think they're a big heartless corporation but as a matter of fact they're a small business that was driven to this due to a spike in business by the Olympics. Now they're probably fighting to just barely pay the rent and buy food and this scandal comes along to fuck them over?
I hate people who love animals more than humans, Hate, I would enjoy personally sending to jail every one of those son of a bitches who cause this type of pain to others without fully thinking the words that come out of their mouths. Freedom may allow you to say what you want but don't let your useless cry for emotional safety jeopardize the well being and LIVES of many hard workers.
Okay, at this point you're just speaking nonsense. It looks like you didn't even read the article. If you did, you'd have seen this quotation, right at the very beginning.
“Any dog sledder who culls dogs at the end of a season should be culled himself, as far as we’re concerned,” said Paul McCormick, head dog sledding guide for Wilderness Adventures, a Toronto-based company that runs dog-sledding trips through Canada’s Algonquin Park.
“You don’t go out and cull dogs,” he said. “We’re part of the largest dog sled operation in the world with 40 dogs and we never cull dogs. We retire them, they’re adopted ... there are a lot of alternatives.”
Clearly, you do not understand the dog-sled tour business the way you're trying to imply. Culling is not an established practice in the dog-sledding business, and it seems that there are many different options for retiring dogs that are no longer needed for work. Inhumane killing is not any kind of option, never mind the only option. The kind of situation you're presenting is ridiculously overdramatic. You think that people who oppose this "love animals more than humans?" I think most of us would be much more angry if this company was killing humans instead of animals, but that doesn't mean we're okay with the wholesale slaughter of animals for human convenience. Even your slave analogy is useless, because severe mistreatment (nevermind murder) of slaves was illegal even in countries where black people were considered subhuman. It's obvious that nobody loved slaves more than the slave-owning classes, but it was not legal or accepted to just kill them just because they were no longer necessary.
You're seriously saying that you want to send people to jail because of the pain they're causing by accusing others of being grossly negligent with responsibilities that they chose to accept? Nobody forced this company to take on these dogs, and it is never acceptable to take on a burden that you can't handle. The fact that thinking, feeling creatures suffered for this irresponsibility makes it all the worse. And you go as far to say that these complaints "jeopardize the well being and LIVES of many hard workers."? I don't think you said anything in this post that isn't ridiculous. If somebody actually rests their well-being on gross negligence of accepted duties and a complete disregard for the welfare of living beings (human or otherwise), I don't feel the need to protect them. And to say that their lives are at risk, because we consider it unacceptable for them to kill off unwanted animals? That's...there's no rebuttal to that. It's just not true. You gave absolutely nothing to support such a huge claim, so I don't feel that I need to say anything to counter it.
Its humorous that you pretend to know anything about a business that you probably know nothing about due to a quote that shows a single part of a wide spread business that encapsulates much of our country. The quote in question in addition to similar quotes in this article are used to an effect that is known as, "Media manipulation", and as it seems to me you have allowed your own personal feeling to mask what is truly reasonable and intelligent.
If you had TRULY read the entire thing you would have seen these important and sobering words,"The huskies, weighing about 40 to 50 pounds, were used for dog sled tours during the 2010 Winter Olympics, but were uneconomic to keep after the Games were over and the tourists went home." Though these words come also from the news company I believe that it is probably one of the only true statements made. It is extremely uneconomical to take care of 40-50 pound dogs who require feeding and watching, medicine, and exercise, every single day. It is quite frankly a shame that any man would have to waste his time with animals that are past their prime and useless. "Some of the dogs at the kennel have long since retired. The kennel has been unable to find homes for them because of their age, so they remain at the facility ". Relocation right? Adoption right? Where are the people who speak of adopting and protecting these weak animals when they are in need? They had plenty of time, years in fact, to adopt but some people don't realize just how hard it is to get rid of an animal. "Attempts were made to adopt out the dogs, but with only limited success."
"Lived at the same location as the dogs, handled hundreds of dogs. Occasionally he euthanized animals, using a gun, with the support of a veterinarian. ", Another quote showing that not only has this been going on for a LONG time but that it has not been documented until recently because the vultures that are the media knew that scooping up a headline such as "100 sled dogs shot when B.C. tour business slows", would certainly pay their bills for that much longer.
There is no play or drama here, only the truth that these men had bought animals to entertain and could not use them anymore, so they had to die, simple, it doesn't matter if they feel pain, they're animals our slaves as I said, not HUMAN slaves, animal slaves, Don't bring humanity down to the level of animals and pretend like we are nothing more than animals. We are the alpha, the omega, Number 1!, and we always will be because the animals serve us not the other way around. I shouldn't have to explain such a simple concept as, humans are above animals to you, and that in any way shape or form that animals shall not hinder our progress forward, irregardless of what we have to do to get rid of them.
These hard working people who get trashed for working hard lose their business that they rely on and you have to say that you wouldn't protect them, simply because their business is DOGS?, I have been called heartless but it truly takes a cold heart to put a man out in the cold because you feel that because his business isn't successful,and he should receive no mercy for killing that which was holding him down to poverty.
I feel bad for these guys, doing fine for so many years, and losing their business after the Olympic business crash in Whistler and now they get this shitty media scandal that could've happened to anyone. This man is beaten and injured from his work, "Other dogs attacked him when he went to retrieve the body. ", and he carries this memory in his mind, probably not due to the way it was done, but due to the fact that the veterinarian who usually helps didn't arrive for one reason or another, "A veterinarian was contacted but refused to euthanize healthy animals.". If anything this man should receive praise for being able to actually fight through that many dogs to protect the well being of his company and employees who work to keep our country out of the red.
To any who oppose what this man did, understand that your freedom to read an article and take it at face value rather than thinking about it, truly shows a lack of integrity and patience for others, especially after speaking so vehemently about how bad someone who does this sort of thing as a regular job, in such a lowly way. Think before you let the media manipulate you, this is just a media story, the true details haven't even been released as of yet, What we are reading is a press release, something that is constructed far from what the law will find is the truth.
On February 01 2011 11:13 MapleFractal wrote: If the owners couldn't find home's for the animals I believe it would have been moral to have the animals put down. However the manner in which this was handled is disgusting, just another fine example of man's willingness to sacrifice moral ground to maximize profits. $100 to be a decent human being or $1 for a bullet. Oh well, its Canada killing dogs like that is a worse offense then selling weed. They will most likely get hit pretty hard in court.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
You're terrible . Humans are just animals too you know...
No , human's are not animal's. Animals are driven by instinct not emotions that you or I experience. We have the capability to be driven by instinct but one a whole were are different.
I didn't read the rest of this thread yet so i apologize if this had already been replied too... But, you Sir are just plain wrong(by genetics and just plain definition), I hate to inform you but humans(the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family.) are just animals we are driven by primal instincts as much has we try to fight/hide it we are all animals. That being said we have developed higher standards for morals and whats 'Right' and ' Wrong' but to try and deny the fact that we are instinct driven animals is just simply foolish...
On February 01 2011 15:14 keynest wrote: Well, this certainly is a shame. Killing such large quantiy of companion and working animals is sad, but I don't get why people are so up in arms.
Millions of chicks die every year because they are born with wrong gender. Cows tilt and move plenty of stuff and "help us win wars", but are killed for their meat. Pigs benefit us with their amazing smells just like dogs but they are also killed for their meat. Even a beloved racing horse gets shot if it breaks a leg.
I have to ask why dogs are so special.
"dog = pig = ant = spider"
Might not be true,
But it's also hard to accept
" Dog > other animals"
There should be a really good justificaition for such special treatment, but I frankly don't see one.
We are outraged in which the manner they were killed. Completely inhumane and near torturous. If they were properly put down then i would still ask questions like "Is killing them the best option?" In some cases killing is the best option, like the horse you mentioned. But in this case i would think they could be given away.
My great uncle used to hunt bears for Alberta Fish&Wildlife whenever they asked him too (usually for overpopulating an area).
He used a pack of dogs, with one lab as the leader of the pack. The leader would track down a bear and when he found one the rest of the hounds would chase the bear back to my uncle. But one time my dad went with him and all of a sudden a deer darted infront of them, with the hounds chasing it. The lab came after and sat with his tail between his legs. My uncle (to my Dad's surprise) shot all of the hounds. Why? because he said once the dogs chase deer, they will never get another bear. And they were bred and trained to be mean for the job so he said they could never be pets after it, hence why he put them down. And he paid over a thousand bucks a piece for those dogs.
On February 01 2011 13:47 FuzzyJAM wrote: Pigs are generally considered more intelligent than dogs and yet I bet most of those making a fuss will eat bacon happily enough. It seems like the cull was carried out pretty poorly so I can see that being an issue, but the actual killing of useless animals that no one wants to care for isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.
Ah well, people are almost always illogical when it comes to animals they like.
I promise you, if these dogs were killed in a humane manner and then processed for food, I would have no ethical problems with it. I would feel a little automatic revulsion, simply because I've come to see dogs as pets, but I can realize that this is illogical. That is not what happened here. This is the kind of situation where one might apply the phrase "senseless waste of life." These dogs were killed in a cruel manner with absolutely no justification for their deaths. It only happened because they stopped being useful, and their owners were too lazy or shortsighted to find a solution.
On February 01 2011 14:02 ReaverDrop! wrote: What can I say but that some yuppies who live in the city will never know what its really like to work as hard as these men did. They have to put in the time and effort to provide a valuable service during a time of economic downturn.
The man who did this pleaded PTSD because he knew there would be a media shitstorm on his head if he didn't, he doesn't deserve this hatred.
I'm also trying to understand why the fuck Americans think their law is anything like our law or that any of the mass emotional bullshit verdicts that drop in the U.S.A are reflected in our legal system in the slightest?
The SPCA shouldn't have been given this case, they're rabid junkies looking for more "poor" animals to protect so they can spew ridiculous hatred onto others with the power that our government gave them. No doubt they protect animals from pointless destruction but in this case it makes no sense.
I see no cost effective alternative to culling, and to reason why its wrong, in a competitive environment like Whistler you need all the advantages you can get with business. You might think they're a big heartless corporation but as a matter of fact they're a small business that was driven to this due to a spike in business by the Olympics. Now they're probably fighting to just barely pay the rent and buy food and this scandal comes along to fuck them over?
I hate people who love animals more than humans, Hate, I would enjoy personally sending to jail every one of those son of a bitches who cause this type of pain to others without fully thinking the words that come out of their mouths. Freedom may allow you to say what you want but don't let your useless cry for emotional safety jeopardize the well being and LIVES of many hard workers.
Okay, at this point you're just speaking nonsense. It looks like you didn't even read the article. If you did, you'd have seen this quotation, right at the very beginning.
“Any dog sledder who culls dogs at the end of a season should be culled himself, as far as we’re concerned,” said Paul McCormick, head dog sledding guide for Wilderness Adventures, a Toronto-based company that runs dog-sledding trips through Canada’s Algonquin Park.
“You don’t go out and cull dogs,” he said. “We’re part of the largest dog sled operation in the world with 40 dogs and we never cull dogs. We retire them, they’re adopted ... there are a lot of alternatives.”
Clearly, you do not understand the dog-sled tour business the way you're trying to imply. Culling is not an established practice in the dog-sledding business, and it seems that there are many different options for retiring dogs that are no longer needed for work. Inhumane killing is not any kind of option, never mind the only option. The kind of situation you're presenting is ridiculously overdramatic. You think that people who oppose this "love animals more than humans?" I think most of us would be much more angry if this company was killing humans instead of animals, but that doesn't mean we're okay with the wholesale slaughter of animals for human convenience. Even your slave analogy is useless, because severe mistreatment (nevermind murder) of slaves was illegal even in countries where black people were considered subhuman. It's obvious that nobody loved slaves more than the slave-owning classes, but it was not legal or accepted to just kill them just because they were no longer necessary.
You're seriously saying that you want to send people to jail because of the pain they're causing by accusing others of being grossly negligent with responsibilities that they chose to accept? Nobody forced this company to take on these dogs, and it is never acceptable to take on a burden that you can't handle. The fact that thinking, feeling creatures suffered for this irresponsibility makes it all the worse. And you go as far to say that these complaints "jeopardize the well being and LIVES of many hard workers."? I don't think you said anything in this post that isn't ridiculous. If somebody actually rests their well-being on gross negligence of accepted duties and a complete disregard for the welfare of living beings (human or otherwise), I don't feel the need to protect them. And to say that their lives are at risk, because we consider it unacceptable for them to kill off unwanted animals? That's...there's no rebuttal to that. It's just not true. You gave absolutely nothing to support such a huge claim, so I don't feel that I need to say anything to counter it.
Its humorous that you pretend to know anything about a business that you probably know nothing about due to a quote that shows a single part of a wide spread business that encapsulates much of our country. The quote in question in addition to similar quotes in this article are used to an effect that is known as, "Media manipulation", and as it seems to me you have allowed your own personal feeling to mask what is truly reasonable and intelligent.
If you had TRULY read the entire thing you would have seen these important and sobering words,"The huskies, weighing about 40 to 50 pounds, were used for dog sled tours during the 2010 Winter Olympics, but were uneconomic to keep after the Games were over and the tourists went home." Though these words come also from the news company I believe that it is probably one of the only true statements made. It is extremely uneconomical to take care of 40-50 pound dogs who require feeding and watching, medicine, and exercise, every single day. It is quite frankly a shame that any man would have to waste his time with animals that are past their prime and useless. "Some of the dogs at the kennel have long since retired. The kennel has been unable to find homes for them because of their age, so they remain at the facility ". Relocation right? Adoption right? Where are the people who speak of adopting and protecting these weak animals when they are in need? They had plenty of time, years in fact, to adopt but some people don't realize just how hard it is to get rid of an animal. "Attempts were made to adopt out the dogs, but with only limited success."
"Lived at the same location as the dogs, handled hundreds of dogs. Occasionally he euthanized animals, using a gun, with the support of a veterinarian. ", Another quote showing that not only has this been going on for a LONG time but that it has not been documented until recently because the vultures that are the media knew that scooping up a headline such as "100 sled dogs shot when B.C. tour business slows", would certainly pay their bills for that much longer.
There is no play or drama here, only the truth that these men had bought animals to entertain and could not use them anymore, so they had to die, simple, it doesn't matter if they feel pain, they're animals our slaves as I said, not HUMAN slaves, animal slaves, Don't bring humanity down to the level of animals and pretend like we are nothing more than animals. We are the alpha, the omega, Number 1!, and we always will be because the animals serve us not the other way around. I shouldn't have to explain such a simple concept as, humans are above animals to you, and that in any way shape or form that animals shall not hinder our progress forward, irregardless of what we have to do to get rid of them.
These hard working people who get trashed for working hard lose their business that they rely on and you have to say that you wouldn't protect them, simply because their business is DOGS?, I have been called heartless but it truly takes a cold heart to put a man out in the cold because you feel that because his business isn't successful,and he should receive no mercy for killing that which was holding him down to poverty.
I feel bad for these guys, doing fine for so many years, and losing their business after the Olympic business crash in Whistler and now they get this shitty media scandal that could've happened to anyone. This man is beaten and injured from his work, "Other dogs attacked him when he went to retrieve the body. ", and he carries this memory in his mind, probably not due to the way it was done, but due to the fact that the veterinarian who usually helps didn't arrive for one reason or another, "A veterinarian was contacted but refused to euthanize healthy animals.". If anything this man should receive praise for being able to actually fight through that many dogs to protect the well being of his company and employees who work to keep our country out of the red.
To any who oppose what this man did, understand that your freedom to read an article and take it at face value rather than thinking about it, truly shows a lack of integrity and patience for others, especially after speaking so vehemently about how bad someone who does this sort of thing as a regular job, in such a lowly way. Think before you let the media manipulate you, this is just a media story, the true details haven't even been released as of yet, What we are reading is a press release, something that is constructed far from what the law will find is the truth.
No need to kill animals humanely, not like they feel pain or anything right? But then that might hurt the bottom-line, right? Oh shit my bad, having my own opinion that differs from your own makes me a slave of the evil media. I wish I could think about things like you, but I'm too busy being a mindless drone...
As an owner of multiple dogs myself, I think it was definitely wrong to kill the dogs in that manner, but, as many other people have said, they're still animals like any other, and I'm not particularly offended or angry about them being killed. The manner of death on the other hand, was pretty brutal and no animal should go through something like that. A clean shot to the head or an injection or something would have done just as well and would be far more humane, and should only have been done if there was no other way to get rid of the dogs (give them away, whatever).
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
Humans are just animals, they might as well be the property of the person who births them. Especially while they're just a baby and stupid what the owner does to them is nobody's business as far as I'm concerned.
Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him? ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creatures that cannot. ~Mark Twain, What Is Man, 1906
Heaven is by favor; if it were by merit your dog would go in and you would stay out. Of all the creatures ever made [man] is the most detestable. Of the entire brood, he is the only one... that possesses malice. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain. ~Mark Twain
Very little of the great cruelty shown by men can really be attributed to cruel instinct. Most of it comes from thoughtlessness or inherited habit. The roots of cruelty, therefore, are not so much strong as widespread. But the time must come when inhumanity protected by custom and thoughtlessness will succumb before humanity championed by thought. Let us work that this time may come. ~Albert Schweitzer
A short fuse to scatter steady hands if I forget to remember that better lives have been lived in the margins, locked in the prisons and lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in palaces. [whispered It's not your fault, there's nothing we can do, it's just the way it is, there's nothing we can do. - Propagandhi
some intellectually stimulating perspectives of animal rights, propagandhi is awesome. (caution start of the audio in the video may be disturbing)
It's a pity to mention the nazi's but this is rather reminiscient of autshwitz (whatever the spelling) isn't it? And I for one have seen far too many Graham Chapman type comments on this thread.
EDIT: meant in broad terms of industrialisation of death without regards to humane methods not intending to offend anyone in any way, it was just a metaphor. While I'm here I should probably explain what a ''graham chapman comment'' is + Show Spoiler +
Graham Chapman was a member of Monty Python, the famous comedy show. When the troop was on tour in Germany (still not long after the war) they went to see autshwitz. They asked to go in and were refused. Graham Chapman then proceded to yell out (to his english speaking guides and he was also exceedingly drunk at the time) ''Tell ém we're Jewish!''
On February 01 2011 16:19 valheru wrote: It's a pity to mention the nazi's but this is rather reminiscient of autshwitz (whatever the spelling) isn't it? And I for one have seen far too many Graham Chapman type comments on this thread.
I hope you mean that in the most general way possible. Not even going to discuss it.
I am by no means an animal rights activist, but this is pretty wasteful and unnatural. You'd think in today's world if you absolutely HAD to do away with a living creature, you'd have the courtesy to put away civilly and swiftly. Some of the stuff doesn't make any sense in there.
But ultimately, I agree with this guy.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
As disgusting as it is, it didn't shock me as much as the article published a few weeks ago reporting that they buried alive millions of pigs in our beloved South Korea. I couldn't stop thinking about it. How did they fucking buried alive millions of pigs ? Just thinking about huge bulldozers pushing alive pigs like a mountain of garbage in a big hole made me sick
Poor dogs. Because of the very simple fact that money > life.
Supposedly killed in a "humane" manner... What a fucking joke.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
I'd have thought in this day and age, people were less heartless than this. If not, I've really lost my faith in humanity.
If a human is unable to recognize a sled dog as a living being, I just don't believe he should have the right to own one. Simple as that.
On February 01 2011 13:47 FuzzyJAM wrote: Pigs are generally considered more intelligent than dogs and yet I bet most of those making a fuss will eat bacon happily enough. It seems like the cull was carried out pretty poorly so I can see that being an issue, but the actual killing of useless animals that no one wants to care for isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.
Ah well, people are almost always illogical when it comes to animals they like.
I promise you, if these dogs were killed in a humane manner and then processed for food, I would have no ethical problems with it. I would feel a little automatic revulsion, simply because I've come to see dogs as pets, but I can realize that this is illogical. That is not what happened here. This is the kind of situation where one might apply the phrase "senseless waste of life." These dogs were killed in a cruel manner with absolutely no justification for their deaths. It only happened because they stopped being useful, and their owners were too lazy or shortsighted to find a solution.
On February 01 2011 14:02 ReaverDrop! wrote: What can I say but that some yuppies who live in the city will never know what its really like to work as hard as these men did. They have to put in the time and effort to provide a valuable service during a time of economic downturn.
The man who did this pleaded PTSD because he knew there would be a media shitstorm on his head if he didn't, he doesn't deserve this hatred.
I'm also trying to understand why the fuck Americans think their law is anything like our law or that any of the mass emotional bullshit verdicts that drop in the U.S.A are reflected in our legal system in the slightest?
The SPCA shouldn't have been given this case, they're rabid junkies looking for more "poor" animals to protect so they can spew ridiculous hatred onto others with the power that our government gave them. No doubt they protect animals from pointless destruction but in this case it makes no sense.
I see no cost effective alternative to culling, and to reason why its wrong, in a competitive environment like Whistler you need all the advantages you can get with business. You might think they're a big heartless corporation but as a matter of fact they're a small business that was driven to this due to a spike in business by the Olympics. Now they're probably fighting to just barely pay the rent and buy food and this scandal comes along to fuck them over?
I hate people who love animals more than humans, Hate, I would enjoy personally sending to jail every one of those son of a bitches who cause this type of pain to others without fully thinking the words that come out of their mouths. Freedom may allow you to say what you want but don't let your useless cry for emotional safety jeopardize the well being and LIVES of many hard workers.
Okay, at this point you're just speaking nonsense. It looks like you didn't even read the article. If you did, you'd have seen this quotation, right at the very beginning.
“Any dog sledder who culls dogs at the end of a season should be culled himself, as far as we’re concerned,” said Paul McCormick, head dog sledding guide for Wilderness Adventures, a Toronto-based company that runs dog-sledding trips through Canada’s Algonquin Park.
“You don’t go out and cull dogs,” he said. “We’re part of the largest dog sled operation in the world with 40 dogs and we never cull dogs. We retire them, they’re adopted ... there are a lot of alternatives.”
Clearly, you do not understand the dog-sled tour business the way you're trying to imply. Culling is not an established practice in the dog-sledding business, and it seems that there are many different options for retiring dogs that are no longer needed for work. Inhumane killing is not any kind of option, never mind the only option. The kind of situation you're presenting is ridiculously overdramatic. You think that people who oppose this "love animals more than humans?" I think most of us would be much more angry if this company was killing humans instead of animals, but that doesn't mean we're okay with the wholesale slaughter of animals for human convenience. Even your slave analogy is useless, because severe mistreatment (nevermind murder) of slaves was illegal even in countries where black people were considered subhuman. It's obvious that nobody loved slaves more than the slave-owning classes, but it was not legal or accepted to just kill them just because they were no longer necessary.
You're seriously saying that you want to send people to jail because of the pain they're causing by accusing others of being grossly negligent with responsibilities that they chose to accept? Nobody forced this company to take on these dogs, and it is never acceptable to take on a burden that you can't handle. The fact that thinking, feeling creatures suffered for this irresponsibility makes it all the worse. And you go as far to say that these complaints "jeopardize the well being and LIVES of many hard workers."? I don't think you said anything in this post that isn't ridiculous. If somebody actually rests their well-being on gross negligence of accepted duties and a complete disregard for the welfare of living beings (human or otherwise), I don't feel the need to protect them. And to say that their lives are at risk, because we consider it unacceptable for them to kill off unwanted animals? That's...there's no rebuttal to that. It's just not true. You gave absolutely nothing to support such a huge claim, so I don't feel that I need to say anything to counter it.
Its humorous that you pretend to know anything about a business that you probably know nothing about due to a quote that shows a single part of a wide spread business that encapsulates much of our country. The quote in question in addition to similar quotes in this article are used to an effect that is known as, "Media manipulation", and as it seems to me you have allowed your own personal feeling to mask what is truly reasonable and intelligent.
Dog sledding is popular not only in Canada, there are sledding companies in Sweden/Norway/Finland. Mass culling by a person not trained to do this using a rifle without a vet present is neither reasonable nor intelligent.
If you had TRULY read the entire thing you would have seen these important and sobering words,"The huskies, weighing about 40 to 50 pounds, were used for dog sled tours during the 2010 Winter Olympics, but were uneconomic to keep after the Games were over and the tourists went home." Though these words come also from the news company I believe that it is probably one of the only true statements made. It is extremely uneconomical to take care of 40-50 pound dogs who require feeding and watching, medicine, and exercise, every single day. It is quite frankly a shame that any man would have to waste his time with animals that are past their prime and useless. "Some of the dogs at the kennel have long since retired. The kennel has been unable to find homes for them because of their age, so they remain at the facility ". Relocation right? Adoption right? Where are the people who speak of adopting and protecting these weak animals when they are in need? They had plenty of time, years in fact, to adopt but some people don't realize just how hard it is to get rid of an animal. "Attempts were made to adopt out the dogs, but with only limited success."
They where put down in April 2010, as far as i recall the olympic games ended just before March 2010, so they tried for about a month?
But yes, putting down old workign dogs no longer able to perform is not morally wrong. But when you own animals you are responsible for them, and responsible for making the killing as humane as possible.
"Lived at the same location as the dogs, handled hundreds of dogs. Occasionally he euthanized animals, using a gun, with the support of a veterinarian. ", Another quote showing that not only has this been going on for a LONG time but that it has not been documented until recently because the vultures that are the media knew that scooping up a headline such as "100 sled dogs shot when B.C. tour business slows", would certainly pay their bills for that much longer.
Euthanizing one animal with a vet present is a hell of a lot different than eutanizing 100 animals without a vet present.
There is no play or drama here, only the truth that these men had bought animals to entertain and could not use them anymore, so they had to die, simple, it doesn't matter if they feel pain, they're animals our slaves as I said, not HUMAN slaves, animal slaves, Don't bring humanity down to the level of animals and pretend like we are nothing more than animals. We are the alpha, the omega, Number 1!, and we always will be because the animals serve us not the other way around. I shouldn't have to explain such a simple concept as, humans are above animals to you, and that in any way shape or form that animals shall not hinder our progress forward, irregardless of what we have to do to get rid of them.
This statement is just absurd to me, what about moral, laws and responisbility? If you take in an animal, for any reason, you also take on a responsibility. Even if you personally think you can do anything at all to that animal frankly you are wrong, I and several others disagree with you we WILL hold you accountable for your actions towards your animals. If i see a man kick his dog i will interfere. If i hear about a company slaughtering 100 dogs for no reason without proper education/preparation i expect the police to interfere.
Humans are above dogs, yes, but this does not only mean privileges, it also means responisbilities.
These hard working people who get trashed for working hard lose their business that they rely on and you have to say that you wouldn't protect them, simply because their business is DOGS?, I have been called heartless but it truly takes a cold heart to put a man out in the cold because you feel that because his business isn't successful,and he should receive no mercy for killing that which was holding him down to poverty.
They are getting trashed because they are running thier business in an imoral fashion, I have no problem what so ever to put them out in the cold because of thier actions. They had responsibilities towards the animals they owned, they ignored thoose responsibilities and instead of trying to pin blame they should man up and pay for thier mistakes.
I feel bad for these guys, doing fine for so many years, and losing their business after the Olympic business crash in Whistler and now they get this shitty media scandal that could've happened to anyone. This man is beaten and injured from his work, "Other dogs attacked him when he went to retrieve the body. ", and he carries this memory in his mind, probably not due to the way it was done, but due to the fact that the veterinarian who usually helps didn't arrive for one reason or another, "A veterinarian was contacted but refused to euthanize healthy animals.". If anything this man should receive praise for being able to actually fight through that many dogs to protect the well being of his company and employees who work to keep our country out of the red.
That man should have realised that something is not right about this when the vet refused to assist. He should not recieve praise, he should be punished for what he did. "keeping your country out of the red", you do realise that this is a tourism buisness right? How good PR do you think this is? How many future tourists are as we speak changing thier mind and not going to Canada on vacation? Or skipping the planned dog-sledding tour?
The ecenomic damage done to Canadas tourism could be massive, THAT is the main reason every other sledding company are publicly condemning this. He is not a hero of the Canadian workforce, he is a fool working for a cheap company who does not think about the consequences of thier actions before doing them. I bet every other sledding company right now are pissed off because of the bad publicity.
To any who oppose what this man did, understand that your freedom to read an article and take it at face value rather than thinking about it, truly shows a lack of integrity and patience for others, especially after speaking so vehemently about how bad someone who does this sort of thing as a regular job, in such a lowly way. Think before you let the media manipulate you, this is just a media story, the true details haven't even been released as of yet, What we are reading is a press release, something that is constructed far from what the law will find is the truth.
And when the details all come out i might change my mind, right now my opinion is based in the information at hand, and based on that i condemn this man and the company he works for. What of it? I do not suggest he goes to jail because of public opinion, but there are always more information to be had so we can only form opinions on the information we have now and keep an open mind in case of future revelations.
I find some of the comments here extremely disgusting. Humans are animals, just like dogs and others. We should value sentient life. Dogs have deep emotions and are not driven by instincts like insects. I don't have a problem with animals being killed for food ( Although I hope, in the future, that we can do away with Darwinian reasons behind life in general ), But why not do it humanely and show compassion ?
Do unto others as you would have done to you... Slitting the throats of a living animals is plain butchery and people that do so should get a taste of their own medicine if the world was a fair place. Animals kill each other for food, but give them food and they STOP killing each other.
Why do humans kill for pleasure ? Such a disgusting practice, I'm ashamed to be human sometimes. The comments on these boards ( Even on TL where I had HOPED people would be a bit smarter ) are actually defending the massacre of a hundred working dogs that have served humans ? This is just gross.
Dogs and other smart life forms dream, learn, love and pursue the best life possible for themselves and some of us answer them by unimaginable cruelty. I really hope mankind can move forward and treat animals better. Not too long ago people were kept as slaves, we changed that... Can we now change how we treat animals ?
PS : Don't try to tell me it was hard to give out huskies... Huskies sell for over a thousand euros each where I live...
How can someone murder a hundred dogs is beyond me. It is a strong sign of being a sociopath. No argument about it is his job (no money in the world would make me do something like this), or the dogs were company property are valid, and I hope he gets long prison time as well as the company being shut down or fined to bankruptcy.
On February 01 2011 23:03 Kaasflipje wrote: Guys.. guess what. We mass slaughter pigs and cows and chickens everyday for food, but no one gives a shit. This is no different.
On February 01 2011 23:03 Kaasflipje wrote: Guys.. guess what. We mass slaughter pigs and cows and chickens everyday for food, but no one gives a shit. This is no different.
yes i'm a vegetarian.
This wasn't for food.
Oh yeah. I guess eating animals after unnecessarily slaughtering them somhow justifies everything.
On February 01 2011 23:03 Kaasflipje wrote: Guys.. guess what. We mass slaughter pigs and cows and chickens everyday for food, but no one gives a shit. This is no different.
yes i'm a vegetarian.
These dogs were shot multiple times and then stabbed with knives, dying slowly, And for no reason...
I cannot believe this. Honestly. Man is animal as well, however more advanced we are in most ways. We deserve life no more then they do. And how they went about killing these dogs? Pitiful. We are capable of killing painlessly, they just decided to not do that. Things like this piss me off.
On February 01 2011 23:03 Kaasflipje wrote: Guys.. guess what. We mass slaughter pigs and cows and chickens everyday for food, but no one gives a shit. This is no different.
yes i'm a vegetarian.
This wasn't for food.
Oh yeah. I guess eating animals after unnecessarily slaughtering them somhow justifies everything.
"Unnecessarily" lol Just because you don't eat meat doesn't mean that it's unnecessary, people are killing animals for their flesh since the beggining, why do you have problems with it?
These dogs are shot for no particular reason and died a slow and painfull dead, unlike cows and chickens.
On February 01 2011 22:45 absalom86 wrote: I find some of the comments here extremely disgusting. Humans are animals, just like dogs and others. We should value sentient life. Dogs have deep emotions and are not driven by instincts like insects. I don't have a problem with animals being killed for food ( Although I hope, in the future, that we can do away with Darwinian reasons behind life in general ), But why not do it humanely and show compassion ?
Do unto others as you would have done to you... Slitting the throats of a living animals is plain butchery and people that do so should get a taste of their own medicine if the world was a fair place. Animals kill each other for food, but give them food and they STOP killing each other.
Why do humans kill for pleasure ? Such a disgusting practice, I'm ashamed to be human sometimes. The comments on these boards ( Even on TL where I had HOPED people would be a bit smarter ) are actually defending the massacre of a hundred working dogs that have served humans ? This is just gross.
Dogs and other smart life forms dream, learn, love and pursue the best life possible for themselves and some of us answer them by unimaginable cruelty. I really hope mankind can move forward and treat animals better. Not too long ago people were kept as slaves, we changed that... Can we now change how we treat animals ?
PS : Don't try to tell me it was hard to give out huskies... Huskies sell for over a thousand euros each where I live...
I would not associate dogs with "deep" emotion, but they do have emotion. This was most likely not killing dogs for pleasure, but due to poor foresight by the company that ordered this they figured that this was the best way to dispose of the dogs. Because of having to feed and shelter these dogs until they could give them to families was seen as a financial burden they decided that killing them was cheaper. Don't hate me just yet please.
I love dogs. Never met one I didn't like. Even when I was younger and not yet 100% smart around animals one bit me still loved that dog. The company should be fined into bankruptcy. The man who slayed the dogs should be put in jail as well as those who were involved with the decision making. The company for being extremely stupid and only thinking about a few dollars being saved and the man who killed them for not growing a pair. He has bad dreams now? I'm sorry, but I doubt that most here could slay a dog and move on to the next before backing out. Perhaps life for general stupidity I mean if you couldn't see this coming you're probably not smart enough to live in a normal society. Worst case scenario they're winter dogs that can probably fend for themselves (not sure about that), but why not just leave them? Or even call a big animal organization to come get them we all know they would.
All animals should be given the chance. Just because they lack high intelligence doesn't mean at any time you can just kill them because they would be a financial burden. Babies are financial burdens and unintelligent as well, but nobody goes around slaughtering them. Unfortunately these people will spend minimal or no time in jail. Hopefully people can learn from this.
What in the fuck would possess someone to think that slitting the throat of a powerful, 80lbs sled dog is an efficient method of culling the animal?? Good fucking lord.
On February 01 2011 11:04 XsebT wrote: This story is a bit more dramatic because it is dogs, which we human feel more connected to than any other animal somehow. Still, I don't think this is rational in any way.
According to the WorkSafe B.C. documents obtained by the station, an employee of Outdoor Adventures Whistler has been compensated for post-traumatic stress disorder after being ordered to shoot the animals.
I think this would be quite a normal response, which should indicate that this is wrong. Best wishes to him.
"somehow"
how about the fact that we co-evolved and co-habitated together for millenia, and dogs have been one of the most important factors in human societies growth and evolution?
Disgusting story, lock the fucker up and throw away the damn key
co-evolved and co-habitated? Well, maybe if you need them in front of a sled, but most of the Earth isn't covered in snow. In other parts of the world tame elephants are an important animal for working in the woods and general transportation - much more so than dogs. Yet, hunters shoot elephants as game in Africa, and we can find them in zoos, but without people really giving a shit. I disagree that dogs "have been one of the most important factors in human societies growth and evolution". Most people would do just fine without dogs.
On February 01 2011 23:03 Kaasflipje wrote: Guys.. guess what. We mass slaughter pigs and cows and chickens everyday for food, but no one gives a shit. This is no different.
yes i'm a vegetarian.
It is the method more than the result that is appalling. I mean PETA kills puts down far more animals than this every year but it is done in a humane way. Death is a necessary part of all life but pain/torture isn't. If they had taken them to a shelter and had them chemically put down we probably wouldn't have even heard about it.
I just can't understand how can a normal person do stuff like this to another LIVING BEING.Just because another life form is below you on the evoliutonary ladder doesn't mean you have the right to end its life just for your own fucking pleasure in a way which obviously causes pain.
I just hate these motherfuckers who like to pretend that we are some sort of divine super advanced species..Anyone who still tries to pretend that humans aren't animals need to go learn basic biology.We are driven by EXACTLY the same instincts as animals.We still want to fuck, eat and we are violent as hell by nature. We simply don't see these basic urges in plain sight, because we have society.Though it still doesn't prevent us from killing each other everyday.Society breaks down and we would see rape, murders and worse.
It would be interesting to see how would civilizations which are thousand times more advanced than us deal with humanity.I guess we would expect them to view us as equal, but would that really be the case?
I mean, I'm not vegetarian or anything.I do understand millions of animals die everyday for human needs.I'm not saying that this is wrong just because they were dogs and not cows or pigs.I just expect a human being to have a sense of responsibility for another living being which can feel pain.If you're killing it for a reason do it properly.You have that ability
Humans kill each other over the littlest things and send young men & women to fight off and in most cases, kill civilians, in foreign wars to die for a imaginary concept of "Freedom"
Why should you expect we treat DOGS differently, just because they look and act cute?
We are vicious, to other humans and should act equally toward animals. We don't kill humans nicely, why expect to do it toward other animals?
On February 01 2011 11:04 XsebT wrote: This story is a bit more dramatic because it is dogs, which we human feel more connected to than any other animal somehow. Still, I don't think this is rational in any way.
According to the WorkSafe B.C. documents obtained by the station, an employee of Outdoor Adventures Whistler has been compensated for post-traumatic stress disorder after being ordered to shoot the animals.
I think this would be quite a normal response, which should indicate that this is wrong. Best wishes to him.
"somehow"
how about the fact that we co-evolved and co-habitated together for millenia, and dogs have been one of the most important factors in human societies growth and evolution?
Disgusting story, lock the fucker up and throw away the damn key
co-evolved and co-habitated? Well, maybe if you need them in front of a sled, but most of the Earth isn't covered in snow. In other parts of the world tame elephants are an important animal for working in the woods and general transportation - much more so than dogs. Yet, hunters shoot elephants as game in Africa, and we can find them in zoos, but without people really giving a shit. I disagree that dogs "have been one of the most important factors in human societies growth and evolution". Most people would do just fine without dogs.
Hunting wild elephants and slaughering 100 sled dogs ( a domesticated specie ) are two different things. Nobody gives a shit ( except WWF and PETA ) if you are shooting jackals, foxes or dholes. It is called hunting and it is probably one of the older human activities.
On February 02 2011 00:19 Almin wrote: Humans kill each other over the littlest things and send young men & women to fight off and in most cases, kill civilians, in foreign wars to die for a imaginary concept of "Freedom"
Why should you expect we treat DOGS differently, just because they look and act cute?
We are vicious, to other humans and should act equally toward animals. We don't kill humans nicely, why expect to do it toward other animals?
Cool logic. So since we should act equally toward humans and animals, should we also eat humans? All in the name of equality, after all.
(Or we could tone down the violence across the board. Just sayin')
On February 01 2011 23:03 Kaasflipje wrote: Guys.. guess what. We mass slaughter pigs and cows and chickens everyday for food, but no one gives a shit. This is no different.
yes i'm a vegetarian.
These dogs were shot multiple times and then stabbed with knives, dying slowly, And for no reason...
There's some videos on youtube with a bunch of filipinos ( they all live in the forest or something with shacks ) and they're all laughing ( there's some kids and some older people around a fire ) as they kill swine.
How do you know if the company didn't order him to do so... and then claim they didn't... and the post traumatic stress disorder that he suffered...
I can understand if the sledding business was a little slow but that doesn't justify killing the animals. Sure you lose some money to feed them and keep them sheltered but still... They earn you money at some point, and even if they didn't why not just give them away? Would be just the same as killing them, they were obviously willing to get rid of the dogs without compensation. Horrible horrible waste, and if they were huskies I'm gonna be so much more pissed. Those are the coolest dogs ever.
So much outrage. Yes the way they did it is pretty disgusting, but as many have said i see no difference in killing 100 sled dogs, or 100 cows/pigs. And i'm sure slaughterhouse aren't a much better way of killing them. Legally i don't really see the problem.
I like eating steaks so animal will have to die, there really is no way around it.
On February 02 2011 01:37 Nizaris wrote: So much outrage. Yes the way they did it is pretty disgusting, but as many have said i see no difference in killing 100 sled dogs, or 100 cows/pigs. And i'm sure slaughterhouse aren't a much better way of killing them. Legally i don't really see the problem.
I like eating steaks so animal will have to die, there really is no way around it.
Yeah but just killing them is a bit of a waste of good capital. They are worth more alive.
On February 02 2011 01:37 Nizaris wrote: So much outrage. Yes the way they did it is pretty disgusting, but as many have said i see no difference in killing 100 sled dogs, or 100 cows/pigs. And i'm sure slaughterhouse aren't a much better way of killing them. Legally i don't really see the problem.
I like eating steaks so animal will have to die, there really is no way around it.
Yeah but just killing them is a bit of a waste of good capital. They are worth more alive.
Good thing I don't really consider myself Canadian :>
On February 02 2011 01:37 Nizaris wrote: So much outrage. Yes the way they did it is pretty disgusting, but as many have said i see no difference in killing 100 sled dogs, or 100 cows/pigs. And i'm sure slaughterhouse aren't a much better way of killing them. Legally i don't really see the problem.
I like eating steaks so animal will have to die, there really is no way around it.
Nobody's going to eat those sled dogs though. And similarly, if I knew my hamburger came from animals which were slaughtered like that, I wouldn't eat it...
Granted I'm eating one now and for all I know it might be full of cow tears....
On February 01 2011 11:04 XsebT wrote: This story is a bit more dramatic because it is dogs, which we human feel more connected to than any other animal somehow. Still, I don't think this is rational in any way.
According to the WorkSafe B.C. documents obtained by the station, an employee of Outdoor Adventures Whistler has been compensated for post-traumatic stress disorder after being ordered to shoot the animals.
I think this would be quite a normal response, which should indicate that this is wrong. Best wishes to him.
"somehow"
how about the fact that we co-evolved and co-habitated together for millenia, and dogs have been one of the most important factors in human societies growth and evolution?
Disgusting story, lock the fucker up and throw away the damn key
co-evolved and co-habitated? Well, maybe if you need them in front of a sled, but most of the Earth isn't covered in snow. In other parts of the world tame elephants are an important animal for working in the woods and general transportation - much more so than dogs. Yet, hunters shoot elephants as game in Africa, and we can find them in zoos, but without people really giving a shit. I disagree that dogs "have been one of the most important factors in human societies growth and evolution". Most people would do just fine without dogs.
Hunting wild elephants and slaughering 100 sled dogs ( a domesticated specie ) are two different things. Nobody gives a shit ( except WWF and PETA ) if you are shooting jackals, foxes or dholes. It is called hunting and it is probably one of the older human activities.
I wasn't arguing whether hunting is correct or not.
On February 01 2011 11:04 XsebT wrote: This story is a bit more dramatic because it is dogs, which we human feel more connected to than any other animal somehow. Still, I don't think this is rational in any way.
According to the WorkSafe B.C. documents obtained by the station, an employee of Outdoor Adventures Whistler has been compensated for post-traumatic stress disorder after being ordered to shoot the animals.
I think this would be quite a normal response, which should indicate that this is wrong. Best wishes to him.
"somehow"
how about the fact that we co-evolved and co-habitated together for millenia, and dogs have been one of the most important factors in human societies growth and evolution?
Disgusting story, lock the fucker up and throw away the damn key
co-evolved and co-habitated? Well, maybe if you need them in front of a sled, but most of the Earth isn't covered in snow. In other parts of the world tame elephants are an important animal for working in the woods and general transportation - much more so than dogs. Yet, hunters shoot elephants as game in Africa, and we can find them in zoos, but without people really giving a shit. I disagree that dogs "have been one of the most important factors in human societies growth and evolution". Most people would do just fine without dogs.
Hunting wild elephants and slaughering 100 sled dogs ( a domesticated specie ) are two different things. Nobody gives a shit ( except WWF and PETA ) if you are shooting jackals, foxes or dholes. It is called hunting and it is probably one of the older human activities.
I wasn't arguing whether hunting is correct or not.
So what is your point ? Domesticated animals = wild animals ?
hopefully the dogs fur will be turned into luxurious coats and their meat will find its way into our favorite can of chef boyarde. gotta think positive
On February 02 2011 01:37 Nizaris wrote: So much outrage. Yes the way they did it is pretty disgusting, but as many have said i see no difference in killing 100 sled dogs, or 100 cows/pigs. And i'm sure slaughterhouse aren't a much better way of killing them. Legally i don't really see the problem.
I like eating steaks so animal will have to die, there really is no way around it.
Nobody's going to eat those sled dogs though. And similarly, if I knew my hamburger came from animals which were slaughtered like that, I wouldn't eat it...
Granted I'm eating one now and for all I know it might be full of cow tears....
So the problem is not killing them but it is not eating them? that doesn't make any sense.
good thing u've never been to a slaughterhouse, because if what you say is true you would be a vegetarian. Although i suspect you already know how they are killed and you're just BSing.
They use bolt guns or electricity in slaughterhouses, how is that different then shooting them ? They sometimes have to try multiple times to kill them too. That isn't any better i'm sry.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
I don't give a flying duck if I get banned or warned for this.
But you sir, are one of the most fucking stupid persons in this forum.
Good thing I don't really consider myself Canadian :>
On February 02 2011 01:37 Nizaris wrote: So much outrage. Yes the way they did it is pretty disgusting, but as many have said i see no difference in killing 100 sled dogs, or 100 cows/pigs. And i'm sure slaughterhouse aren't a much better way of killing them. Legally i don't really see the problem.
I like eating steaks so animal will have to die, there really is no way around it.
Nobody's going to eat those sled dogs though. And similarly, if I knew my hamburger came from animals which were slaughtered like that, I wouldn't eat it...
Granted I'm eating one now and for all I know it might be full of cow tears....
So the problem is not killing them but it is not eating them? that doesn't make any sense.
good thing u've never been to a slaughterhouse, because if what you say is true you would be a vegetarian. Although i suspect you already know how they are killed and you're just BSing.
They use bolt guns or electricity in slaughterhouses, how is that different then shooting them ? They sometimes have to try multiple times to kill them too. That isn't any better i'm sry.
I have a problem with inhumane slaughter of animals. Guess I just largely ignore it because hamburgers are delicious.
And having been to a local slaughterhouse and having seen them cows getting killed, it looked OK. I'd be fine if it was always like what I've seen. It's unfortunate that it's not the case.
On February 01 2011 11:04 XsebT wrote: This story is a bit more dramatic because it is dogs, which we human feel more connected to than any other animal somehow. Still, I don't think this is rational in any way.
According to the WorkSafe B.C. documents obtained by the station, an employee of Outdoor Adventures Whistler has been compensated for post-traumatic stress disorder after being ordered to shoot the animals.
I think this would be quite a normal response, which should indicate that this is wrong. Best wishes to him.
"somehow"
how about the fact that we co-evolved and co-habitated together for millenia, and dogs have been one of the most important factors in human societies growth and evolution?
Disgusting story, lock the fucker up and throw away the damn key
co-evolved and co-habitated? Well, maybe if you need them in front of a sled, but most of the Earth isn't covered in snow. In other parts of the world tame elephants are an important animal for working in the woods and general transportation - much more so than dogs. Yet, hunters shoot elephants as game in Africa, and we can find them in zoos, but without people really giving a shit. I disagree that dogs "have been one of the most important factors in human societies growth and evolution". Most people would do just fine without dogs.
Hunting wild elephants and slaughering 100 sled dogs ( a domesticated specie ) are two different things. Nobody gives a shit ( except WWF and PETA ) if you are shooting jackals, foxes or dholes. It is called hunting and it is probably one of the older human activities.
I wasn't arguing whether hunting is correct or not.
So what is your point ? Domesticated animals = wild animals ?
I'm saying there's a certain bias in this because of the common human feelings for dogs. I just believe these feelings to be somewhat baseless, since dogs aren't some kind of super animal and we could have picked other animals for the same tasks. That bit of the argument doesn't matter much though, since I go on to saying that we shouldn't do this sort of needless slaugtering of animals in general... BUT, what I want from people is to realize that if this was cows, it would only be noteworthy if we didn't eat them afterwards.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
You have to be a sick son of a bitch to actually view an animal, let alone a domesticated one, in this way. I'll never understand how people can hurt others and/or animals...
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
You have to be a sick son of a bitch to actually view an animal, let alone a domesticated one, in this way. I'll never understand how people can hurt others and/or animals...
When you live, historically, in a region where hunting is the principal source of food you dont anthropomorphisize animals as having human reasoning and intelligence.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
Humans are animals too. I'd be warned/banned for speaking it outright, but maybe you should aim for a career as a sled dog, I hear it's a lucrative business!
@treemonkeys; by lethal injection, yes, its quite a difference
On February 01 2011 11:07 ShoCkeyy wrote: If this was in Florida, they would be sentenced for first degree murder. Florida's laws against killing a dog is considered as to killing a human. Fuck these guys, I get so angry when I read stories like these.
I'm not sure if I've heard of a law that stupid before.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
Lol wow, you might have dropped the most provocative line in this thread. Thankfully, our ancestors didn't have any of this animal rights bullshit, or we would've died out ages ago. That being said, I can't believe people are more emotional about 100 dogs being killed, than about thousands of Africans dying from hunger. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
On February 02 2011 02:52 resilve wrote: Canadians have a healthy attitude to nature.
When you live, historically, in a region where hunting is the principal source of food you dont anthropomorphisize animals as having human reasoning and intelligence.
How does hunting have anything to do with killing a domesticated animal that is under your control? I would say that there are plenty of dogs that are smarter than a lot of humans as well. Start comparing the dogs to mentally disabled humans and it gets even easier. Are you now going to say that it doesn't count somehow?
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
Lol wow, you might have dropped the most provocative line in this thread. Thankfully, our ancestors didn't have any of this animal rights bullshit, or we would've died out ages ago. That being said, I can't believe people are more emotional about 100 dogs being killed, than about thousands of Africans dying from hunger. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
I'm fairly certain our ancestors would not shoot a bunch of fucking dogs for no reason. It isn't ignorance, it is first hand connection. Almost everyone has had a dog or known a dog that they liked. Not everyone has been to a place and talked with starving african children. It also isn't like you have a damn clue on whether or not the people in this thread showing out rage donate or not to those starving people.
I don't mean to sound like a prick, but I don't see the big deal at all. Cattle and chickens and other livestock are slaughtered by the tens of thousands every day, why are you making a fuss out of a hundred dogs? It's not like they were killed for sport or in an unnecessarily cruel way. It angers me when people who eat meat and buy leather boots and purses bitch when someone happens to write an article about some animal they give two shits about.
Yes, it takes someone writing an article and someone posting it on teamliquid as well for you to take notice, you realize of course shit like this happens all the time? And then the next day you forget all about it and get yourself a fur coat and a burger, because after all you don't have time to spare to make a difference. I sure don't, but you don't see me acting all holier-than-thou about this stuff. Humans are at the top of the food chain and there are billions of us. treating each individual animal with respect and dignity just isn't practically feasible.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
Lol wow, you might have dropped the most provocative line in this thread. Thankfully, our ancestors didn't have any of this animal rights bullshit, or we would've died out ages ago. That being said, I can't believe people are more emotional about 100 dogs being killed, than about thousands of Africans dying from hunger. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
This is my overall impression of reading the thread.
The levels of magnitude in 'wrongs' is so very important in life. A man killing 100 worthless working animals (worthless in economic terms, ofc) is sad. But if there is anything to moralize and be outraged over I think the fact that a child dies every 30 seconds from Malyria, that 2.6 billion people live without sanitation, or that 1.5 billion people live withour electricity are more important.
I realize that it is not 'either or' in caring for animals and caring for humans - but in terms of the 'bad acts' occuring in the world, this is of no consequence what-so-ever.
On February 02 2011 03:04 Osmoses wrote: It's not like they were killed for sport or in an unnecessarily cruel way. It angers me when people who eat meat and buy leather boots and purses bitch when someone happens to write an article about some animal they give two shits about.
This was an organized cull of domestic animals, it should have been performed in a professional manner. Handing someone a gun and saying "we need these dogs dead" is not sufficient.
Shit like this shows how savage humans can be. If you have no choice but to kill them..at least do it properly. Don't just blast their heads off and slit their throats yada yada. I feel sad that people can believe that this stuff is okay imo.
On February 02 2011 03:04 Osmoses wrote: It's not like they were killed for sport or in an unnecessarily cruel way. It angers me when people who eat meat and buy leather boots and purses bitch when someone happens to write an article about some animal they give two shits about.
This was an organized cull of domestic animals, it should have been performed in a professional manner. Handing someone a gun and saying "we need these dogs dead" is not sufficient.
Everything's an easy call in hindsight. I mean, a shot to the head is supposed to be a quick death, isn't it?
On February 02 2011 03:04 Osmoses wrote: It's not like they were killed for sport or in an unnecessarily cruel way. It angers me when people who eat meat and buy leather boots and purses bitch when someone happens to write an article about some animal they give two shits about.
This was an organized cull of domestic animals, it should have been performed in a professional manner. Handing someone a gun and saying "we need these dogs dead" is not sufficient.
I agree that it should have been done professionally, but I disagree with your statement saying that a gun cannot be used professionally. With one shot to the head these dogs could have been disposed of peacefully and with no pain on their part at all.
However, one man can not kill 100 dogs in a few days alone, there is simply too much work and the nature of the work makes it very intense. A sloppy job was done by an obviously irrational person in this case, causing a complete disaster.
On February 02 2011 03:04 Osmoses wrote: It's not like they were killed for sport or in an unnecessarily cruel way. It angers me when people who eat meat and buy leather boots and purses bitch when someone happens to write an article about some animal they give two shits about.
This was an organized cull of domestic animals, it should have been performed in a professional manner. Handing someone a gun and saying "we need these dogs dead" is not sufficient.
Everything's an easy call in hindsight. I mean, a shot to the head is supposed to be a quick death, isn't it?
Shelters have to spend a hell of a lot of money and time on training and equipment in order to pass animal cruelty inspections and they do basically the same thing (ie slaughter dogs). Of course it's hindsight, but a tour manager with a gun is not going to know the ins and outs of animal cruelty law with regard to mass euthanasia.
They cut corners, and took a reputational risk doing so. The ensuing media firestorm is the result.
as I love dogs very much this is so sad... why don't they just give it to us dudes here. (well they're not going to be eaten if you know what I'm saying.)
On February 02 2011 03:15 Ayush_SCtoss wrote: Shit like this shows how savage humans can be. If you have no choice but to kill them..at least do it properly. Don't just blast their heads off and slit their throats yada yada. I feel sad that people can believe that this stuff is okay imo.
Someone has missed out on history. People do this crap to other people without blinking an eye.
As for my view on the situation? Don't give a crap. Thousands of babies are murdered every day. Thousands are starving to death in Africa. Thousands are dying of AIDs in Africa. Millions are living in abject poverty and despair. Dogs? Sorry, just don't give a crap. Would I rather it not happen, and they instead put them to sleep peacefully? Of course. Media going nuts over it? Fark them, seriously, there are far more relevant issues to humanity than dogs dying.
On February 02 2011 03:04 Osmoses wrote: I don't mean to sound like a prick, but I don't see the big deal at all. Cattle and chickens and other livestock are slaughtered by the tens of thousands every day, why are you making a fuss out of a hundred dogs? It's not like they were killed for sport or in an unnecessarily cruel way. It angers me when people who eat meat and buy leather boots and purses bitch when someone happens to write an article about some animal they give two shits about.
Yes, it takes someone writing an article and someone posting it on teamliquid as well for you to take notice, you realize of course shit like this happens all the time? And then the next day you forget all about it and get yourself a fur coat and a burger, because after all you don't have time to spare to make a difference. I sure don't, but you don't see me acting all holier-than-thou about this stuff. Humans are at the top of the food chain and there are billions of us. treating each individual animal with respect and dignity just isn't practically feasible.
Being stabbed and shot multiple times all together stuck in chains is not an unnecessarily inhumane way to kill the animals ?
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
Lol wow, you might have dropped the most provocative line in this thread. Thankfully, our ancestors didn't have any of this animal rights bullshit, or we would've died out ages ago. That being said, I can't believe people are more emotional about 100 dogs being killed, than about thousands of Africans dying from hunger. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
I'm fairly certain our ancestors would not shoot a bunch of fucking dogs for no reason. It isn't ignorance, it is first hand connection. Almost everyone has had a dog or known a dog that they liked. Not everyone has been to a place and talked with starving african children. It also isn't like you have a damn clue on whether or not the people in this thread showing out rage donate or not to those starving people.
It wasn't for no reason... Humans have always disposed of things that no longer serves a purpose. Animals also have non-negligible upkeep. Even if the animals carcasses are simply tossed away, the accumulated upkeep costs serve as the gains from the cull.
I'm probably desensitized to this kind of news, but seriously, don't take your anger out on the person who committed the cull, or the people who don't really feel any pity for the dogs.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
i'd get banned here in .3 seconds if i were to say what i think of people like you. i actually gave serious thought to doing it too. - the people who did this deserve less than the lowest animal walking this earth, fuck them and fuck the peoples who call themselves civilized when they allow things like this to happen
and it's got nothing to do with anthropomorphizing animals. for the "are you a vegan" argument, eating chicken does not = slaughtering dogs, horse, or, yes, pigs. there is a fine line to be drawn between the human and animal worlds, and since it's drawn according to human empathy towards anthropomorphic features in animals, there is a distinction to be made
however, that's not the issue here. even if you were ignorant of any such distinction or were of the opinion that chicken=dog, there still would be the matter of purposefully killing (for sustenance, clothing, etc., as it's been the tradition of hunting that has since developed into farming industry) vs. mindlessly slaughtering of animals, which is essentially a moral matter that addresses human conduct alone and which easily translates/develops into a human vs. human problematic, a philosophical argument on civilization..
the problem lies in the way they did it, and the fact that there were other ways of doing it, and that it was purposeless and avoidable - that makes this an unpardonable act of brutality that deserves the same treatment as any other act of brutality and savagery.
and don't give me this "omg babies are dying in africa" bullshit, this is lameass sophistry. this is about people acting like beasts thinking themselves civilized; as such, for the moral subject at hand which causes all the stir when something like this leaks out, i argue that doing something like this to humans = doing something like this to dogs
yes i live in the real world, this shit happens all the time, it's why i'm not surprised, though still disgusted by some of the attitudes in here. if you think these kinds of things happening don't have any logical correlation to stuff like that guy killing newborn babies or countries like somalia being what they are you're delusional.
On February 01 2011 11:13 MapleFractal wrote: If the owners couldn't find home's for the animals I believe it would have been moral to have the animals put down. However the manner in which this was handled is disgusting, just another fine example of man's willingness to sacrifice moral ground to maximize profits. $100 to be a decent human being or $1 for a bullet. Oh well, its Canada killing dogs like that is a worse offense then selling weed. They will most likely get hit pretty hard in court.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
You're terrible . Humans are just animals too you know...
No , human's are not animal's. Animals are driven by instinct not emotions that you or I experience. We have the capability to be driven by instinct but one a whole were are different.
You'd be surprised how many of our actions are purely genetic in nature. Think "free will" all you want, but most things we do are based on natural instinct. Give me one completely rational reason as to why we procreate, for instance. Is there any rational reason for us the be on this planet at all? It can perfectly do without us (in fact it'd probably be a lot better off). Procreation is pure instinct, just like our need to eat, to drink, to protect our family and our territory.
We are Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and we're a highly intelligent type of monkey, to put it bluntly. We are an animal species, and the main differences between us and other animals are that we're the only species who are able to willingly kill one of their own species for no good reason AND that we are the only species that can willingly drive other species to extinction (which is in fact pretty damn stupid).
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
Lol wow, you might have dropped the most provocative line in this thread. Thankfully, our ancestors didn't have any of this animal rights bullshit, or we would've died out ages ago. That being said, I can't believe people are more emotional about 100 dogs being killed, than about thousands of Africans dying from hunger. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
We are in THIS thread, so we are obviously discussing about THIS issue.Who said people are "more emotional" about dogs than humans in this thread? It's ONE of the countless issues, sure, but with that logic we might as well say "What's the fuss about 911, 5k people died, omg look at all the wars where millions have been killed, so look, those 5k are not a big deal". That's a sick comparison right?Well, that's the fucking point.
And that comparison to our ancestors is unbelievably retarded.It's one thing to kill in order to SURVIVE and another thing to kill another living being which feels pain in a cruel way because you wanted to save a couple of bucks.
If you're using another being for your own benefit, at least have some decency to end its live painlessly.
Always sad to see animals gets massacred i can bet if they put up a sign or made some sort of effort to GIVE AWAY the dogs people would take them. Its not like they are asking for a pack of wolves just sled dogs.
Some of the replies in this thread are just disgusting, most of them no doubt coming from people whose only relation to animals is hunting them.
Try living with a dog for 12 years as I have, and then tell me that they are purely instinct driven and not capable of thought or emotion.
Sad fucks.
(edit: Also, leave abortion out of this. Any sane human being should have realized by now that a clump of cells =/= a living, thinking, breathing creature, and that there literally, physically isn't any head or neck "to stick a knife into". Any disagreement from this is either religious or backwards. Either one has no place in a grown-ups discussion.)
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
Lol wow, you might have dropped the most provocative line in this thread. Thankfully, our ancestors didn't have any of this animal rights bullshit, or we would've died out ages ago. That being said, I can't believe people are more emotional about 100 dogs being killed, than about thousands of Africans dying from hunger. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
And that comparison to our ancestors is unbelievably retarded.It's one thing to kill in order to SURVIVE and another thing to kill another living being which feels pain in a cruel way because you wanted to save a couple of bucks.
If you're using another being for your own benefit, at least have some decency to end its live painlessly.
To most people, money IS survival in today's world. The "couple of bucks" is likely tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in upkeep that would be used to pay employees who work to survive. Given the choice between your job and a couple dogs, I think most people would choose the job, at least this guy did. Also, it's not like the guy purposely tried to kill the dogs as cruelly as possible, he just tried to get the job done.
Though the article says the company tried to adopt the dogs away, I wonder why there was only limited success, and why it wasn't possible to just set them into the wild.
Again, this is just my opinion on the matter. I hope the employee doesn't get burnt at the stake for this...
Are you kidding me? Likening this to animals slaughtered for food? The dogs were brutally killed and thrown in a mass grave, how can you even make that comparison? The intelligence level in this thread is astounding.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How can you sleep at night? Humanity dictates that we all have compassion for other living things. You must be sick in the head or worse.. Christian.
User was temp banned for this post.
I think maybe you might be mistaking compassion for empathy.
regarding OP, while this is very unfortunate, it does seem like this was the better option, as 'inhumane' as it may seem. Not having the funding to support the dogs would leave to starvation. local dog shelters are typically non vacant and they are not neccesarily able to support them either, that goes for the 100 families to randomly show up looking for huskys and other sled dogs.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
Lol wow, you might have dropped the most provocative line in this thread. Thankfully, our ancestors didn't have any of this animal rights bullshit, or we would've died out ages ago. That being said, I can't believe people are more emotional about 100 dogs being killed, than about thousands of Africans dying from hunger. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
We are in THIS thread, so we are obviously discussing about THIS issue.Who said people are "more emotional" about dogs than humans in this thread? It's ONE of the countless issues, sure, but with that logic we might as well say "What's the fuss about 911, 5k people died, omg look at all the wars where millions have been killed, so look, those 5k are not a big deal". That's a sick comparison right?Well, that's the fucking point.
And that comparison to our ancestors is unbelievably retarded.It's one thing to kill in order to SURVIVE and another thing to kill another living being which feels pain in a cruel way because you wanted to save a couple of bucks.
If you're using another being for your own benefit, at least have some decency to end its live painlessly.
Epic argument for the win? Comparing people dying in 911 to people dying around the world, and comparing dogs dying to people dying around the world, and saying its the same thing. Yes. You just did that. And you now expect us to take your argument seriously? Seriously wtf?
I rarely see news articles on the hundreds dying in Africa every day. I don't hear about the brutal gang wars and drug abuse/slavery that goes on every day in the US that devastates thousands of innocent people's lives and homes. And yet this story has been front page news for a couple days now, and there has been a huge media outcry over it. Again, fark them. There are much bigger issues in the world to worry about.
On February 02 2011 04:34 Proto_Protoss wrote: Always sad to see animals gets massacred i can bet if they put up a sign or made some sort of effort to GIVE AWAY the dogs people would take them. Its not like they are asking for a pack of wolves just sled dogs.
This. Every time our dog had puppies we gave them away. There were always people who wanted em. Killing is just the lazy man's excuse.
On February 02 2011 04:52 slothtron wrote: Are you kidding me? Likening this to animals slaughtered for food? The dogs were brutally killed and thrown in a mass grave, how can you even make that comparison? The intelligence level in this thread is astounding.
You're pretty ignorant aren't you? Have you ever visited a slaughterhouse? Or a sow stall? Or a battery farm?
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
Lol wow, you might have dropped the most provocative line in this thread. Thankfully, our ancestors didn't have any of this animal rights bullshit, or we would've died out ages ago. That being said, I can't believe people are more emotional about 100 dogs being killed, than about thousands of Africans dying from hunger. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
We are in THIS thread, so we are obviously discussing about THIS issue.Who said people are "more emotional" about dogs than humans in this thread? It's ONE of the countless issues, sure, but with that logic we might as well say "What's the fuss about 911, 5k people died, omg look at all the wars where millions have been killed, so look, those 5k are not a big deal". That's a sick comparison right?Well, that's the fucking point.
And that comparison to our ancestors is unbelievably retarded.It's one thing to kill in order to SURVIVE and another thing to kill another living being which feels pain in a cruel way because you wanted to save a couple of bucks.
If you're using another being for your own benefit, at least have some decency to end its live painlessly.
Epic argument for the win? Comparing people dying in 911 to people dying around the world, and comparing dogs dying to people dying around the world, and saying its the same thing. Yes. You just did that. And you now expect us to take your argument seriously? Seriously wtf?
I rarely see news articles on the hundreds dying in Africa every day. I don't hear about the brutal gang wars and drug abuse/slavery that goes on every day in the US that devastates thousands of innocent people's lives and homes. And yet this story has been front page news for a couple days now, and there has been a huge media outcry over it. Again, fark them. There are much bigger issues in the world to worry about.
I compared them proportionally.You're saying 100 dogs dying getting slaughtered doesn't matter because thousands of people are starving.I can then just say few k human deaths is nothing when we look at the history of millions and millions getting killed. You can't just look at an event and say it's irrelevant because there are bigger things happening. That company wasn't saving starving kids, it had the responsibility to take care of those dogs.
I'm not saying we can compare human casualty with animal deaths.That's not the point I was trying to make obviously. It just seems some people can't have any sort of compassion for another living being.It served and helped you and then you just get rid of it as if it's just an item. It's just a basic 'would you want that to be done to you?' logic.
If you are capable of understanding that you're causing pain and yet you still do it because "it's more convenient", you should be punished for it.
It's really sad because I'm positive that if there would've been any news that these dogs would be euthanized many of them if not all of them would've been adopted.
wtf...in Canada? Their biggest territory is mainly settled by people who lived with sled dogs for centuries and where having a sled dog or not could mean live or death just some decades ago. This is retarded, should have given them away I guess a lot of people would welcome healthy sled dogs. And I watched "Eight Below" just yesterday :/
I'm fairly certain our ancestors would not shoot a bunch of fucking dogs for no reason. It isn't ignorance, it is first hand connection. Almost everyone has had a dog or known a dog that they liked. Not everyone has been to a place and talked with starving african children. It also isn't like you have a damn clue on whether or not the people in this thread showing out rage donate or not to those starving people.
I'm fairly certain we have the same genetic makeup as our ancestors, so yes, apparently they would have.
On February 02 2011 03:01 Scorcher2k wrote: I'm fairly certain our ancestors would not shoot a bunch of fucking dogs for no reason. It isn't ignorance, it is first hand connection. Almost everyone has had a dog or known a dog that they liked. Not everyone has been to a place and talked with starving african children. It also isn't like you have a damn clue on whether or not the people in this thread showing out rage donate or not to those starving people.
No, but they ran hundreds of buffalo at a time off a cliff in order to skin and eat a handful of them. And if they failed, they probably ate their dogs instead. Animals have been used by people in various capacities for thousands of years. Just because you feed fifi purina moist chunky mix now doesn't mean dogs have been that way forever.
if the guy has ownership over the dogs and can do anything he wants, then legally he can't be punished but everyone would agree that there is something inherently wrong with massacring healthy dogs, so it would be very unfortunate if he doesn't get into any trouble.
On February 02 2011 03:01 Scorcher2k wrote: I'm fairly certain our ancestors would not shoot a bunch of fucking dogs for no reason. It isn't ignorance, it is first hand connection. Almost everyone has had a dog or known a dog that they liked. Not everyone has been to a place and talked with starving african children. It also isn't like you have a damn clue on whether or not the people in this thread showing out rage donate or not to those starving people.
No, but they ran hundreds of buffalo at a time off a cliff in order to skin and eat a handful of them. And if they failed, they probably ate their dogs instead. Animals have been used by people in various capacities for thousands of years. Just because you feed fifi purina moist chunky mix now doesn't mean dogs have been that way forever.
OK so lets assume, for argument's sake, that humans have been treating animals this way since the beginning of our existence.
Is =/= Ought.
Slavery has pretty much always existed before relatively recently in history. That is not any sort of reasonable justification for why its continued existence is acceptable.
So it really doesn't matter, (with respect to what we *should or shouldn't* do), what we have been doing. (which if I'm not mistaken is the focus of the debate here: was what happened acceptable or not?)
The problem here in my pov isn't that animals died. Even the SPCA has been caught mass slaughtering animals in Texas and other places.
Animals are a resource. It sounds stupid but it is true and barring technological advances, it will continue to be.
Now the disgusting the lack of humanity behind how this was done is appalling. Living things do not deserve to be treated in this way. I mean dog sledding is already a horrible sport, but the fact that this animals, were feed, trained and then discarded in this way is a huge waste of resources. I mean that is thousands of dollars per dog, not to mention that the dogs that actually make it through training are amazing. They can focus longer then most humans and are great specimens.
All in all, I rather 1,000 dogs get their heads cut of with dull blades then any of you.
They could make a lot of money selling the dogs and advertising that they were in the Olympics. It is a waste of resource. They probably even slaughtered all the ones that did not "make par" as well.
On February 01 2011 11:07 ShoCkeyy wrote: If this was in Florida, they would be sentenced for first degree murder. Florida's laws against killing a dog is considered as to killing a human. Fuck these guys, I get so angry when I read stories like these.
This thread title needs to be changed it's very misleading, it's not about sled dogs who competed in the olympics but sled dogs in a seperate circuit at the same venue as the olympics but happened to happen afterwards.
On February 02 2011 04:52 slothtron wrote: Are you kidding me? Likening this to animals slaughtered for food? The dogs were brutally killed and thrown in a mass grave, how can you even make that comparison? The intelligence level in this thread is astounding.
You're pretty ignorant aren't you? Have you ever visited a slaughterhouse? Or a sow stall? Or a battery farm?
Ignorant of what? I'm not saying slaughterhouses aren't brutal as fuck (which really isn't ok either), I'm saying those animals are killed for us to eat. To me that is completely different than dumping a bunch of dogs in a ditch. I know 100 dogs is a drop in the bucket brutality-wise, but for me killing something for no purpose is a lot different than killing something for food. I figured more people would make that connection, guess not.
if i were ordered to slaughter 100 animals i would quit my job. i hate animal rights activists as much as the next guy, but that's more or less due to the way they act rather than what they stand for.
but the important part is that that guy didn't definitely didn't slaughter the dogs involuntarily. killing a dog isn't rocket science. if this guy had been forced to do this, there wouldn't have been any dogs that were shot twice or had slit throats. there would have been 100 clean shots to the head, absolutely nothing more. and slitting a throat? that's getting really up close and personal. this guy was a sociopath, not a doubt in my mind. probably took the job just so he could slaughter animals.
ROFL at the people who are trying to defend cruelty like this. Sure there are starving people suffering in Africa. But the don't happen to be part of the species that's become vastly overpopulated, is stripping the earth of it's resources and destroying the natural environment, and is constantly finding better ways to cause suffering among themselves.
The fact is that dogs are helpless. It was an act of pure cruelty to kill them that way. Nobody but a psychopath is incapable of empathy.
A starving baby in Rwanda is not a helpless dog being cruelly mistreated. It's a symptom of the much greater problem that is human expansion on the planet earth. While surely it didn't choose the brief life of suffering it was given, it was brought into the world by irresponsible parents in a country that others are too self absorbed to care about. Those dogs are helpless animals were incapable of removing themselves from or even comprehending the situation they were in.
Doesn't the worker have common sense? What would you do if you were ordered to slaughter 100 sled dogs? I wouldn't have done it. No money can buy me like that.
On February 02 2011 10:19 Venus.exe wrote: Doesn't the worker have common sense? What would you do if you were ordered to slaughter 100 sled dogs? I wouldn't have done it. No money can buy me like that.
I agree you always have a choice..this article makes me sick
On February 02 2011 10:19 Venus.exe wrote: Doesn't the worker have common sense? What would you do if you were ordered to slaughter 100 sled dogs? I wouldn't have done it. No money can buy me like that.
Now this is another topic all together.
As a father, if I had no backup plan, no opportunity and my choice was either make my paycheck and feed my son and keep him in a warm home or have him go hungry and sleep on a frozen street I would have killed the dogs also, hopefully, in a more humane manner but the fact is I know in my heart that I would do it for him.
I doubt I will ever have a choice like that before me but I know far beyond theory what I would do.
Damn. First they don't let us off school to watch the games, then they back out on the promise saying the athlete's village for homeless, and how they slaughtered the dogs. How cruel.
I'm extremely impressed by the general naivety in this thread. Killing is killing. The manner in which it's done usually only effects the person doing it, and it's the intentions behind the killing that matter to us morally.
Slaughter a million cows a year for food? We don't care how it's done, I mean, we need to eat, right? We kill them brutally every damn day, chickens too. seals, rabbits ton's of animals for tons of different reasons. We don't care how it gets done.
Slaughter a single cow for pleasure... You're a psychopath.
The dogs would be dead either way. The method doesn't really matter, the intentions behind them do.
Even the word "euthanization" tries to obfuscate the issue, like we aren't actually killing the dogs. Isn't this method for their death better than the slow torture of starvation?
We try to find the most humane way to kill things because it effects US. Not because we care about the poor little doggies. Some of you people frankly need to grow up. Animals are being brutally killed all around us. So are humans.
You can pretend to be ignorant and believe it's not happening. But that doesn't allow for you to amplify specific instances like this, and isolate them and treat them like some tragedy, because that only makes you lose sight of what really going on around you.
By all rights this seems more like a tragic accident of communication more than anything else. People looking to blame someone for the deaths of these dogs are really only trying to cope with their own naive revulsions of these events that are, quite honestly, happening all the time.
Edit: I really hate being the last post in a thread page. Hope this isn't too frowned on
Holy shit wow. I really hope that the guy is telling the truth and truly didnt want to do that. Reading the part about the dog he "thought was dead" trying to climb out of the mass grave turned this story from another "oh thats bad" to actually making me physically sick and very upset that actually happened.
As far SPCA, I dont really care for them. Obviously I dont think what happened was right, but SPCA can be over the top with the type of words they use to "spice it up". This story didnt need any of that.
This is like one of the saddest things i have ever read, and i dont care too much about animals. Such unnecessary cruelty though towards anything that has served you well for a long time is something that perhaps only humans are capable of. The psychology behind such things is really quite interesting but it is a topic for another thread.
On February 01 2011 11:07 ShoCkeyy wrote: If this was in Florida, they would be sentenced for first degree murder. Florida's laws against killing a dog is considered as to killing a human. Fuck these guys, I get so angry when I read stories like these.
Yeah I remember reading that he was "forced" to do it. That's complete bullshit. He could have easily said, "No I quit." Couldn't force him to do it unless he really wanted to go through with it...
On February 01 2011 11:07 ShoCkeyy wrote: If this was in Florida, they would be sentenced for first degree murder. Florida's laws against killing a dog is considered as to killing a human. Fuck these guys, I get so angry when I read stories like these.
That law makes me sick to my stomach; disgusting.
Seriously,same here. Talk about a massive hypocrisy. Likening the murder of a human to a dog, when we literally euthanize thousands a year, Is akin to saying we should be able to take all our poor and homeless and kill them off, so long as we do it "humanely".
Dog sledding companies have been finding loving homes for their dogs for decades, there were other options beyond killing them.
The dogs were killed because the business couldn't be bothered to find them homes, and THAT's something that I have a problem with. Killing 100 dogs because you're lazy is infinitely worse than killing 1 000 000 pigs because of a rampant disease in my opinion.
Sure, that is worse. But you don't know the full reasoning. IT's not been made clear what really happened since the first post. And I'm sure the only people who really know who's at fault is those involved. So trying to blame anyone is sort of silly. It's a coinflip. One that will be decided in a court, usually by people more well versed in law than us.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
On February 02 2011 04:52 slothtron wrote: Are you kidding me? Likening this to animals slaughtered for food? The dogs were brutally killed and thrown in a mass grave, how can you even make that comparison? The intelligence level in this thread is astounding.
You're pretty ignorant aren't you? Have you ever visited a slaughterhouse? Or a sow stall? Or a battery farm?
Ignorant of what? I'm not saying slaughterhouses aren't brutal as fuck (which really isn't ok either), I'm saying those animals are killed for us to eat. To me that is completely different than dumping a bunch of dogs in a ditch. I know 100 dogs is a drop in the bucket brutality-wise, but for me killing something for no purpose is a lot different than killing something for food. I figured more people would make that connection, guess not.
Yes, you are ignorant. It is perfectly viable to live on a vegan diet. The fact of the matter is that we don't NEED to eat those animals. We just WANT to. Likewise there was no need to kill those dogs - the owners simply wanted to. If you truly claim to give a shit about how these dogs were killed, then it makes no difference whether an animal is murdered for food or economic purposes - they are unnecessarily murdered nevertheless. Most people are just too lazy to switch to vegan diets.
On February 02 2011 11:27 Tony Campolo wrote: Most people are just too lazy poor to switch to vegan diets.
Not true. To put it simply - replace meat with various beans/nuts. They're around the same price and offer the same nutrients.
What will happen to the animals that will overbreed with no natural predators since humans have eliminated them everywhere, kill them? Oh wait....back where we started.
On February 02 2011 11:27 Tony Campolo wrote: Most people are just too lazy poor to switch to vegan diets.
Not true. To put it simply - replace meat with various beans/nuts. They're around the same price and offer the same nutrients.
Yeah, the affordability argument is total bullshit. Most people I confront about it just don't want to give up the taste, which, of course, is no excuse, so they'll oftentimes suppress their guilt with statements they aren't really committed to, such as, "animals don't have feelings," or, "who cares if they suffer or not?" I think most people are sympathetic towards animals, but they're just too uncomfortable going vegan. It's not that hard, guys!
On February 02 2011 11:27 Tony Campolo wrote: Most people are just too lazy poor to switch to vegan diets.
Not true. To put it simply - replace meat with various beans/nuts. They're around the same price and offer the same nutrients.
What will happen to the animals that will overbreed with no natural predators since humans have eliminated them everywhere, kill them? Oh wait....back where we started.
Once again more ignorance. Pretty much all livestock is aritificially bred to meet consumer demand. They wouldn't exist if not for farmers destroying forests in order to farm beef to gratify excess junk food outlets like McDonalds. Cows that live a natural lifespan of around 25 years end up dying prematurely at 10 because they are artificially inseminated to have repeated pregnancies in order to produce milk and meat. Most are slaughtered at seven years of age once their bodies tire out and are no longer commercial viable.
On February 02 2011 11:27 Tony Campolo wrote: Most people are just too lazy poor to switch to vegan diets.
Not true. To put it simply - replace meat with various beans/nuts. They're around the same price and offer the same nutrients.
What will happen to the animals that will overbreed with no natural predators since humans have eliminated them everywhere, kill them? Oh wait....back where we started.
Once again more ignorance. Pretty much all livestock is aritificially bred to meet consumer demand. They wouldn't exist if not for farmers destroying forests in order to farm beef to gratify excess junk food outlets like McDonalds. Cows that live a natural lifespan of around 25 years end up dying prematurely at 10 because they are artificially inseminated to have repeated pregnancies in order to produce milk and meat. Most are slaughtered at seven years of age once their bodies tire out and are no longer commercial viable.
I was refering to natural animals such as bears and deer in North America.
On February 02 2011 11:27 Tony Campolo wrote: Most people are just too lazy poor to switch to vegan diets.
Not true. To put it simply - replace meat with various beans/nuts. They're around the same price and offer the same nutrients.
What will happen to the animals that will overbreed with no natural predators since humans have eliminated them everywhere, kill them? Oh wait....back where we started.
Once again more ignorance. Pretty much all livestock is aritificially bred to meet consumer demand. They wouldn't exist if not for farmers destroying forests in order to farm beef to gratify excess junk food outlets like McDonalds. Cows that live a natural lifespan of around 25 years end up dying prematurely at 10 because they are artificially inseminated to have repeated pregnancies in order to produce milk and meat. Most are slaughtered at seven years of age once their bodies tire out and are no longer commercial viable.
I was refering to natural animals such as bears and deer in North America.
Sure, OK, so let's make an exception for them and say their death's are OK. What about cows, pigs, and chickens then? If you were angered by the dogs' needless deaths, then to be consistent you should also be angered at the deaths of the cows, pigs and chickens. Have a look at let me know what you think of this clip:
On February 02 2011 11:27 Tony Campolo wrote: Most people are just too lazy poor to switch to vegan diets.
Not true. To put it simply - replace meat with various beans/nuts. They're around the same price and offer the same nutrients.
What will happen to the animals that will overbreed with no natural predators since humans have eliminated them everywhere, kill them? Oh wait....back where we started.
Once again more ignorance. Pretty much all livestock is aritificially bred to meet consumer demand. They wouldn't exist if not for farmers destroying forests in order to farm beef to gratify excess junk food outlets like McDonalds. Cows that live a natural lifespan of around 25 years end up dying prematurely at 10 because they are artificially inseminated to have repeated pregnancies in order to produce milk and meat. Most are slaughtered at seven years of age once their bodies tire out and are no longer commercial viable.
I was refering to natural animals such as bears and deer in North America.
Sure, OK, so let's make an exception for them and say their death's are OK. What about cows, pigs, and chickens then? If you were angered by the dogs' needless deaths, then to be consistent you should also be angered at the deaths of the cows, pigs and chickens. Have a look at let me know what you think of this clip:
On February 02 2011 11:27 Tony Campolo wrote: Most people are just too lazy poor to switch to vegan diets.
Not true. To put it simply - replace meat with various beans/nuts. They're around the same price and offer the same nutrients.
What will happen to the animals that will overbreed with no natural predators since humans have eliminated them everywhere, kill them? Oh wait....back where we started.
Once again more ignorance. Pretty much all livestock is aritificially bred to meet consumer demand. They wouldn't exist if not for farmers destroying forests in order to farm beef to gratify excess junk food outlets like McDonalds. Cows that live a natural lifespan of around 25 years end up dying prematurely at 10 because they are artificially inseminated to have repeated pregnancies in order to produce milk and meat. Most are slaughtered at seven years of age once their bodies tire out and are no longer commercial viable.
I was refering to natural animals such as bears and deer in North America.
Sure, OK, so let's make an exception for them and say their death's are OK. What about cows, pigs, and chickens then? If you were angered by the dogs' needless deaths, then to be consistent you should also be angered at the deaths of the cows, pigs and chickens. Have a look at let me know what you think of this clip:
On February 02 2011 11:27 Tony Campolo wrote: Most people are just too lazy poor to switch to vegan diets.
Not true. To put it simply - replace meat with various beans/nuts. They're around the same price and offer the same nutrients.
Yeah, the affordability argument is total bullshit. Most people I confront about it just don't want to give up the taste, which, of course, is no excuse, so they'll oftentimes suppress their guilt with statements they aren't really committed to, such as, "animals don't have feelings," or, "who cares if they suffer or not?" I think most people are sympathetic towards animals, but they're just too uncomfortable going vegan. It's not that hard, guys!
Actually, it's very hard. I like my meat man, it tastes damn GOOD and that's reason enough honestly.
On February 02 2011 11:27 Tony Campolo wrote: Most people are just too lazy poor to switch to vegan diets.
Not true. To put it simply - replace meat with various beans/nuts. They're around the same price and offer the same nutrients.
What will happen to the animals that will overbreed with no natural predators since humans have eliminated them everywhere, kill them? Oh wait....back where we started.
Once again more ignorance. Pretty much all livestock is aritificially bred to meet consumer demand. They wouldn't exist if not for farmers destroying forests in order to farm beef to gratify excess junk food outlets like McDonalds. Cows that live a natural lifespan of around 25 years end up dying prematurely at 10 because they are artificially inseminated to have repeated pregnancies in order to produce milk and meat. Most are slaughtered at seven years of age once their bodies tire out and are no longer commercial viable.
I was refering to natural animals such as bears and deer in North America.
Sure, OK, so let's make an exception for them and say their death's are OK. What about cows, pigs, and chickens then? If you were angered by the dogs' needless deaths, then to be consistent you should also be angered at the deaths of the cows, pigs and chickens. Have a look at let me know what you think of this clip:
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
fine. does the same go for our kids? they're ours. why can't we do what we want with them? some might say they're even more ours because we created them ourselves. retard
-EDIT-
also I heard that this guy has post traumatic stress now. i dont think its possible to have a conscience and be able to do this.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
fine. does the same go for our kids? they're ours. why can't we do what we want with them? some might say they're even more ours because we created them ourselves. retard
/facepalm just because someone considers animals as property doesnt mean they also consider children as property.
On February 02 2011 11:27 Tony Campolo wrote: Most people are just too lazy poor to switch to vegan diets.
Not true. To put it simply - replace meat with various beans/nuts. They're around the same price and offer the same nutrients.
What will happen to the animals that will overbreed with no natural predators since humans have eliminated them everywhere, kill them? Oh wait....back where we started.
Once again more ignorance. Pretty much all livestock is aritificially bred to meet consumer demand. They wouldn't exist if not for farmers destroying forests in order to farm beef to gratify excess junk food outlets like McDonalds. Cows that live a natural lifespan of around 25 years end up dying prematurely at 10 because they are artificially inseminated to have repeated pregnancies in order to produce milk and meat. Most are slaughtered at seven years of age once their bodies tire out and are no longer commercial viable.
I was refering to natural animals such as bears and deer in North America.
Sure, OK, so let's make an exception for them and say their death's are OK. What about cows, pigs, and chickens then? If you were angered by the dogs' needless deaths, then to be consistent you should also be angered at the deaths of the cows, pigs and chickens. Have a look at let me know what you think of this clip:
On February 02 2011 11:27 Tony Campolo wrote: Most people are just too lazy poor to switch to vegan diets.
Not true. To put it simply - replace meat with various beans/nuts. They're around the same price and offer the same nutrients.
What will happen to the animals that will overbreed with no natural predators since humans have eliminated them everywhere, kill them? Oh wait....back where we started.
Once again more ignorance. Pretty much all livestock is aritificially bred to meet consumer demand. They wouldn't exist if not for farmers destroying forests in order to farm beef to gratify excess junk food outlets like McDonalds. Cows that live a natural lifespan of around 25 years end up dying prematurely at 10 because they are artificially inseminated to have repeated pregnancies in order to produce milk and meat. Most are slaughtered at seven years of age once their bodies tire out and are no longer commercial viable.
I was refering to natural animals such as bears and deer in North America.
Sure, OK, so let's make an exception for them and say their death's are OK. What about cows, pigs, and chickens then? If you were angered by the dogs' needless deaths, then to be consistent you should also be angered at the deaths of the cows, pigs and chickens. Have a look at let me know what you think of this clip:
On February 02 2011 13:56 evanthebouncy! wrote: Eh... Chinese people still eat dogs so I dunno what to say on this subject...
How can you compare eating and torturing?
I mean... it isn't like they purposely kept the dogs alive and to cause them pain right? iirc culling is just to kill them. And I'm sure the method of killing if u were to eat them is similar...
That's so terrible. I just went sled dogging for the first time this winter and those dogs are the happiest things in the world, they love doing what they do.
As far as meat in general goes, I think if you can't pick out an animal and kill it yourself or at least watch someone slaughter it, you shouldn't be eating it.
On February 02 2011 14:27 pinke wrote: As far as meat in general goes, I think if you can't pick out an animal and kill it yourself or at least watch someone slaughter it, you shouldn't be eating it.
Yeah I totally agree with this actually... But if it's to actually killing it I am only qualified to eat fish and crab and aquatic things... Watching that video made me really sad
On February 02 2011 14:27 pinke wrote: As far as meat in general goes, I think if you can't pick out an animal and kill it yourself or at least watch someone slaughter it, you shouldn't be eating it.
Yeah I totally agree with this actually... But if it's to actually killing it I am only qualified to eat fish and crab and aquatic things... Watching that video made me really sad
Here's the part with fish:
To be honest it doesn't go into depth and focuses on the environmental reasons rather than the fact that fish also have pain receptors. A lot better than The Cove though.
How did I miss this thread. Really sad article. I understand why they did it but the process in which they did is pretty absurd. There are humane ways to kill animals, as we see in many industries.
“What is extremely upsetting is to read what he described - some of them requiring mulitple shots, his having to slit their throats, dogs faces being blown off and they were still running around, dogs that he thought had been dead, that he put in what he described as a mass grave and he looks back and sees her trying to climb out,”
^^^ That is absolutely uncalled for and terrible, no matter what you're doing it to. I hope someone pays dearly for this.
On February 02 2011 15:03 On_Slaught wrote: How did I miss this thread. Really sad article. I understand why they did it but the process in which they did is pretty absurd.
“What is extremely upsetting is to read what he described - some of them requiring mulitple shots, his having to slit their throats, dogs faces being blown off and they were still running around, dogs that he thought had been dead, that he put in what he described as a mass grave and he looks back and sees her trying to climb out,”
^^^ That is absolutely uncalled for and terrible, no matter what you're doing it to. I hope someone pays dearly for this.
Yes, a 100$ fine most likely :|
Animals are no near as valuable as humans are apparently.
On February 02 2011 14:27 pinke wrote: As far as meat in general goes, I think if you can't pick out an animal and kill it yourself or at least watch someone slaughter it, you shouldn't be eating it.
Yeah I totally agree with this actually... But if it's to actually killing it I am only qualified to eat fish and crab and aquatic things... Watching that video made me really sad
To be honest it doesn't go into depth and focuses on the environmental reasons rather than the fact that fish also have pain receptors. A lot better than The Cove though.
On February 02 2011 14:27 pinke wrote: As far as meat in general goes, I think if you can't pick out an animal and kill it yourself or at least watch someone slaughter it, you shouldn't be eating it.
Yeah I totally agree with this actually... But if it's to actually killing it I am only qualified to eat fish and crab and aquatic things... Watching that video made me really sad
To be honest it doesn't go into depth and focuses on the environmental reasons rather than the fact that fish also have pain receptors. A lot better than The Cove though.
I'm fine with that. I've killed fish before.
So you're fine with fish feeling pain, but not fine with dogs feeling pain.
This is sickening. Alright I love animals beyond everything, and even if the only option was to put them down, did they seriously have to fucking slit the dog's throats and blow off their heads?
Although the way they killed them probably isnt the best way, there is nothing wrong with doing it. I mean we slaughter so many animals every day, just because people has some "special" connection with dogs doesnt make it any different.
Although i do feel that sometimes people value the lives of animals more than humans. I'd kill 1000 dogs if it meant saving 1 human life. It's strange how much people value animal life. Animals kill eachother aswell, you wanna punish that? It's just the way life is.
That being said, at least kill the dogs in a humane way. Seems really messed up do kill them like this.
I would be more interested to hear if they actually tried to give the dogs away. Their neutralization seems like a last resort. With business already being horrible I doubt they could afford to keep them. And what animal rescue shelter in the area has the capacity and resources to take in a freakin hundred large dogs? Even giving them away to families or whatnot would still not be practical because that takes a lot of time. They would still have to feed/house the dogs until homes are found for all of them. Expensive.
I understand the majority of the frustration is in how poorly they were neutralized. And I doubt any human could keep their composure after neutralizing a few of them. Which would explain his poor performance with the job. My main confusion is in why this employee didn't just quit.
It's also easy to sit back and point fingers and talk about how disgusted this makes you feel. But how many have actually done proactive things in their own community related to rescuing animals? I adopted a retired greyhound. wbu?
What makes me sick more is the armchair/internet self-righteousness that happens in the article comments when this kind of news hits. People playing the demonizing game when they've never done anything proactive for this cause that makes them so disgusted. It only disgusts you when it's shoved in your face. In a week you'll forget, so it's ok.
On February 03 2011 01:19 couches wrote: I would be more interested to hear if they actually tried to give the dogs away. Their neutralization seems like a last resort. With business already being horrible I doubt they could afford to keep them. And what animal rescue shelter in the area has the capacity and resources to take in a freakin hundred large dogs? Even giving them away to families or whatnot would still not be practical because that takes a lot of time. They would still have to feed/house the dogs until homes are found for all of them. Expensive.
I understand the majority of the frustration is in how poorly they were neutralized. And I doubt any human could keep their composure after neutralizing a few of them. Which would explain his poor performance with the job. My main confusion is in why this employee didn't just quit.
It's also easy to sit back and point fingers and talk about how disgusted this makes you feel. But how many have actually done proactive things in their own community related to rescuing animals? I adopted a retired greyhound. wbu?
What makes me sick more is the armchair/internet self-righteousness that happens in the article comments when this kind of news hits. People playing the demonizing game when they've never done anything proactive for this cause that makes them so disgusted. It only disgusts you when it's shoved in your face. In a week you'll forget, so it's ok.
I'm not allowed to have an opinion unless I do something about it? OK! Impractical, but OK!
On February 03 2011 06:00 Ownos wrote: I'm not allowed to have an opinion unless I do something about it? OK! Impractical, but OK!
That's used to reveal hypocrites. A lot of people on this thread claim that they value animal welfare. Yet, a lot of them won't sacrifice their own welfare to improve animal welfare.
You can have an opinion but it's just not credible. It's the same as dollar store customers writing to the government to ban imports from China.
On February 02 2011 00:38 Blasterion wrote: 100 alive sled dogs are more valuable than 100 dead ones, they made a rather irrational decision.
I don't think they can afford to feed and care for 100 sled dogs. I'm sure if people were willing to donate money then they could've done that. Letting them go free would've probably resulted in their death anyway so they didn't have any alternatives.
I don't understand why anyone didn't point out that those dogs were slaves. People think it's cute for dogs to be running around for humans' pleasure. I don't get why it's okay to enslave dogs but suddenly people get outraged when dogs get killed. I'd rather have them not enslaved in the first place.
On February 03 2011 06:00 Ownos wrote: I'm not allowed to have an opinion unless I do something about it? OK! Impractical, but OK!
That's used to reveal hypocrites. A lot of people on this thread claim that they value animal welfare. Yet, a lot of them won't sacrifice their own welfare to improve animal welfare.
You can have an opinion but it's just not credible. It's the same as dollar store customers writing to the government to ban imports from China.
On February 02 2011 00:38 Blasterion wrote: 100 alive sled dogs are more valuable than 100 dead ones, they made a rather irrational decision.
I don't think they can afford to feed and care for 100 sled dogs. I'm sure if people were willing to donate money then they could've done that. Letting them go free would've probably resulted in their death anyway so they didn't have any alternatives.
I don't understand why anyone didn't point out that those dogs were slaves. People think it's cute for dogs to be running around for humans' pleasure. I don't get why it's okay to enslave dogs but suddenly people get outraged when dogs get killed. I'd rather have them not enslaved in the first place.
I care about animal welfare (or more appropriately, animal 'rights') and spent a large part of 2009 and early 2010 volunteering for an animal rights group.
The issue is not what to do with them after using them - but rather not using animals for our entertainment in the first place. I've posted clips from Earthlings above - see part 7 of the documentary, which covers the use of animals in sporting, zoos and circuses. It's a lot more horrific than meets the eye. You'd be surprised at how cruel and unethical the racing industry is too, which is what these dogs were used for. Watch the documentary - I'd post the YouTube link here but I can't access YouTube here at work. It's almost as bad as the meat processing clips I posted above.
On February 02 2011 14:27 pinke wrote: As far as meat in general goes, I think if you can't pick out an animal and kill it yourself or at least watch someone slaughter it, you shouldn't be eating it.
Yeah I totally agree with this actually... But if it's to actually killing it I am only qualified to eat fish and crab and aquatic things... Watching that video made me really sad
To be honest it doesn't go into depth and focuses on the environmental reasons rather than the fact that fish also have pain receptors. A lot better than The Cove though.
I'm fine with that. I've killed fish before.
So you're fine with fish feeling pain, but not fine with dogs feeling pain.
Sure. You understand that to kill a thing I feel pain too, it pains me less to kill a fish, i.e. I can kill it w/o feeling too sad. So yes that's fine.
On February 02 2011 14:27 pinke wrote: As far as meat in general goes, I think if you can't pick out an animal and kill it yourself or at least watch someone slaughter it, you shouldn't be eating it.
Yeah I totally agree with this actually... But if it's to actually killing it I am only qualified to eat fish and crab and aquatic things... Watching that video made me really sad
To be honest it doesn't go into depth and focuses on the environmental reasons rather than the fact that fish also have pain receptors. A lot better than The Cove though.
I'm fine with that. I've killed fish before.
So you're fine with fish feeling pain, but not fine with dogs feeling pain.
Sure. You understand that to kill a thing I feel pain too, it pains me less to kill a fish, i.e. I can kill it w/o feeling too sad. So yes that's fine.
Probably because you can't empathise with it. Likewise the owner who ordered the dogs be slaughtered also failed to empathise with the pain of the dogs. You understand that to kill another human they feel pain too, but it pained them less to kill the dogs, so they were able to order the killing without feeling too sad, therefore it was fine. A recent blog post:
I remember years ago in Papua New Guinea, being out on some super $$$ game fishing launch with a bunch of Aussies. I was there because it was beautiful being out on the water, but they were there to catch marlin and sailfish.
They caught one too. And lots of beers were drunk in disgusting celebration. I was really upset, which was totally pointless and useless. But they hadn’t killed it because they needed to eat. They had killed it for fun! Go figure!
Some years before that, I had been out night fishing (this was before my ecological concerns were fully formed) with some Chinese friends who were hell fisherman.
I got the biggie though. It was something massive. We turned the boat’s floodlights into the water but could see nothing. I couldn’t pull whatever it was up, because it was so big, so the guys all gathered around and pulled and pulled too. And some of these were really big, mixed-race hunks. They were blown away by my catch. The whole boat was in awe as to what the hell this thing could be. As we hauled away, something deep down came into view. We hauled more and it loomed immense in the farther reaches of the floodlights. Then, as we strained, we got it into view.
A whale? Nope.
Giant shark? No
Sea monster? Uh-uh.
It broke the surface and we could see it was a ray. A giant ray. And it had had its “wings” out horizontally, during the haul to the surface, which is why it had seemed so gargantuan.
So there it was, on the surface, a big hook in its mouth. We looked at it. And I looked at the guys. What do we do with a giant ray?
Easy. One of them pulled out a knife, cut the fishing line, and set the creature free to swim away. But with a very damaged mouth and probably highly traumatised. I have wondered ever since if it survived.
People seem to assume that fish are swimming vegetables and insensitive to pain, but the latest research shows otherwise.
Dr Donald Broom, scientific adviser to the British government, explains, “The scientific literature is quite clear. Anatomically, physiologically and biologically, the pain system in fish is virtually the same as in birds and mammals”.
And in 2003, scientists at the University of Edinburgh concluded that fish clearly experience pain in the same way as mammals, both physically and psychologically.
Like “higher vertebrates”, they have neurotransmitters which relieve suffering and the only reason for a nervous system to produce painkillers is to relieve pain. Claiming that fish do not suffer is as intellectually and scientifically sound as arguing that the Earth is flat.
On February 03 2011 12:44 iloveHieu wrote: So sad, the human race's brutality towards other animals is really pissing me off.
As opposed to all the other omnivores/carnivores on the planet? Ever seen a sheep get eaten by wolves?
Do they torture them for years? Pump them full of toxic stuff, make them stay in one place to constantly breed, and not gain any muscle, and not have any sunlight?
There's a difference between animals eating animals and us eating animals by torturing them in the extremely long process.
On February 03 2011 12:44 iloveHieu wrote: So sad, the human race's brutality towards other animals is really pissing me off.
As opposed to all the other omnivores/carnivores on the planet? Ever seen a sheep get eaten by wolves?
Other carnivores also practice murder against one's own species (e.g. Lions killing each other to become the alpha male) - does that make it OK for humans to kill each other to exert dominance?
Hey, other animals do it so it must be OK! Forget free will and restraint.
On February 03 2011 12:44 iloveHieu wrote: So sad, the human race's brutality towards other animals is really pissing me off.
As opposed to all the other omnivores/carnivores on the planet? Ever seen a sheep get eaten by wolves?
Do they torture them for years? Pump them full of toxic stuff, make them stay in one place to constantly breed, and not gain any muscle, and not have any sunlight?
There's a difference between animals eating animals and us eating animals by torturing them in the extremely long process.
I wouldn't have a problem if animal rights supporters focused on the living conditions of factory farmed animals instead of saying it's not okay to eat any kind of meat. It's not like trying to convert a species of omnivores into herbivores is a natural thing to do either. Maybe both sides should leave nature alone.
On February 03 2011 12:44 iloveHieu wrote: So sad, the human race's brutality towards other animals is really pissing me off.
As opposed to all the other omnivores/carnivores on the planet? Ever seen a sheep get eaten by wolves?
Do they torture them for years? Pump them full of toxic stuff, make them stay in one place to constantly breed, and not gain any muscle, and not have any sunlight?
There's a difference between animals eating animals and us eating animals by torturing them in the extremely long process.
I wouldn't have a problem if animal rights supporters focused on the living conditions of factory farmed animals instead of saying it's not okay to eat any kind of meat. It's not like trying to convert a species of omnivores into herbivores is a natural thing to do either. Maybe both sides should leave nature alone.
A fair look at the evidence shows that humans are optimized for eating plant foods, according to the best evidence: our bodies. We're most similar to other herbivores, and drastically different from carnivores and true omnivores.1,2,3 The science shows that the more meat we eat, the sicker we get -- heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, and every other major degenerative disease. If eating meat were so natural, it wouldn't destroy our health.
Since this is a long article, here's a condensed version:
*
Our so-called "canine teeth" are "canine" in name only. Other plant-eaters (like gorillas, horses, and hippos) have "canines", and chimps, who are almost exclusively vegan, have massive canines compared to ours. *
Our early ancestors from at least four million years ago were almost exclusively vegetarian. *
Our omnivorism means we're capable of eating meat (useful from a survival standpoint if that's all that's available), but our bodies aren't geared for it to be a normal, significant part of our diets. *
The animals most similar to us, the other primates, eat an almost exclusively vegan diet (and their main non-plant food often isn't meat, it's termites). * Our teeth, saliva, stomach acid, and intestines are most similar to other plant-eaters, and dissimilar to carnivores and true omnivores.
* Among animals, plant-eaters have the longest lifespans, and humans are certainly in that category (and yes, this was true even before modern medicine).
* We sleep about the same amount of time as other herbivores, and less than carnivores and true omnivores.
* The most common cause of choking deaths is eating meat. (source) Real carnivores and omnivores don't have that problem.
The meat-eating reader already has half a dozen objections to this before s/he's even read the rest of the article, and I will address those objections specifically, but first let me address them generally: It is human nature to want to feel that what we're doing is right, proper, and logical. When we're confronted with something that suggests that our current practices are not the best ones, it's uncomfortable. We can either consider that our choices may not have been the best ones, which is extremely disturbing, or we can reject that premise without truly considering it, so that we don't have to feel bad about our actions. That's the more comfortable approach. And we do this by searching our minds for any arguments we can for why the challenge must be wrong, to justify our current behavior. This practice is so common psychologists have a name for it: cognitive dissonance.
Think about that for a moment: Our feeling that our current actions are correct isn't based on our arguments. Rather, our actions come first and then we come up with the arguments to try to support those actions. If we were truly logical, we'd consider the evidence first and then decide the best course of action. But often we have it in reverse, because it's too difficult to accept that we might have been wrong.
Vegan bodybuilders shatter the myth that vegans are skinny and malnourished. This is particularly true when it comes to vegetarianism. It's easy to identify because the anti-vegetarian arguments are usually so extreme, compared to other kinds of discourse. A person who would never normally suggest something so fantastic as the idea that plants can think and feel pain, will suddenly all but lunge for such an argument when they feel their meat-eating ways are being questioned, and they're looking for a way to justify it. It's human nature.
I used to be in the same position as most readers probably are now. Long ago my habits were challenged by a book I ran across in the library called Going Vegetarian. I didn't want to consider it fairly, because I wanted to keep eating meat. I'd grown up eating it, and I liked it. And there was another reason: I'd grown up in a small farming community raising and killing chickens. Accepting the book's premise really meant that I'd have to admit that I might not have made the best choices. So I came up with various weak defenses to justify my behavior. But deep down I knew I was kidding myself, and practicing a form of intellectual cowardice. When I considered the arguments honestly, I stopped eating animals. There was really no other logical choice. That was 25 years ago and it was absolutely the best decision I ever made.
So I challenge you: stop trying to figure out ways that I "must" be wrong even before you've bothered to read the rest of this article. Instead, read it, and actually consider it rather than reflexively trying to come out with ways to dismiss it out of hand. You can certainly still disagree after you've considered all the evidence -- but not before.
Most meat-eating readers will find it necessary to try to defeat me, at least in their minds, so let's agree that that would mean providing more and better evidence for your position. One does not win the argument by making a single point, as most of the readers who email me seem to think. The evidence favoring a plant diet for humans is clear, convincing, and overwhelming. There is definitely some evidence for the other side, to be sure, but it's simply not nearly as strong. What I'm saying is, if there are 30 strong points for, and you come up with one or two against, then which is the better position? I mention this because the people who email me about this article seem to believe that whoever makes the fewest and weakest points has presented the most convincing case. They somehow seem to believe that all the evidence I present somehow vanishes into thin air when they present their lone argument. Please don't fall into that trap.
On February 03 2011 12:44 iloveHieu wrote: So sad, the human race's brutality towards other animals is really pissing me off.
As opposed to all the other omnivores/carnivores on the planet? Ever seen a sheep get eaten by wolves?
Other carnivores also practice murder against one's own species (e.g. Lions killing each other to become the alpha male) - does that make it OK for humans to kill each other to exert dominance?
Hey, other animals do it so it must be OK! Forget free will and restraint.
Sure, that's fine, as long as you understand there are consequences for your actions, just as there are for the lions.
That is really one of the saddest things i have read in a while. I am a huge animal guy (not like PETA status or anything) and to hear about this makes me cringe. I have had 2 dogs in my family and they have both ended up dead. One was unexpected and one we had to put down. Both were very hard to do. To hear that this guy straight massacred around 100 dogs just seems really dark.
On February 03 2011 12:44 iloveHieu wrote: So sad, the human race's brutality towards other animals is really pissing me off.
As opposed to all the other omnivores/carnivores on the planet? Ever seen a sheep get eaten by wolves?
Do they torture them for years? Pump them full of toxic stuff, make them stay in one place to constantly breed, and not gain any muscle, and not have any sunlight?
There's a difference between animals eating animals and us eating animals by torturing them in the extremely long process.
I wouldn't have a problem if animal rights supporters focused on the living conditions of factory farmed animals instead of saying it's not okay to eat any kind of meat. It's not like trying to convert a species of omnivores into herbivores is a natural thing to do either. Maybe both sides should leave nature alone.
A fair look at the evidence shows that humans are optimized for eating plant foods, according to the best evidence: our bodies. We're most similar to other herbivores, and drastically different from carnivores and true omnivores.1,2,3 The science shows that the more meat we eat, the sicker we get -- heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, and every other major degenerative disease. If eating meat were so natural, it wouldn't destroy our health.
Since this is a long article, here's a condensed version:
*
Our so-called "canine teeth" are "canine" in name only. Other plant-eaters (like gorillas, horses, and hippos) have "canines", and chimps, who are almost exclusively vegan, have massive canines compared to ours. *
Our early ancestors from at least four million years ago were almost exclusively vegetarian. *
Our omnivorism means we're capable of eating meat (useful from a survival standpoint if that's all that's available), but our bodies aren't geared for it to be a normal, significant part of our diets. *
The animals most similar to us, the other primates, eat an almost exclusively vegan diet (and their main non-plant food often isn't meat, it's termites). * Our teeth, saliva, stomach acid, and intestines are most similar to other plant-eaters, and dissimilar to carnivores and true omnivores.
* Among animals, plant-eaters have the longest lifespans, and humans are certainly in that category (and yes, this was true even before modern medicine).
* We sleep about the same amount of time as other herbivores, and less than carnivores and true omnivores.
* The most common cause of choking deaths is eating meat. (source) Real carnivores and omnivores don't have that problem.
The meat-eating reader already has half a dozen objections to this before s/he's even read the rest of the article, and I will address those objections specifically, but first let me address them generally: It is human nature to want to feel that what we're doing is right, proper, and logical. When we're confronted with something that suggests that our current practices are not the best ones, it's uncomfortable. We can either consider that our choices may not have been the best ones, which is extremely disturbing, or we can reject that premise without truly considering it, so that we don't have to feel bad about our actions. That's the more comfortable approach. And we do this by searching our minds for any arguments we can for why the challenge must be wrong, to justify our current behavior. This practice is so common psychologists have a name for it: cognitive dissonance.
Think about that for a moment: Our feeling that our current actions are correct isn't based on our arguments. Rather, our actions come first and then we come up with the arguments to try to support those actions. If we were truly logical, we'd consider the evidence first and then decide the best course of action. But often we have it in reverse, because it's too difficult to accept that we might have been wrong.
Vegan bodybuilders shatter the myth that vegans are skinny and malnourished. This is particularly true when it comes to vegetarianism. It's easy to identify because the anti-vegetarian arguments are usually so extreme, compared to other kinds of discourse. A person who would never normally suggest something so fantastic as the idea that plants can think and feel pain, will suddenly all but lunge for such an argument when they feel their meat-eating ways are being questioned, and they're looking for a way to justify it. It's human nature.
I used to be in the same position as most readers probably are now. Long ago my habits were challenged by a book I ran across in the library called Going Vegetarian. I didn't want to consider it fairly, because I wanted to keep eating meat. I'd grown up eating it, and I liked it. And there was another reason: I'd grown up in a small farming community raising and killing chickens. Accepting the book's premise really meant that I'd have to admit that I might not have made the best choices. So I came up with various weak defenses to justify my behavior. But deep down I knew I was kidding myself, and practicing a form of intellectual cowardice. When I considered the arguments honestly, I stopped eating animals. There was really no other logical choice. That was 25 years ago and it was absolutely the best decision I ever made.
So I challenge you: stop trying to figure out ways that I "must" be wrong even before you've bothered to read the rest of this article. Instead, read it, and actually consider it rather than reflexively trying to come out with ways to dismiss it out of hand. You can certainly still disagree after you've considered all the evidence -- but not before.
Most meat-eating readers will find it necessary to try to defeat me, at least in their minds, so let's agree that that would mean providing more and better evidence for your position. One does not win the argument by making a single point, as most of the readers who email me seem to think. The evidence favoring a plant diet for humans is clear, convincing, and overwhelming. There is definitely some evidence for the other side, to be sure, but it's simply not nearly as strong. What I'm saying is, if there are 30 strong points for, and you come up with one or two against, then which is the better position? I mention this because the people who email me about this article seem to believe that whoever makes the fewest and weakest points has presented the most convincing case. They somehow seem to believe that all the evidence I present somehow vanishes into thin air when they present their lone argument. Please don't fall into that trap.
User was temp banned for this post.
The link seemed like he was more interesting in proving that humans weren't carnivores than proving that humans weren't omnivores. He added a table that compared humans to herbivores and carnivores, why would he exclude omnivores from this comparison? Maybe because when the only comparisons are carnivores and herbivores and people read the chart and see that we have a lot more in common with herbivores than with carnivores they think "oh we must be herbivores then!" But I will concede. We are not omnivores. We are herbivores that eat meat as well.
Also, humans aren't monkeys or chimps. The fact that monkeys don't eat cattle isn't evidence that humans shouldn't eat cattle. Monkeys also don't eat apple pie or pasta. If you want to determine what a human's diet should be based on what other animals eat than humans probably shouldn't cook their food since other animals don't seem too fond of that... As they said in the Social Network.. If you guys were the inventors of facebook then you would've invented facebook.. well if humans were meant to be herbivores then humans would be herbivores.
On February 02 2011 14:27 pinke wrote: As far as meat in general goes, I think if you can't pick out an animal and kill it yourself or at least watch someone slaughter it, you shouldn't be eating it.
Yeah I totally agree with this actually... But if it's to actually killing it I am only qualified to eat fish and crab and aquatic things... Watching that video made me really sad
To be honest it doesn't go into depth and focuses on the environmental reasons rather than the fact that fish also have pain receptors. A lot better than The Cove though.
I'm fine with that. I've killed fish before.
So you're fine with fish feeling pain, but not fine with dogs feeling pain.
Sure. You understand that to kill a thing I feel pain too, it pains me less to kill a fish, i.e. I can kill it w/o feeling too sad. So yes that's fine.
Probably because you can't empathise with it. Likewise the owner who ordered the dogs be slaughtered also failed to empathise with the pain of the dogs. You understand that to kill another human they feel pain too, but it pained them less to kill the dogs, so they were able to order the killing without feeling too sad, therefore it was fine. A recent blog post:
I remember years ago in Papua New Guinea, being out on some super $$$ game fishing launch with a bunch of Aussies. I was there because it was beautiful being out on the water, but they were there to catch marlin and sailfish.
They caught one too. And lots of beers were drunk in disgusting celebration. I was really upset, which was totally pointless and useless. But they hadn’t killed it because they needed to eat. They had killed it for fun! Go figure!
well kill for fun is wrong. i am highly against it. Kill for food is okay.
On February 03 2011 16:01 Kazzabiss wrote: Thousands of animals are killed everyday to be eaten.
You mean trillions.. every single day. One cow could supply you with a nice steak or a burger once or a twice a week for maybe your entire life. This is a price too high for vegans to pay but I will bet you money that almost every single one of them will run over at least 1 animal with their car at some point in their life.. Lol
btw even if there was a cow raised free and it had a great long life and it died of natural causes and it was determined the meat was safe to eat.. then vegans most likely still wouldn't eat it. They probably wouldn't have a problem with someone else eating it.. but I doubt they would eat it themselves even if they knew the meat would be wasted.
On February 03 2011 12:44 iloveHieu wrote: So sad, the human race's brutality towards other animals is really pissing me off.
As opposed to all the other omnivores/carnivores on the planet? Ever seen a sheep get eaten by wolves?
What sort of comparison is that? Remember, we "pride" ourselves for being really advanced and 'resisting' the basic instincts unlike all the other animals. We even use words like "humane" as synonyms for "ultimate good".We CAN act differently because we have this pretty amazing brain, which is the main difference between us and the rest of the animals.
Yet we still do fucked up things like this.Go figure
if i kill 100 cows to make some hamburgers it's ok man cows are just made to be eaten right? what's the difference between killing 100 dogs and 100 cows. If the dogs had no further use to their owner i believe it's his right to slay them
On February 03 2011 12:44 iloveHieu wrote: So sad, the human race's brutality towards other animals is really pissing me off.
As opposed to all the other omnivores/carnivores on the planet? Ever seen a sheep get eaten by wolves?
What sort of comparison is that? Remember, we "pride" ourselves for being really advanced and 'resisting' the basic instincts unlike all the other animals. We even use words like "humane" as synonyms for "ultimate good".We CAN act differently because we have this pretty amazing brain, which is the main difference between us and the rest of the animals.
Yet we still do fucked up things like this.Go figure
True, which is why something like this is news and considered an outrage. Even with factory farmed animals we try to slaughter animals as painlessly as possible which is why we use things like cattle stun guns.
Ironically, the fate of these dogs is no different than the fate that a lot of humans choose for themselves. A gun to the head or a cutting of arteries are common methods of suicide. The guy was trying to be humane, he just sucked at it.
Btw, people have also failed when they try to blow their own brains out.
I'm not some crazy animal rights activist. I don't believe animals are in any way equal to humans. Nor do they have the same rights we have, for obvious reasons. But this... Jesus Christ...
I'm all for hunting. And killing wild animals. But dogs? Cats? Y'know, animals like that? I guess you can call me "animalist". Some animals, at least in Western societies, are treated much better than others. And that's fine. Dogs and cats are all wonderful, loving, and caring animals. Even if they are just "work" animals, I'm sure they love to play and horse around and do everything else "normal" dogs do. Slaughtering 100 dogs to save a bit of cash? I'm sorry. That's a federal crime. 100? Really? You can't give these hard working creatures a chance for a loving owner or a cute little kid to play with? Or maybe give them a job somewhere else? Good God in Heaven.
On February 03 2011 12:44 iloveHieu wrote: So sad, the human race's brutality towards other animals is really pissing me off.
As opposed to all the other omnivores/carnivores on the planet? Ever seen a sheep get eaten by wolves?
Other carnivores also practice murder against one's own species (e.g. Lions killing each other to become the alpha male) - does that make it OK for humans to kill each other to exert dominance?
Hey, other animals do it so it must be OK! Forget free will and restraint.
Lions don't kill each other purposely ... When a new alpha arrives in a pack he will kill all the cubs so he can get his own. If a lion dies after a fight, it was a result of the fight for dominance, not a prerequisite.
This is honest to god so incredibly disgusting. I live in Vancouver and if I had known that they DID have these dogs.. I would not have been able to give a home to them all(how I wish I could), I would have done a lot more than sit on my ass last April and play video games.
If the company had seen little use for them, instead of letting their lives go to waste, and generally wasting the money they invested into them, they could have spent a little longer trying to sell them for a decent price. People would have loved to have these dogs.
It is honestly so heartbreaking to hear something like this. I have a puppy and 3 cats, and if ANYONE ever did something like this to them, I would honestly hurt them. I wouldn't care about the consequences. How can you hurt something so innocent and pure? Something that probably hasn't been taught to defend itself.
I need to go home and cuddle with my puppy. ;__;
On February 05 2011 06:43 ishboh wrote: why couldn't they have killed cats instead
You're disgusting. .__. I need to go home and cuddle with my cats too. ;__;
On February 03 2011 12:44 iloveHieu wrote: So sad, the human race's brutality towards other animals is really pissing me off.
As opposed to all the other omnivores/carnivores on the planet? Ever seen a sheep get eaten by wolves?
Other carnivores also practice murder against one's own species (e.g. Lions killing each other to become the alpha male) - does that make it OK for humans to kill each other to exert dominance?.
History has shown us that it's actually perfectly acceptable. What do you think war is? It's only "not OK" if you're doing it and you're not the one in power.
On February 05 2011 06:46 Raeleigh wrote: This is honest to god so incredibly disgusting. I live in Vancouver and if I had known that they DID have these dogs.. I would not have been able to give a home to them all(how I wish I could), I would have done a lot more than sit on my ass last April and play video games.
If the company had seen little use for them, instead of letting their lives go to waste, and generally wasting the money they invested into them, they could have spent a little longer trying to sell them for a decent price. People would have loved to have these dogs.
It is honestly so heartbreaking to hear something like this. I have a puppy and 3 cats, and if ANYONE ever did something like this to them, I would honestly hurt them. I wouldn't care about the consequences. How can you hurt something so innocent and pure? Something that probably hasn't been taught to defend itself.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How can you sleep at night? Humanity dictates that we all have compassion for other living things. You must be sick in the head or worse.. Christian.
On February 01 2011 10:58 ReaverDrop! wrote: They're just animals, they are the property of the man who owns them, what he does to them is nobodies business as far as I'm concerned.
How can you sleep at night? Humanity dictates that we all have compassion for other living things. You must be sick in the head or worse.. Christian.
User was temp banned for this post.
i agree with him and i see no reason to ban him.
He got banned about his unnecessary quip about Christians, not because of his belief in compassion.
On February 05 2011 06:46 Raeleigh wrote: This is honest to god so incredibly disgusting. I live in Vancouver and if I had known that they DID have these dogs.. I would not have been able to give a home to them all(how I wish I could), I would have done a lot more than sit on my ass last April and play video games.
If the company had seen little use for them, instead of letting their lives go to waste, and generally wasting the money they invested into them, they could have spent a little longer trying to sell them for a decent price. People would have loved to have these dogs.
It is honestly so heartbreaking to hear something like this. I have a puppy and 3 cats, and if ANYONE ever did something like this to them, I would honestly hurt them. I wouldn't care about the consequences. How can you hurt something so innocent and pure? Something that probably hasn't been taught to defend itself.
I need to go home and cuddle with my puppy. ;__;
On February 05 2011 06:43 ishboh wrote: why couldn't they have killed cats instead
You're disgusting. .__. I need to go home and cuddle with my cats too. ;__;
-Hugs- I need to cuddle with my last remaining doggie. All my other ones died last year. ;(
/super hug.
I understand people's point that the dogs belonged to someone else, and they could do whatever they please with them.. But you're so lacking in compassion to be able to say something like this. It's like saying, "Hey, you've got a girlfriend? Well, she's yours, you can do whatever the fck you want to her." Yeah, okay, sure. It doesn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense with dogs, either. They can't communicate the same way you and I can, but they feel and they get scared too. They hurt. T____T Breaks my heart more to think about it ;______________;
On February 05 2011 07:12 braammbolius wrote: The sled hound is the perfect mix between cute and menacing
The eyes are so beautiful *__* Menacing it cute! T__T ♥ .... sometimes! T___T
people seem to get more distraught over 100 dogs being killed than 100 humans, in the news. Would anyone be able to explain why this is? As far as i know the only type of person who should have more empathy for animals than humans would be a sociopath
On February 05 2011 07:24 stroggos wrote: people seem to get more distraught over 100 dogs being killed than 100 humans, in the news. Would anyone be able to explain why this is? As far as i know the only type of person who should have more empathy for animals than humans would be a sociopath
There are many, many strange things in this world that you just have to accept. I mean we've pretty much stopped caring about Afghanistan and Iraq even though people are getting killed there every day. The riots in Thailand were pushed out of the media in favor of the Egyptian ones. Remember that the media is there as a profit engine (for the most part), so stories with a big "boom" generate the most viewership, not the ones that cause many small ripples.
On February 05 2011 07:24 stroggos wrote: people seem to get more distraught over 100 dogs being killed than 100 humans, in the news. Would anyone be able to explain why this is? As far as i know the only type of person who should have more empathy for animals than humans would be a sociopath
Well, looking up what qualities/attributes/personality traits really determine a sociopath, I can say that 1, maybe 2, of these points I really could say "Well, yeah, that's me." But so many people in the world could look at the list and say the same thing. 1 or 2 might match, but.. -shrug-
On February 05 2011 07:24 stroggos wrote: people seem to get more distraught over 100 dogs being killed than 100 humans, in the news. Would anyone be able to explain why this is? As far as i know the only type of person who should have more empathy for animals than humans would be a sociopath
There are many, many strange things in this world that you just have to accept. I mean we've pretty much stopped caring about Afghanistan and Iraq even though people are getting killed there every day. The riots in Thailand were pushed out of the media in favor of the Egyptian ones. Remember that the media is there as a profit engine (for the most part), so stories with a big "boom" generate the most viewership, not the ones that cause many small ripples.
I think what Mystlord says is partially true. In a way, I think animal cruelty, in some people's minds, almost seems more terrible than human cruelty. I will admit that in some aspects, I find animal cruelty is be worse, but the more I weight them in my mind(like right now, trying to write this) I can't really put a light on which I find to be worse now. x_x
On February 05 2011 07:24 stroggos wrote: people seem to get more distraught over 100 dogs being killed than 100 humans, in the news. Would anyone be able to explain why this is? As far as i know the only type of person who should have more empathy for animals than humans would be a sociopath
There are many, many strange things in this world that you just have to accept. I mean we've pretty much stopped caring about Afghanistan and Iraq even though people are getting killed there every day. The riots in Thailand were pushed out of the media in favor of the Egyptian ones. Remember that the media is there as a profit engine (for the most part), so stories with a big "boom" generate the most viewership, not the ones that cause many small ripples.
yes perhaps it is the combined fact the news reports human death all the time and that we don't notice it changing our lives, which makes it seem unimportant. Or maybe its because dogs are fluffy and cute.
On February 05 2011 07:24 stroggos wrote: people seem to get more distraught over 100 dogs being killed than 100 humans, in the news. Would anyone be able to explain why this is? As far as i know the only type of person who should have more empathy for animals than humans would be a sociopath
There are many, many strange things in this world that you just have to accept. I mean we've pretty much stopped caring about Afghanistan and Iraq even though people are getting killed there every day. The riots in Thailand were pushed out of the media in favor of the Egyptian ones. Remember that the media is there as a profit engine (for the most part), so stories with a big "boom" generate the most viewership, not the ones that cause many small ripples.
yes perhaps it is the combined fact the news reports human death all the time and that we don't notice it changing our lives, which makes it seem unimportant. Or maybe its because dogs are fluffy and cute.
On February 05 2011 07:24 stroggos wrote: people seem to get more distraught over 100 dogs being killed than 100 humans, in the news. Would anyone be able to explain why this is? As far as i know the only type of person who should have more empathy for animals than humans would be a sociopath
how is this scenario anything like what you describe? this isn't about making a choice deadlocked with picking who gets to survive out of humans and animals. this is about killing off dogs that have outlived their usefulness for sake of cutting costs in running a business. how could this ever be ok?
i dont understand how anyone can do this and in the manner that he did. First, just following orders to kill 100 dogs would have had me puking my guts out. And second, to have to do it in such a visceral up close and brutal manner such as slitting throat and shooting point blank...thats just...i dont even have words to say. Not that I am promoting other methods, but gassing them or lethal injection at least might be easier to do since its a push of a button.
Also: anyone with brains would see that this is a PR nightmare if it got out, and stuff like this always gets out. Without having done my homework, i would assume they considered adoption first and none of the organizations wanted to accept 100 dogs all of a sudden. So i can see how they might reach this conclusion, but thats just horrible.
Although I do not like undue cruelty to animals or think I would not be affected had I done the killings myself, I am always amazed how furious people get over news like this. I mean, I know tons of people absolutely love pets and animals and maybe it is the fact that I have never had one myself, but honestly for me even prison time seems like an over-reaction let alone the "that guy should die" type of responses. Honestly, I feel something more in line with a gigantic six figure fine is appropriate.
I see no reason to destroy a human's life for a sad yet different perspective on animals. If the reason is deterrence for future actions, then a huge fine in lines of 250,000 would probably suffice. If it is because the man is mentally deranged and this is how he releases his craziness, then help other than prison would be ideal. But if it is merely a calculated business decision based on a differing perspective on animals, just fine the business a huge unforgettable sum of money and move on.
For those of you who will probably not fully understand where I am coming from... just think of it like this. For those of us who do not value the life of animals so highly, it is like how those who do not see embryos/fetuses as human babies do not oppose abortion (although they probably still do not 100% like it) versus the ones who do. Or course the ones who see either the dogs or fetuses as extremely value will think the ones who killed them to be monsters and must be prosecuted as murderers, but just understand those who do not share those same ideas are probably just normal people doing what they think should be correct: protect the quality of lives of the current humans right now. So really, its not as "unthinkable" as many here seem to put it.
It might be me personally, but with news like this, I am horrified by it. But when it comes to something like abortion, I am not against it. I feel it is necessary at times, and definitely not something to be against. -shrug-
The way I was brought up to think though was different than a lot of my friends, and when I entered Elementary School, then High School, I was taken out of class for Aboriginal classes because I was half cree. I learned about a lot of different things, and I was intrigued to learn more on my own. x_x In any case, I learned to respect the life of an animal almost more than the life of a human being. Animals give more than humans do. :< But that's just me personally. That's why I feel the way I do. O_O
And honestly I really respect that sort of opinion because if everybody kind of lived in a way that respect all life, I think the world would be a much better place. But I don't see the justice in punishing people so severely right now in our current culture and philosophy because I think a lot of well-meaning and responsible civilians will have their lives absolutely ruined while being ignorant of the whole situation.
On February 05 2011 08:31 Klogon wrote: And honestly I really respect that sort of opinion because if everybody kind of lived in a way that respect all life, I think the world would be a much better place. But I don't see the justice in punishing people so severely right now in our current culture and philosophy because I think a lot of well-meaning and responsible civilians will have their lives absolutely ruined while being ignorant of the whole situation.
I see where you're coming from, for sure.
Do you remember when that video of that cat being hurt in the shower was floating around the internet? I can't remember it's name, but it tore my heart to pieces to watch it. I also remember, and you might as well, how angry people were. Many comments like, "He deserves to have that done to him!" and along those lines. I agreed, it was angering, and I would have loved to see that boy(because he was only about 15 I believe when he did it) in as much pain at the poor cat, but in reality, you cannot wish the same outcome to happen to the person who originally did it. It's like, death is not the right punishment for murder. You're doing the same as them, only in a way that makes it "okay."
So as much as I would like to see the guy who did the things he did to the poor dogs, I agree something like a fine would be more reasonable. Maybe community service. I'd even go a bit farther to say I'd like to see a 3 month sentence, and a slightly less fine.
But I guess, with animals right now, the way the world is, you can't make strict rules about what happens. Such a fuzzy area. x_x
Late response as I had been banned for the last few days.
On February 03 2011 15:56 BlackJack wrote: The link seemed like he was more interesting in proving that humans weren't carnivores than proving that humans weren't omnivores. He added a table that compared humans to herbivores and carnivores, why would he exclude omnivores from this comparison? Maybe because when the only comparisons are carnivores and herbivores and people read the chart and see that we have a lot more in common with herbivores than with carnivores they think "oh we must be herbivores then!" But I will concede. We are not omnivores. We are herbivores that eat meat as well.
Also, humans aren't monkeys or chimps. The fact that monkeys don't eat cattle isn't evidence that humans shouldn't eat cattle. Monkeys also don't eat apple pie or pasta. If you want to determine what a human's diet should be based on what other animals eat than humans probably shouldn't cook their food since other animals don't seem too fond of that... As they said in the Social Network.. If you guys were the inventors of facebook then you would've invented facebook.. well if humans were meant to be herbivores then humans would be herbivores.
You'll find that vegans don't actually often use 'other animals do it so I should do what other animals are doing' - in fact, it's the meat-eaters who use this argument (e.g. lions eat meat, so why shouldn't I). All the author was doing was disproving that fact. Most vegans don't eat meat for ethical reasons - not 'naturalistic' reasons. Some for health, some for environmental, but most for animal rights reasons. If you aren't able to see that then you just lack sympathy and empathy for the plight of pretty much 99% of the world's animals that are produced for meat in torturous conditions.
You mean trillions.. every single day. One cow could supply you with a nice steak or a burger once or a twice a week for maybe your entire life. This is a price too high for vegans to pay but I will bet you money that almost every single one of them will run over at least 1 animal with their car at some point in their life.. Lol
btw even if there was a cow raised free and it had a great long life and it died of natural causes and it was determined the meat was safe to eat.. then vegans most likely still wouldn't eat it. They probably wouldn't have a problem with someone else eating it.. but I doubt they would eat it themselves even if they knew the meat would be wasted.
So what if a vegan has run over an animal, or inadvertently killed an animal at some point in their lives? Most vegans come from a meat-eating background. How does that somehow mean meat-eating is OK? If you had accidentally manslaughtered someone at some point in your life, that doesn't mean murder is OK. A vegan makes a conscious choice to refuse to eat meat as it is consumer demand that fuels an industry that tortures animals. Your second paragraph is simply a red herring - the chances of a steak coming from a cow that died of natural causes is unlikely - what a vegan is against is the mass murder industry that puts them on production lines and kills them. I would have no issue with eating a cow that died of natural causes. But I would have as much reason to do so as I would eating a human who died of natural causes. It is perfectly easy and healthy to live on a vegan diet. The truth is you're just trying to avoid the point that most meat comes from factory farms and you're justifying your eating of meat and disregarding the torture the animal goes through by throwing out red herring arguments such as saying a vegan has probably run over an animal, or that in nature there are carnivores, or that an animal has died from natural causes. These arguments hardly justify the horrific practices of the meat industry and it's quite pathetic that you have no issue supporting such an industry yet cry outrage at the deaths of these dogs who have died in similar conditions (albeit less horrific, as factory farms and slaughterhouses cause a lot more pain than these dogs' relatively quicker deaths).
Without a doubt the way the animals were euthanized was cruel and inefficient - this whole situation definitely could have been handled better. That said, is this really that shocking and is it really worth 18+ pages of discussion? The world is a cruel place and this is just a drop in the ocean.
On March 03 2011 06:54 -Frog- wrote: Without a doubt the way the animals were euthanized was cruel and inefficient - this whole situation definitely could have been handled better. That said, is this really that shocking and is it really worth 18+ pages of discussion? The world is a cruel place and this is just a drop in the ocean.
Your contradicting yourself right now. Why would you even post just to ask if this was 18 page discussion worth. Right now your post is a drop in a lake compared to the 18 pages, but i find it important enough to address your views. See how one drop builds up on another?
That's extremely upsetting and disappointing. Do people forget that they are animals? Why not just let them go free in a suitable environment, let nature handle whether they live or die. If I was told to kill 100 dogs for my pay check, I'd pass without question. We have thought, and choice, the dogs do not. Whether or not this guy was "TOLD" to do anything in a "humane" fashion or not, he did something absurdly wrong and unforgiving. Lock all responsible in a room with a 100 hungry wolves IMO, sounds about fair.
Other than incompetence on the part of the guy putting the dogs down, I don't see much wrong here. As long as you own the dogs and especially that they aren't owned by anyone else killing dogs is no different than killing cattle. It's ridiculous to think people should be severely punished for this unless you also think people responsible for what happens in slaughter houses should be punished the same.
On March 03 2011 07:51 OsoVega wrote: Other than incompetence on the part of the guy putting the dogs down, I don't see much wrong here. As long as you own the dogs and especially that they aren't owned by anyone else killing dogs is no different than killing cattle. It's ridiculous to think people should be severely punished for this unless you also think people responsible for what happens in slaughter houses should be punished the same.
You need to rethink a few things.... Dogs are domesticated animal, not livestock intended for Human sustenance. Sorry, but you're not as clever as you think you are.
EPT
*sniffle*
. Though I'm pretty sure these sleddogs aren't being slaughtered for food and are just being 'wasted'....but you already mentioned that. So yeah I see what you're saying.
![[image loading]](http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/funny-dog-pictures-chillin-like-a-villian.jpg)
