Eye 4 an eye (duh)...

[JimmyDavid]

I don't know your thoughts on this matter, but i don't really know what to think. When an animal attacks a human being, usually gets killed. And i mean AFTER the incident, when nothing can be done to change the event. I would even like to post a link to be of example:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...09/detail.html

Follow my thoughts: If we are killing an animal AFTER the incident, we are not avoiding anything because the attack already took place, so looks like it's about revenge or something, wich is stupid because animals aren't responsable for their actions, they only follow instincts. Well, then that's something that people should think ahead, now ins't it? like...i don't know, maybe... WHEN THEY DECIDE TO KEEP THEM!!???
The botton line is, no animal is 100% trustworthy (hell, not even people are), but we know that when we take them inside our homes. So right there we are kind of signing our responsability form. That given animal could attack in a month, a year, 10 years, someday... but the potencial was always there, every minute of it's life in captivity. Just like that same potencial to attack is inside that other cute pet next door that has done nothing wrong SO FAR. But could one day...
What are we gonna do? kill them all? Then preferably BEFORE they go mad, not after. And when is that?...Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Reticsrule]

i totally agree jimmy. as you said animals act on instint, so whether it be a dog or a snake its not really the animals fault. the problem with most people is that they think they own the earth and everything that lives here should bow down to them. GUESS WHAT PEOPLE IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN! i think that no matter what the animal is it shouldnt be killed after attacking a human. people take animal attacks as an insult to their so called "authority". im just sick of seeing animals die for something they would do naturally in the wild

[Wrighter05]

very good point jimmy I agree with you 100%

[galad]

First off I dont want you guys to think that im saying your wrong we all are intitled to our own opinions and im giving mine.

But i do think that you guys need to look at this anouther way.
I work in a pet shop, I see all kinds of animals everyday.
Now when you are talking about instinct, a pet in your home does not have the same instincts as a wild animal. Ok now let me get this straight that i am talking mostly about dogs here. Snakes are a totally different topic, as they are still a wild animal and have not being domesticated and probably never will.

On the other hand animals such as dogs and cats have been domesticated for hundreds of thousands of years, as far back as the roman empire and the egyptians.

These animals in no way physically resemble their wild conterparts. They don't even think the same way. A wild dog or cat has to hunt down its food. While a domesticated dog or cat looks to us for food and shelter. You cannot compare a wild animal to a domesticated one.

Now you hear lots of stories of Rotties being vicouse killers. When infact every rottie I have met (over 20) have all been really friendly and playfull and great around children.
When you hear of a rottie attacking someone it is not the rotties fault it is the owners.
unfortunatly some people see rotties as mean dogs that they want to use as a gaurd dogs. Some people starve and beat these dogs untill they are mean and will attack people.
Sometimes these dogs get loose and attack.
Now here is a dog that is pretty much set in its ways. after years of abuse and starvation there is not much that is going to get the dog calm down and act normal again. So unfortunatly the dog has to be put down.

Yes i think it is very unfortunate but really whats better putting down a mean dog, or letting it live and risk it attacking and possibly killing anouther person, or even anouther pet.

In some cases it is not always the right thing to do but if a person has been vicously mauled it is time to put the dog down.
In cases of johnny playing with his dog and the playing gets a little to rough the dog might give the kid a nip to tell him he is not liking the way he is being treated. Do i think a dog should be put down for this? NO. The dog cannot speak and was only passing a message across in the only way it knows how.

peace

ws

[arash]

see i kinda agree with the above post you guys are all right but then if theres a risk then all snakes and pet should be illegal so that doesent make much sence either and why keep the snake it can attack another family member i use to have a pitbull and i always said if he ever attacks anyone i'll kill him maself cuz if he as soon much thinks about doing it once he willl do it one day and we should not want that happening if u guys know what i mean and iam the kinda guy who wants to buy a tiger lol if i get it then i agree to it killing me i know the risk anything happens as sad as it sounds i deserve it but if it happens to anyone else they dont cuz i made the desision to buy it and keep it now if anything happened to me i know i wont be talking like this but thats how we all are same thing with the snake the keeper knew the risk so he agreed to it but no other family member should be in risk... am i wrong ?!?!?!?

[Reticsrule]

i see your point galad. i know it seemed like i was referring to all animals kept as pets but i was really trying to focus on snakes. as you said snakes ARE wild animals and are not domesticated (though some of us seem to think they are).

for example, if i got bit by one of my boas and i told someone or they asked what the marks on my arm were from, i would get a lot of "if that snake bit me i wouldve given it the shovel" or some other stupid thing like that. this is what makes me mad because though my snakes are not neccesarily "pets", they are to me what a dog is to most people. so if a dog bites someone the dog is treated as though it did nothing wrong and it "didnt mean it". IMO this pretty much goes with the idea that a snake is a snake and it should be killed for no good reason.

just my 0.02 sorry if it doesnt make much sense.

[JimmyDavid]

Originally Posted by galad

Yes i think it is very unfortunate but really whats better putting down a mean dog, or letting it live and risk it attacking and possibly killing anouther person, or even anouther pet.
ws

I like the way you put it :medcomcic
When you think of the dramatic possibilities, a mean dog could attack a person or...(God saves us), EVEN ANOTHER PET!!!! lol.

ps: i'm just joking, man.

[galad]

ok well then if your talking striclty about snakes then i have a bit of a bifferent view. I really dont think a snake should be killed for biting someone, unless it out loose and gets an unsuspecting person. What I mean is people that handle snakes (not just the owners) should know that there is always a possibility of getting bitten. The friendliest snake can strike if startled or squeezed the wrong way. Only if the snake has constriced around someones neck and wont let go about to kill the person do I think the snake should be killed. But of course if you get into this situation I think the Darwin effect should be allowed to follow through. Meaning if your stupid enough to get in this situation by not having the right amount of experience to handle said snake, then you deserve what you get.
Also Arash it is alot easier to read a post if you use periods and space it out better. Not that im saying you need to have good gramar but it gets kind of confussing when its mushed together like that.

peace

ws

[Reticsrule]

thats another thing that i forgot to mention. when someone that likes snakes finds out that i have a few as"pets", they want to hold it if its "nice". now my boas have very good temperments until you have them out too long and then they get a little ticked off. but my point is, the people that like snakes think that because it is a "pet" that it will not bite them no matter what they do with it. and then if it does happen to bite them because they werent handleing it properly, they fling it across the room and say"OMG it bit me". meanwhile if one of them bites me, i take the bite and wait for the snake to release me. this is just proving you point that any "friendly" snake can and will strike if provoked.

[boywithscales]

I think you have a good point, however i dont believe we kill the animal for revenge, but we kill the animal because it is a threat to our species. If that animal killed one of us, then it knows it can and will again. THere instincts tell them that if they eat one of us then why not again if its easy. So if we let them live then we know that that animal will try it again due to there insticts. However my point wouldnt apply to reptiles as much as mammals, as reptiles have stronger instincts, if you know what i mean. A croc will eat whatever it can where as a large feline will decide if its worth the risk to attack that prey. So yeah I dont think we destroy dangerous animals for revenge, but we do it to prevent future instances.

[JimmyDavid]

As a species we are entitled to care for our own survival. But i should leave you with this thought then: Every animal kills in the heat of events to protect himself, if it comes to that, therefore killing to avoid being killed. WE are the only species that murders on premeditation, calling it survival in advance (while it's not proven the animal would attack again ever, we just guess it) and find it arrogantly enough to jugde over the life of that creature...

[Reticsrule]

Originally Posted by JimmyDavid

WE are the only species that murders on premeditation, calling it survival in advance (while it's not proven the animal would attack again ever, we just guess it) and find it arrogantly enough to jugde over the life of that creature...

this is exactly what i hate about the human race very well said jimmy

[operation_sssss]

hi all, sorry if i'm digging up a dead and burried post here but i was intersted in galad's point that dogs dont act upon the same instincts that their wild counterparts do. I feel that domestic dogs share some of the instincts with their wild counterparts do, through the way they act and behave in our homes. The following are just a few points that justify/reason why i dont understand that you can say instinct can be taken from an animal,

* Wolves, wild dogs, dingo's etc live in packs, so when a domesticated dog becomes a stray why will it 9 times out of 10 pal up with surrounding strays that can sometimes form mass packs. Surely thats a sign of instinct the facts that they realise finding/killing food is easier when you've got help, safety in numbers and

* Why do some domestic dogs act aggresively towards strangers when they approach the dogs living area or owners house? You could say that through domestication the dog has been taught/trained to act in this way but wolves, wild dogs etc act in the same way towards neighbouring packs if they feel their territory or pack's safety is being threatened, just in the same way a domestic dog will defend its territory (home/house) and pack members (owner/family members) i cant see how you can argue that the instinct to protect/defend territory and pack members is not shared between wild and domestic dogs.

*Dogs social structures revolve round a pack order? If instinct is not present in domestic dogs then why will some domestic dogs take note of commands, orders or punishment without challenge from one member of a family and then not take a blind bit of notice from another person in that family? Isnt that a bit too simmilar to the way that their ancestors wolves wild dogs etc behave in their packs in the way that there is a ranking system and each animal knoiws their limits?

This may not be a valid point as its different animals but pigs which have been domesticated equally as long as dogs have such strong instincts they can menatally and physically transform themselves from a domesticated pig to a wild pig within weeks and their first litter can be born with all the adaptations needed for living rough themselves. They grow thicker hair, they have longer tusks they evolve longer and larger snouts and smaller ears. I just struggle to see how you can claim any domesticated animal can lose their instincts and not be compared with their wild counterparts surely if this was the case then every domesticated species would 100% trustworthy but you already said they werent?

I just thought that domestic dogs share too many characteristics with wolves which they evolved from too claim that they no longer today have any wild instincts.
Hope i kinda made my points clear tis late over here kind regards cheers will

[galad]

I guess you didnt read the first part of my post.

"First off I dont want you guys to think that im saying your wrong we all are intitled to our own opinions and im giving mine."

Meaning I have my own opinion and you have yours. Also I was not talking about domestic dogs not acting in a social manor seeing its owner and family as a pack. I was talking about how a domesticated dog acts differently from a wild one. When you give reference to domestic dog becoming a stray I really dont see it as a domestic dog. In a way it's more like wild animal then a tamed one.

When i talk about wild instinct I mean an animal that will kill to survive a highly doubt a pomeranian will hunt down food when it has a nice bowl of dog ofood sitting right there. Hunting is the last thing on its mind.

But of course there are breeds of dogs that are more intunded with thier wild side, but they are still domesticated. and if bred and raised properly there should not be any problemes with them attacking people or any animal for no reason.

also your comment about a domestic pig that you would find in a barn turning into a completely different pig in a matter of weeks is a little out of wack. Evolution of a species takes alot longer then under a month.

peace

ws

[operation_sssss]

Hiya galad,

I did indeedy read the first part of your post, didnt mean to come across as saying your wrong and i'm right or anything like that, like you say were all entitled to our own opinions, you voiced yours and i voiced mine i just wondered what reasons you had to believe that dogs dont have any natural instinct, so i apologise for that.

Your point about the pomeranian did make me laugh i couldnt get the image of a pom trying to take a moose down out of my head haha But you say once a domesticated dog becomes a stray you say it becomes more a wild animal that a domesticated species. Doesnt this contradict your point earlier of evolution takes a lot longer than under a month, how can a dog go from domesticated to wild if it doesnt have any natural instinct?

Wild instinct is a little more than just hunting and killing food isnt it? Forgive me if i'm wrong but i was under the impression that wild instinct was what animals relied on for survival, and to survive you need to a do a bit more than kill and eat to stay alive from a dogs perspective dont you?

I agree with you about dogs who are more intuned with their wild side than others, but there is always going to be a reason for an animal attacking anyone or anything. Every man woman and animal all have a certain tolerance level no matter how well they are raised, but then thats just my opinion its not fact and written in stone.

The comment about the pig was not a statement or fact of my own through my research or anything it was just a quote from a national geographic programme called "hogzilla" about a huge pig shot out in america and they coudlt decide whether it was an escaped barn pig, feral pig or just plain wild pig. They did say the pigs instinct was so strong it was able to revert to its wild adaptations in a matter of weeks so maybe you should write to them and tell its a little out of whack haha

Anyways thanks replying quickly take care kind regards cheers will