PETA
What's everyones thoughts on the latest insanity from PETA regarding handing out fliers to kids, reading "Your mom is a murderer for wearing fur"?
I feel sorry for "true" animal right activists, PETA gives them such a bad name.
Originally posted by deepandchilled03
What's everyones thoughts on the latest insanity from PETA regarding handing out fliers to kids, reading "Your mom is a murderer for wearing fur"?
My mom hasn't worn fur since she moved to Florida. And she didn't kill anything; she has people to do that for her. :-)
I think most kids would question mom about it, which would give her a chance to explain the evil that is PETA.
Unless they were afraid of becoming a shawl.:worried:
I hate PETA, and I love a nice, thick, perfectly cooked and seasoned steak.
I don't condone the wearing of fur unless you kill and skin the creature yourself, and I think it is even more appropriate if you live somewhere where your survival depends on wearing that skin...Eskimos come to mind.
However, I'm not real big on telling other people what to do. In exchange, I expect them to leave me the hell alone.
I do wear leather shoes on occasion, but I figure I've eaten enough cows to cover that.
PETA lacks finesse. Their heart is, at times, in the right place. They just have lousy execution of their ideas. They few useful things, like recipes, but beyond that, I don't have use for them. And if all they're good for is recipes, there are easily other places for that.
Quzah.
Originally posted by deepandchilled03
I feel sorry for "true" animal right activists, PETA gives them such a bad name.
I have similar feelings -- PETA tends to irritate me, as they do paint an unfriendly picture of animal rights activists as well as distort the good, general core ideas they have. But how they convey their messages is a bit much, to say the least.
Oddly, I've never found the wearing of fur to be fashionable and I'll even say it looks ugly. Only sometimes on a heavy winter coat does it even look okay. In seeing footage from the 1920's and the extremely rare person wearing on the street, I have to admit that I just don't get why people do it, especially the stoles.
Fox fur is, however, extremely beautiful when it is on an actual, living fox. :D
Well shit, if Quzah doesn't like 'em...
To me, PETA is a lot like Radar...they mean well, but they're just fucking retards.
Originally posted by Elspode
I don't condone the wearing of fur unless you kill and skin the creature yourself, and I think it is even more appropriate if you live somewhere where your survival depends on wearing that skin...Eskimos come to mind.
I'm not allowed to hire somebody to do it for me? So you feel they fur should just be thrown away? Seems like an awful waste.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I'm not allowed to hire somebody to do it for me? So you feel they fur should just be thrown away? Seems like an awful waste.
Not many people eat mink or fox. That's why fur raises more ire than leather.
Which would you rather target: the women wearing fur coats that will run at the sight of a paint can or a bunch of bikers wearing their leather?
Seems simple enough to me. PETA has NEVER bothereds me about my wearing of leather...even excessive amounts of "dress leather".
Brian
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I'm not allowed to hire somebody to do it for me? So you feel they fur should just be thrown away? Seems like an awful waste.
No, as I said, I'm not big on foisting my ideas on anyone, so you can hire a whole legion of people to do it for you if you want. I believe that you, as an honorable man, will probably eat all the leftover minks and foxes and chinchillas after the garment is made.
"Man, that's good chinch!"
Farmed furs are no different than any other farm animal in that the entire animal gets used one way or another.
While I agree with the animal rights movement, I believe that PETA is rather like NOW, the Womens' rights movement....they go to extremes, and end up shoving their ideas down people's throats. People don't like that, and such behavior only turns people against them. Zealots of all kinds, whether it be religion, womens' rights, animal rights, ultra-conservatives, ultra-liberals, don't seem to be able to understand that.
And while I personally do not agree with the inhumane living conditions and killing methods used on food animals, do not agree with animal testing (I think we should use death-row inmates, myself), do not agree with raising animals for fur, or sport hunting, I show my opposition by refraining from eating meat (I don't bitch at others for eating meat, though), not hunting or associating with sport hunters, not buying fur or leather, not purchasing products from companies known to test on animals, and contributing to conservation groups. I also work for a no-kill shelter.
If more people would do these kinds of things to show their opposition, as in hitting animal-testers and fur-raisers and inhumane big-business farmers where it hurt, ie, the pocketbook, rather than throwing blood on people and generally acting like overzealous freaks, I think that more people would be amenable to hearing what they had to say, and would be more likely to support what they're doing.
Their aim is a noble one. It is. I believe that animals deserve humane treatment and shouldn't be used as a commodity until they're extinct. It's the nature of the human race to use up its natural resources. And thinking on it, I realize that humans are the only species on the planet that has no niche. Think about it yourself....if we were to go extinct, what balance would be destroyed? Not one. Humans are a disrupting influence on nature's balance because of the irresponsible gluttony of our species. WE as a group don't think, either. We just take. Now before you freak, I'm not one of those anti-human types. I'm just realistic and I've thought about it a lot. My husband and I like to debate, and this is one of our ongoing ones... ANYWAY, off the soapbox...lol
PETA does things like breaking into labs and releasing test animals...like I said, I don't agree with testing anything on animals, but some of these animals may have infectious diseases, and releasing them is dangerous. Groups like PETA just don't think. They're so focused on a single goal that they don't look at all the ramifications of what they do. They don't think long-term. They should take a lesson from the Catholic Church: Get 'em when they're young. They should teach their children respect for animals. They should give talks at elementary schools about animals and show THEM the inhumanity that humans subject animals to, merely because they believe they are entitled to do so.
Remember, someone must speak for the animals. Someone must be the voice of the voiceless.
And, as a side note, were it not for the animal protection group, the SPCA, child abuse would have gone on being ignored longer than it did....If you go to the original SPCA headquarters, you'll see a set of manacles hanging on the wall. They came from the wrist of a six-year-old girl whose parents had chained her to the bed. The authorities refused to intervene in a family matter (remember, children were considered property a hundred or so years ago), so the SPCA intervened, because according to them, the girl was a member of the mammal family, and thus under their jurisdiction. They succeeded in saving this little girl. So not all of the animal rights activists are zealots or nutcases. They truly care about these helpless creatures. And just remember, labs often buy animals from shelters to experiment on...these animals are someone's pet, maybe lost....certainly loved. Would you like to know that your lost pet may be in a lab, having a new perfume sprayed in their eyes as a test animal? Yeah, it's my own personal pitch for people to demand and support no-kill shelters...I work at one, and they keep these animals until homes are found, or owners come to reclaim them. They also offer discount vet services, and spay, neuter, worm and computer-chip all the animals. Anyone who has a pet runs the risk of that pet getting out and running away. Most shelters kill the animals after three days to a week. With a no-kill, you have more of a chance of getting your pet back, and adopting animals is a lot harder...they make sure people have adequate room and safe yards, and make people fill out a form promising to bring the animal back if they decide they don't want it. They even reserve the right to check your income, and to refuse adoptions if they think you're not suitable. Now THAT'S animal activism one can be proud to be a part of.
Originally posted by Elspode
No, as I said, I'm not big on foisting my ideas on anyone, so you can hire a whole legion of people to do it for you if you want. I believe that you, as an honorable man, will probably eat all the leftover minks and foxes and chinchillas after the garment is made.
"Man, that's good chinch!"
**GASP**
Actually..some chinchilla farmers have been known to eat the critters rather than waste all that meat.
I think its important to discern the difference between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Animal Welfare means you believe animals should be treated in a humane way. You provide food and water and you don't put them outside without shelter of some kind. You also don't abuse your animal in any way.
Animal Rights is where they believe animals are on the same level as humans (sometimes above). That animals have the same rights as us.
I am all for animal welfare, PETA is for animal rights. PETA believes that animals are above humans. There VP has said so a few times. She has also said things to the effect of, I don't care if people die so long as animals aren't kept in captivity. PETA also donates money to ALF (animal liberation front) and ELF (earth liberation front) both of which are on the FBI's homeland terrorist watch list. Both groups use fire bomb and scare/harassment tactics get what they want. And lets not forget that while PETA is donating all this money to terrorists they still have their 501c3 non profit status with the IRS.
I don't like PETA and I don't like Animal Right Activists (ARA's), I know too many people who have had bad run ins with ARA's.
Yeah, what Brig said.:beer:
While I do believe in animal welfare, I also believe in animal rights. In other words, I do not believe that humans, by virtue of being human, should be permitted to abuse their stewardship of the earth. Humans, after all, are only animals themselves, and sometimes it's hard to believe that they're more evolved than what they term "lower" animals. I've watched wild animals who are more civilized than some people.
I do believe that animals have emotions, and scientific testing demonstrates that they think and reason; because of that, I believe they have a right to be treated with respect. After all....what gives us the right to use animals as food, really, besides the fact that we can? What gives us the right to hunt animals for sport? That's bloodthirsty. And if an animal attacks a person in self-defense, it's deemed "vicious" and killed. An animal should have the right to protect itself, I think. If the human can't hack it in a fight, then they shouldn't be threatening the animal.
If we'll treat a death-row inmate with enough consideration that we are forbidden to use "cruel and unusual" punishment on him, I don't see why animals should be less worthy of consideration.
But that's just my opinion, and I know that most people don't agree with it. It's not that I put animals above people, although I have to admit I like them better than most people....It's just that I think they should be allowed to have lives too. I don't agree with freeing lab animals, or firebombing places or throwing blood on people. I don't hold with the methods of eco-terrorists...this is just my own opinion, and I support it as I mentioned before: I don't eat meat, I work at an animal shelter, I don't hunt, don't wear leather or fur, etc.
Sidhe
Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Anyone who has a pet runs the risk of that pet getting out and running away. Most shelters kill the animals after three days to a week. With a no-kill, you have more of a chance of getting your pet back, and adopting animals is a lot harder...they make sure people have adequate room and safe yards, and make people fill out a form promising to bring the animal back if they decide they don't want it. They even reserve the right to check your income, and to refuse adoptions if they think you're not suitable. Now THAT'S animal activism one can be proud to be a part of.
Of course, for every good thing, there is a bad corollary...
A while back, one of my cats disappeared. He is very much an outdoors cat, and during warm weather, it is not unusual for us to not see him for a few days at a time (and, before you ask, he is neutered and has been since I got him at about six months of age, from an animal shelter). We live in a neighborhood that backs up on a big field, and the cats really love to hang there. Keeps 'em off the streets. Anyway, with all of our work and activities comings and goings, no one thought much of not seeing him for an extended period. After two weeks, though, we were all home long enough to compare notes, and realized that *no one* in the family had seen him. Now *that* was unusual, because someone would typically see him at least briefly coming in to eat, or have a quick snooze on the couch.
So, I hopped in the car and drove up to the local animal shelter (the same one where I originally got him). I looked around for a bit, and sure enough, there he was...a little thinner, rather harried-looking, and really happy to see me. So, I tell the attendant, while holding a cat clearly attached to me by dint of his behavior, "This is him...this is my cat. What do I need to do to get him out of here?"
What indeed! He had been picked up by local animal control (!) twelve days earlier. They have a rule at that shelter...if an animal is unclaimed for ten days, they go into the general adoption pool.
The assholes made me buy back my own cat. Not only that, but they made me meet all the requirements for adoption, as though I was adopting any other cat! They made me prove my other animals were vaccinated, they made me fill out about six pages of questions regarding the pet-to-be's potential living conditions, the number of children in the house, etc, etc, and on and on and on.
Now, the last time I checked, animals are PROPERTY, goddamn it...so you tell me...how is it that I was deprived of my property without due process of law? I could have gotten a lawyer and kicked their asses in court, I'm sure (I mean, I have pictures of the cat and his original adoption documents, plus dozens of people who would have testified that he was mine), but that would have cost both me and an otherwise very worthy organization a lot of money, and it was cheaper to just pay for the guy and get him the fuck out of there.
Still, I think this whole animal protection thing was carried just a bit overboard in my case.
Oh, and by the way, I *did*learn a valuable lesson over all of this. The next time I go there for any reason, I am going to lie my ass off and claim I have no more animals. If they look me up in their records, I'll lie some more and tell them that the animal died, or one of my kids took it when they moved out, or whatever wild-assed thing I can think of.
Fool me once....
Was there a collar with an ID on the cat?
From today's
Metro...look for the story on the right hand side of page 1 with the headline "PETA on Birds for furs."
Originally posted by dar512
Was there a collar with an ID on the cat?
Nope...but he's chipped now.
Elspode:
Yeah, all the animals at my shellter are spayed/neutered, vaccinated, wormed, given heartworm medicine, and chipped. Not bad for a $150 adoption fee.
I would have been pretty pissed off, too, if I'd had to buy my own pet back. I didn't know about the ten-day general adoption pool thing. We don't often get people coming into our shelter looking for lost pets--they're usually bringing animals in because they don't want them--but I'll find out what the policy is on that, because now you've got me curious.
But look at it this way: after all that interviewing and all those requirements you had to meet, you know that, had you not decided to go down to the shelter to find your cat, that he would've gotten a good home anyway. I think that, although no-kill shelters have a very high standard, that they do the animals a much better service than the kill shelters.
Kill shelters charge between$25-$65 (here, anyway) to adopt a pet. They don't check the home, they don't know what the people are like, they don't know if the animal will be safe (for instance, we have a pit bull that we've refused several applications for, because the people who want this sweet-natured animal are the "let's fight the pit bulls" type.) The veterinary care at kill shelters is minimal. The animals are often killed after a week--perfectly healthy animals, who may be someone's pet...someone who's used to not seeing the pet for a while because it roams, and doesn't think to go to the shelter until it's too late...
I realize you may be upset at having to buy your pet back, but think of it like this: he was fed, watered, given a safe place to stay, and the money you paid will go to do the same for someone else's lost pet. It was your contribution to animal welfare. That may not make it any easier to swallow, but it does give it an up-side.
Sidhe
Originally posted by sycamore
From today's Metro...look for the story on the right hand side of page 1 with the headline "PETA on Birds for furs."
Oh, and I do have to say, I think wearing fur IS disgusting. First of all, why would anyone want to wear a dead ANYTHING on their body, and second of all, it's not necessary to raise an animal in order to kill it for its fur...fake fur is just as good. This is something I consider as killing for sport. It's one of those things that is not necessary to our survival, and yet we waste the lives of these animals for their skins...incidentally, the snow leapord is on the endangered species list for just this reason--fur hunting. Bengal tigers are on the list for the same reason. And something most people may not know about the tiger/leopard fur coats: the entire ffur is not used...only a thin strip down the animal's back. The rest is discarded.:mad:
And that brings to mind the baby harp seals...remember them? Now that's a job I could never have....first of all, they're destroying the species because they're killing all the babies (only the babies have the fur), and secondly, how could anyone with any kind of conscience at all swing a nailed club into a baby animal's head over and over again? It's gotta take a hard person to do a job like that....:confused:
Sidhe
Actually, it only takes a very hungry person to do that job.
I don't see it as a big deal. Fur is pretty. Fur is farmed. Yeah, I have issues with hunting an animal to extinction for it's pelt, but make all the mink coats you want.
Originally posted by Elspode
Nope...but he's chipped now.
Then since
(a) the cat had no ID whatsoever,
(b) the cat had been sitting there for twelve days without being claimed, and
(c) the only proof you had that the cat was yours was your saying "This is my cat. See? He's happy to see me,"
exactly how were they supposed to know that you were indeed the cat's legitimate owner, you weren't lying your ass off, and they could feel secure giving custody of a seemingly-abandoned animal to you?
I'm not saying that you were lying, because you weren't. But how were they supposed to know that?
Now, the last time I checked, animals are PROPERTY, goddamn it...so you tell me...how is it that I was deprived of my property without due process of law?
Because you habitually allow your PROPERTY (a living, breathing creature that requires care and attention) to just wander off on its own for days at a time, by your own admission, out in an environment where it could easily be attacked or hit by a car, with no identification to signify that the cat was in fact owned and cared for?
Because when it didn't come back this time, it took two weeks for you to realize that you should go look for it?
Because when you went to the animal shelter, you brought nothing with you that suggested that this was in fact your cat, and not in fact a random stray that they'd brought in, fed and cared for?
But, of course, the shelter attendant who wouldn't send an animal out with any random person who'd claim it is the asshole here, and the proper response is to "lie your ass off" when dealing with him in the future.
Yep, I'm just dripping with sympathy here.
I worked for an SPA for a while. While they did allot to try and find the animals homes they did have to euthinize (sp?) them allot. Sometime adoption was way up and we could send older animals out to be adopted other times anything over 3 years old was euthinized within a few days of getting there (depending on if it was a stray or not). Its a very sad thing to have to deal with. There were times I was cleaning kennels in the morning and when I had gotten done with one side and went to let the dogs into the other, several were gone. And yes it gets to you as their names are right there on the card on the kennel and some of them you like as they are sweet or neat looking. The SPA I worked for was allot better then Animal Control down the street, we had a much higher adoption rate and a much lower kill rate. We also had a long application that asked lots of questions and charged about $60-90 to adopt an animal depending on how old it was.
The main thing that bugged me was all the dumb reasons people would give for why they were giving up there animal. Made me want to reach across the desk and deck a few people. Now that I think of it I really should have done that before I quit.
Seeing as how were killing all these critters anyway, why not make fur coats for the homeless? :D
I can't wait to own my first fur coat...hopefully, it will be as joyous of a day as when I bought pimpin' coat.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Seeing as how were killing all these critters anyway, why not make fur coats for the homeless? :D
Because they already smell worse than wet dog. I can't imagine dealing with one wearing a wet dog.
Originally posted by vsp
Yep, I'm just dripping with sympathy here.
Likewise.
I'd say to think of it as not paying to get your animal back, but rather, to think of it as paying a kennel for the 12 days they sheltered and fed your animal. Price that shit some time.
You have to send your pet some place to be taken care of for a while, while you go out of town for two weeks or what not, and it's not going to be cheap.
Sure, they don't do a lot there, stick it in a cage, give it food, clean it's shit up. But still, you got it back in the end. And if you really care about the animal, you should be just happy they didn't kill it. Or that it didn't get run over. Or... Whatever.
I'd be happy as a pig in shit to get my "pet" back if he'd been gone for twelve days. Shit, I'd send them fucking flowers and a "Thank You!" card.
But hey, that's just me. And everybody knows I'm suffering from wacked out "conditions". Oh, wrong thread.
Quzah.
Here's a catch-22 that makes my head hurt:
We have hunted chinchillas into genetic extinction - there are less than 50 left in the wild.
Thank you, fur trade.
However...because the fur trade took chinchillas to North America and started breeding them for fur, non-ranchers were introduced to the critters, thought they were cute, and wanted to make them into pets.
They are now found throughout NA and Europe, and are doing very well indeed in captivity.
There are still a lot of books out there that have old chinchilla information in them that was taken directly from fur farmers, because that was all we really knew about chins for years. So - ya know - very little about longevity, but LOTS about breeding.
Obviously, the ideal here would have been to NOT overhunt chinchillas. Still...I find it an interesting discussion point.
Originally posted by quzah
Likewise.
I'd say to think of it as not paying to get your animal back, but rather, to think of it as paying a kennel for the 12 days they sheltered and fed your animal. Price that shit some time.
You have to send your pet some place to be taken care of for a while, while you go out of town for two weeks or what not, and it's not going to be cheap.
Sure, they don't do a lot there, stick it in a cage, give it food, clean it's shit up. But still, you got it back in the end. And if you really care about the animal, you should be just happy they didn't kill it. Or that it didn't get run over. Or... Whatever.
I'd be happy as a pig in shit to get my "pet" back if he'd been gone for twelve days. Shit, I'd send them fucking flowers and a "Thank You!" card.
But hey, that's just me. And everybody knows I'm suffering from wacked out "conditions". Oh, wrong thread.
Quzah.
.
I have paperwork proving ownership. They wouldn't look at it. They told me I had no options, period, other than adoption.
If I was in violation of a law, then I should have been issued a citation and made to pay a fine. If not, I should have been allowed to retrieve my property and and pay any fees accrued for his care. But, as I said, there was *no* due process. They claimed my animal was theirs and forced me to adhere to their rules and regulations without any due process. That's not right. Even if I got off cheaper because of it (which I am quite certain I did), it isn't right.
And I don't give a shit if you think me neglectful of my animals. I'm not. They like to go outside, they're cats. They wouldn't be happy stuck indoors, no matter what anyone says about the subject. My animals receive routine and annual care, they are fed the highest quality, most expensive cat foods, they are groomed as required, and they go where they wish, sleep where they want, and are loved. The cat in question (whom I've had for seven years) has always come and gone at will, spending various lengths of time away from the house. It was not, despite your contention, unusual for his absence to go unnoticed because not all of our family members are at home at all times except when sleeping, and therefore some would see him when he would come in, often briefly, and some would not. Or are you suggesting that I need to do roll-call on my pets each day?
Oh, and by the way, I have other methods of identifying him, but they said that didn't matter. He has certain physical characteistics that cannot be seen, but can be specifically palpated, and I could have easily described those to someone.
Originally posted by Elspode
The cat in question (whom I've had for seven years) has always come and gone at will, spending various lengths of time away from the house. It was not, despite your contention, unusual for his absence to go unnoticed because not all of our family members are at home at all times except when sleeping, and therefore some would see him when he would come in, often briefly, and some would not. Or are you suggesting that I need to do roll-call on my pets each day?
As a matter of fact, that is a rather good suggestion.
If you choose to let your pet run wild much of the time, that's your choice. I'm not saying that pets have to be treated like acute agoraphobics and locked in the basement until it's feeding time.
But you've been entrusted with that animal's welfare and care, and it has a brain the size of a golf ball. You're letting it out unattended into an environment where it could easily get hurt, attacked by other animals, flattened by a truck or otherwise put into dangerous situations. When the end of the day comes, if your pet is out there somewhere and your reaction is "Oh, well, he'll come back," as far as I'm concerned you're not much of a responsible pet owner, no matter what brand of expensive cat food you put out for it.
And if you get a knock on your door some night and someone's holding out the remains of your beloved cat and saying "I'm sorry, he just darted out in front of my car," please refrain from getting angry, much less looking surprised.
Originally posted by Elspode
And I don't give a shit if you think me neglectful of my animals. I'm not. They like to go outside, they're cats. They wouldn't be happy stuck indoors, no matter what anyone says about the subject.
Unless you keep your cat inside all the time, you can't control what they do. I don't even think that neutered cats will stay home. They just like to wander around. My point was that rather than to think you got screwed on the deal, to think of it as putting it up for boarding for two weeks.
I still don't have any sympahty for you though. If I did, I'd have to be sympathetic for all the beurocratic bullshit that people have to go through, and that's far too time consuming. I'd spend all day feeling bad for people who have to go through the DMV line three times, because the last time they were there it was seven bucks instead of the new $25, and the fact that they don't take debit, and the fact that I^Hthey only got a twenty the second time through, because who in their right mind would think the cost would go up $18 in four years?
Quzah.
Originally posted by Elspode
. They like to go outside, they're cats. They wouldn't be happy stuck indoors, no matter what anyone says about the subject.
I agree 100%. That is what cats do naturally. That is where they are the happiest. Why do you think cats kept indoors sit on the windowsill so much?;)
There is a difference between letting them go outside and letting them LOOSE outside and unattended for days at a time.
As for the windowsill, it's a quiet, sunny, safe place, unlike a lot of outside-the-house places I could name.
By the by, where did I, at any time, ask for any sympathy? I was relating a personal experience with what I saw as an example of overzealousness on the part of an animal welfare organization.
I don't really care if anyone feels sorry for me or not. That was totally not the point. Similarly, I don't care if anyone disagrees with me or not. I am able to observe my cats' behaviors, and I think I understand what they want from their cat lives. For example, I have four cats. The male I've been talking about is quite independent and is prone to longish outdoor excursions. Two others rarely leave the yard, except to go into the back field (which is utterly devoid of large, fast moving vehicle traffic). The youngest is still figuring out his world, but he, too, seems to be of an outdoorish persuasion so far.
You know, *I* run the risk of being killed every time I go out of the house. Maybe my wife needs to keep me locked up inside so I don't get squished by a semi?
Originally posted by vsp
There is a difference between letting them go outside and letting them LOOSE outside and unattended for days at a time.
As for the windowsill, it's a quiet, sunny, safe place, unlike a lot of outside-the-house places I could name.
Yeah, and if you love your children, you'll never let them out of their room where they're safe.
If you go back and read the post you'll discover the cat could come and go as it pleased. It would come in to eat, drink and check on it's pet humans, when it wanted to. Living it's life as a free and happy critter instead of being "protected" by humans like the animals in the zoo.:)
Well, I have six cats, three of which are inside cats, and three of which are outside cats. However, being the paranoid pet owner that I am, and being that I work at a pound, we have enclosed our carport for the outside cats. That way they can have the outside they want, without getting hurt.
We live in a fairly secluded area, but we also have possum and other wild animals that roam around. One of our cats got out somehow, and was killed by a dog...So, even my outside cats can't really go "out" out...but like I said...that's just me.
My grandparents live on a farm, with 15 acres, and all of their cats are outside in the barns, and they're just fine.
Sidhe
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Yeah, and if you love your children, you'll never let them out of their room where they're safe.
Would you let your single-digit-age children run around outside unattended, coming and going as they please, vanishing for days at a time, without so much as a name printed on their shirt-tags?
Now ponder how much smarter and capable of dealing with situations a typical seven-year-old is than a typical cat or other domestic pet.
The key concepts are _unattended_ and _untagged_. Letting it out in a controlled environment, as in Lady Sidhe's example, is one thing. Just letting it run wild, on the other hand, comes close to my definition of "feral."
If you go back and read the post you'll discover the cat could come and go as it pleased. It would come in to eat, drink and check on it's pet humans, when it wanted to. Living it's life as a free and happy critter instead of being "protected" by humans like the animals in the zoo.:)
The cat is the pet of the humans, not the other way around. Protecting the cat is the humans' responsibility, not the cat's responsibility. If that doesn't sink in, then we are at an impasse.
We are at an impasse.:p
A cat is full grown at single digit age. You can't compare them.
Main Entry: fe·ral
Pronunciation: 'fir-&l, 'fer-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin feralis, from Latin fera wild animal, from feminine of ferus wild -- more at FIERCE
Date: 1604
1 : of, relating to, or suggestive of a wild beast
2 a : not domesticated or cultivated : WILD b : having escaped from domestication and become wild
This cat is hardly feral.
I have yet to see a 7 year old kid that was half as smart as the dumbest cat when it comes to recognizing danger and avoiding it.
I'm glad I'm not your cat. You're no fun at all.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I have yet to see a 7 year old kid that was half as smart as the dumbest cat when it comes to recognizing danger and avoiding it.
I'm glad I'm not your cat. You're no fun at all.
I once lived in a house with a cat that was dumb enough to MISS THE LITTER BOX IT WAS STANDING IN. Four paws in the box, the turd hit the kitchen floor, and then the dope started pawing the litter around like it was covering something.
I am a dog person (and I wouldn't let a dog run loose and unattended, either). If given the choice, I'd rather have rickets than a cat.
Originally posted by vsp
I once lived in a house with a cat that was dumb enough to MISS THE LITTER BOX IT WAS STANDING IN. Four paws in the box, the turd hit the kitchen floor, and then the dope started pawing the litter around like it was covering something.
1- The cat didn't have to clean it up.
2- The cat didn't have to stand in crappy litter next time.
Who's dumb?:D
My cats are not feral by any realistic definition of the word. They domesticated. They simply like to go outside.
I like to go outside, and I'm domesticated and not feral.
Originally posted by Elspode
I like to go outside, and I'm domesticated and not feral.
So you say. ;)
El, I think we need to hear from the Mrs. on that one ...
As if you can't tell, I love cats. All three of my cats are indoor only cats and they are just fine. They never try to escape. Of course they like to look out the windows, but that's TV for them. I'd rather have them safe inside than have them outside facing cruel and abusive children, cars, weather and other animals. If they're not happy, then why are they so content?
They are biding their time. One day you're doing to wake up with your major tendons slashed and the cats feasting on your still-living body. Until then, have a nice day.
Originally posted by Elspode
And I don't give a shit if you think me neglectful of my animals. I'm not. They like to go outside, they're cats.
Ah. But don't forget Mr. Johnny Verbeck. ;)
Originally posted by Brigliadore
PETA also donates money to ALF (animal liberation front) and ELF (earth liberation front) both of which are on the FBI's homeland terrorist watch list. Both groups use fire bomb and scare/harassment tactics get what they want. And lets not forget that while PETA is donating all this money to terrorists they still have their 501c3 non profit status with the IRS.
Hm...and yet it doesn't seem as though they are on the list of "Evildoers" (and neither is the Klan...) :mad: Tsk...
Originally posted by dar512
Ah. But don't forget Mr. Johnny Verbeck. ;)
OK, I'll bite, who's Johnny Verbeck?
Originally posted by russotto
They are biding their time. One day you're doing to wake up with your major tendons slashed and the cats feasting on your still-living body. Until then, have a nice day.
Animals aren't capable of premeditated murder. Especially my cats. Animals will love you when you love them. It's really hard to imagine my sweet laid-back gray fluff of a cat a murdering psychopath.
It's really hard to imagine my sweet laid-back gray fluff of a cat a murdering psychopath.
That's what the mouse thought.;)
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
OK, I'll bite, who's Johnny Verbeck?
I thought you'd never ask. Don't know where it came from originally, but it's now popular as a campfire song:
Mr. Johnny Verbeck
There was a little Dutch man, his name was Johnny Verbeck
He used to deal in sausages and sauerkraut and spec
He made the finest sausages that ever you did see.
Until the day that he worked out his sausage making machine.
Refrain:
Oh, Mr. Johnny Verbeck, how could you be so mean
I told you you'd be sorry for inventing that machine
Now all the neighbors' cats and dogs will never more be seen
They've all been ground to sausages in Johnny Verbeck's machine
One day a little neighbor boy came walking through the door
He bought a pound of sausages and laid them on the floor
The boy began to whistle, he whistled up a tune
And all the sausages got up and danced around the room
[Refrain]
One day the meat inspector came a-knocking at the door,
He said, "I've come to check your shop, or give me money more!"
Now Johnny he got angry, and pushed him in the meat,
He fired up the ol' machine and now there's more to eat.
[Refrain]
One day the thing was broken, the darn thing wouldn't go
So Johnny Verbeck, he climbed inside, to see what made it so
His wife, she had a nightmare a walking in her sleep,
She gave the crank an awful yank and Johnny Verbeck was meat
[Refrain]
Sweet lovable kitty cats.
Originally posted by FelinesAreFine
Animals aren't capable of premeditated murder.
Ever seen the movie The Ghost and the Darkness? It shows lions killing for sport in a rather premeditated way. Yah its got Val Kilmer and Michael Douglas in it, BUT it is based on a true story.
Sometimes for whatever reason an animal is born a little off in the head, and thats when unnatural things start to happen.
Hey Bruce, I loooove that picture. I'm gonna frame it.
Brigliadore, you believe everything that Hollywood makes? There's an old saying: "Although God cannot rewrite history, Hollywood can."
Originally posted by Brigliadore
snip--Sometimes for whatever reason an animal is born a little off in the head, and thats when unnatural things start to happen.
Wow, I'm glad that never happens to people.:haha:
Originally posted by FelinesAreFine
Brigliadore, you believe everything that Hollywood makes? There's an old saying: "Although God cannot rewrite history, Hollywood can."
I don't believe everything Hollywood makes, my mom is a screen writer and I grew up in that business, so I have a pretty healthy grasp on it. But it is a fact that those lions killed and they are stuffed and on display in the Chicago Field Museum. Here is the info on the display taken from the Field Museum's website.
In March 1898 the British started building a railway bridge over the Tsavo (SAH-vo) River in East Africa. Over the next nine months, two large male lions killed and ate nearly 140 railway workers. Crews tried to scare off the lions and built campfires and thorn fences for protection, but to no avail. Hundreds of workers fled Tsavo, halting construction on the bridge.
Before work could resume, chief engineer Lt. Col. John Henry Patterson (1865-1947) had to eliminate the lions and their threat. After many near misses, he finally shot the first lion on December 9, 1898, and three weeks later brought down the second. The first lion killed measured nine feet, eight inches (3 m) from nose to tip of tail. It took eight men to carry the carcass back to camp. The construction crew returned and completed the bridge in February 1899.
(The 1996 movie "The Ghost and the Darkness" was based on Patterson's adventures in Tsavo.)
A photo of one of the lions after being killed.
For those that care the Chicago Field Museum has some photos on there web site taken while Lt. Col. John Henry Patterson was building the bridge in Tsavo. There are some neat photos of the railroad car used as a trap as well as the lion's cave entrance. I really love old black and white photos so I thought I would share.
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/exhibits/exhibit_sites/tsavo/gallery.htmlYou're going to equte my overweight 14 lb house cat to a 600 lb African Lion?
Originally posted by FelinesAreFine
You're going to equte my overweight 14 lb house cat to a 600 lb African Lion?
I never said your house cat was on the same level as a lion. You said animals aren't capable of premeditated murder. I stated that I felt they were, and offered evidence to support that.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Sweet lovable kitty cats.
:haha: :haha: :haha:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Sweet lovable kitty cats.
Poor gerbil. Probably died of fright right after that picture.
Loner male lions are not very nice.
If they get the male lion of a pride to flee, they take over the pride.
Then, they usually kill all the cubs in order to cause the females to go into heat.
Loner male cats are also known to kill kittens they come across, perhaps for the same reason.
Old predators will kill a human as well, merely because they can't catch their normal prey, which is too fast for them. Wounded animals will kill in self-defense.
I don't think that animals who kill humans are necessarily "off"; it may simply be, in their view, self-defense--we do tend to just take over an animal's normal habitat, then bitch when the animal "retaliates," ie, when coyotes kill livestock that is penned on what used to be their hunting grounds, when individuals venture into an animal's territory.
While I think that animals do kill with premeditation--how can you not consider killing for food premeditation, after all--I don't believe they kill with MALICE. Animals will often NOT kill when killing would be to their benefit, such as when a wolf fights for dominance. When the other wolf shows submission, the dominant wolf stops fighting. A human would press the advantage and kill. The animal is much more civilized, due to instinct, than humans tend to be with rules for behavior. That's the difference between animals and humans. Humans tend to kill for either no reason, or for inadequate reason; animals kill for a purpose: food, defense, instinctual passing on of genes. We can't apply our morals to animals. If we aren't going to treat them with the same consideration with which we treat human beings, we shouldn't expect them to adhere to our standards.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. ;)
Sidhe
You're going to equte my overweight 14 lb house cat to a 600 lb African Lion?
Ever see a cat stalk a mouse? Same style as a lion.
In an examination of the skulls of "The Maneaters of Tsavo", it was found that the canine teeth were rotted out, causing them to seek easier prey. (Discovery Channel)
Lady Sidhe - "Old predators will kill a human as well, merely because they can't catch their normal prey, which is too fast for them."
I can understand why the lions were hunting humans. We are a good source of protein, and one 150 lb. male yeilds about 60-75 pounds of edible meat. We taste a little like beef, pork, or chicken, but that varies from person to person.
From what I've been told, animals only kill humans for food when they must, because animals supposedly don't really like human flesh. I don't know why. TS would probably know more about that.
Sidhe
We have a terrible meat-to-bone ratio and an awful diet.
Just as a general rule of thumb, predators will normally leave other predators alone. Its just not energetically a good equation to have to fight to the death for a few lousey pounds of meat when a nice tasty non-violent herbivore is sitting around anywhere NEAR in the neighborhood. Which would you rather do for dinner? Order out for pizza or go mano a mano with a cougar? Animals aren't stupid. Neither do they share our highly developed sense of morality and ethics (at least in theory highly developed - one wonders sometimes). There is a difference between killing and murder. I submit that animals are incapable of murder. That trick Man alone knows how to play. As for the fabled lions - I suspect that was a fable and nothing more.
There is a difference between killing and murder. I submit that animals are incapable of murder. That trick Man alone knows how to play.
Very well said!
There is a difference between killing and murder. I submit that animals are incapable of murder. That trick Man alone knows how to play. As for the fabled lions - I suspect that was a fable and nothing more.
In order to make that statement you have to define killing and murder. So when a tomcat comes upon a litter of kittens it hasn't sired, does he murder or kill them? When a mongoose finds a non-poisonous snake, that it's not going to eat, does it kill or murder the snake? When Shrikes have an overabundance of prey, do the murder or kill the ones they don't eat?
Even human law divides murder into many catagories depending on the circumstances, so where do you draw the line?
I disagree on the Tsavo lions in that I think it's documented well enough that although it could well be exaggerated, I doubt if it's fabricated. Animals, like humans, occasionally produce odd looking and/or behaving individuals. That's what keeps Wolf and my friend Sharon, the Animal Control Officer, guessing. :worried:
As for the fabled lions - I suspect that was a fable and nothing more.
Actually its a pretty well documented story. Here is the link to the Chicago Field Museum where the lions are on display.
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/exhibits/exhibit_sites/tsavo/maneaters.html
Here is the link to a bunch of the photos Patterson took.
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/exhibits/exhibit_sites/tsavo/gallery.htmlI think for it to be murder there has to be sentience
Sentience, n.
The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.
Sentient, adj.
Having sense perception; conscious: "The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage" (T.E. Lawrence).
Experiencing sensation or feeling.
Uh,...Do you mean a critter would have to know they were killing another critter, Dana? As opposed to kicking it's ass until it happened to die? I'm confused.
I think animals understand when another animal is dead vs alive, but they'll never attach all the ramifications people do, to death. I'm convinced that when a lion grabs a victims throat, they're aware the victim is going to end up in a state of what the lion understands to be dead. It's intentional and premeditated, which only leaves "justified" as the determining factor between killing and murder.
Maybe. :confused:
I think it's exactly that ability to understand the ramifications of the act which causes us to classify killing as murder. Animals have no such sensibilities, they have no moral or ethical understanding of the world.
There was a time when animals were considered capable of murder. During the middle ages there were several well documented cases of animals being tried for murder and in some cases executed. That was because murder was seen as an act of evil and animals were seen as capable of being evil
There is no court in the land that would try an animal for murder. Animals that kill human beings are simply dispatched themselves or in rare cases, relocated to territories far enough away from humans. Look at all the outcry there was on that thread sometime back about sharks in Austrailia being killed for having killed humans. No one accused the sharks of murder. No one came forth to plea extenuating circumstances for the sharks other than that they were merely animals. Males of various species of felines will kill kittens that they have not sired - this is called the reproduction instinct. Every organism is equipped with an instinct to perpetuate its own genetic code. By killing kittens, it did not father, a male feline is merely following this instinct and could hardly be considered a "murderer". Animals may be sentient beings, but they do not have the intelligence from which to create a strict rule of morality and ethics. The ethic of the animal world is Nature's - nothing more. The cases where we see the animal "ethic" go awry are generally ones where either man has interfered and upset the balance in some way or where we do not know the full story of what is going on. I find the killer lion story highly suspect because no zoologist or ethnologist was on the scene to obseve the facts in a scientific manner. Felids are known to prey on men almost always because the cat is injured or sick. The large size of the lions killed make me think that the "great white hunter" of the time found a couple of convenient scapecoats to placate the natives and tell a good story back home while the real killer lions probably had died of some illness or injury already sustained.
Oh and Bruce, I just found your quote in the hamster thread, "She would have to have comprehension and I doubt she's pondering the meaning of life. I fully understand your not wanting her to suffer pain, but how do you know she's feeling anything other than unusual?" Well which is it? Either an animal is capable of advanced philosophical thought or it's not. Make up your mind.
I think it's exactly that ability to understand the ramifications of the act which causes us to classify killing as murder.
Ok, then I'll agree that critters can't commit murder because even though they can premeditate it, they don't have the comprehension of the moral/social ramifications. But dead is dead so it's really semantics. :)
Ok, then I'll agree that critters can't commit murder because even though they can premeditate it, they don't have the comprehension of the moral/social ramifications. But dead is dead so it's really semantics. :)
Oh? So why do courts make a distinction between, say, manslaughter and murder in the 1st?
By killing kittens, it did not father, a male feline is merely following this instinct and could hardly be considered a "murderer". Animals may be sentient beings, but they do not have the intelligence from which to create a strict rule of morality and ethics. The ethic of the animal world is Nature's - nothing more.
And people have the intelligence to create a strict rule of morality and ethics, so I'm bound by rules you made up instead of "nature" like the cat. And of course the rules you made up are infallible so it doesn't matter what I think the rules should be.
I see, then murder is a violation of your rules and not a crime against nature. That being true, then I'll have to agree critters can't commit murder.
I just found your quote in the hamster thread, "She would have to have comprehension and I doubt she's pondering the meaning of life. I fully understand your not wanting her to suffer pain, but how do you know she's feeling anything other than unusual?" Well which is it? Either an animal is capable of advanced philosophical thought or it's not. Make up your mind.
Well, duh. If I stick you with a pin you'll be FEELING pain. I know you can't help it, being female, when you hear the word "feeling", your thoughts skip right over the obvious physical trauma and skip right to emotional drama. Of course being male, I could never understand, no less discuss, feelings. :p
I'm not sure which rules I'm supposed to be making up. My comments on feline behavior come from what I learned in an animal ecology class at University of Colorado. Take it up with them if you feel they are teaching feline behavior incorrectly. I don't understand your last sentence. Maybe its because I'm a girl.
As for the fabled lions - I suspect that was a fable and nothing more.
I recall in the last year or two (I wish I had a link to post for you) the lions' den was discovered. A cave near the bridge was found with a large number of human skeletons. At first the authorites suspected foul play until they noticed that the human bones had marks on them that looked like lion teeth marks. The number of bodies (I don't remember how many), the tooth marks on the bones, and the relative proximity to the site of all the lion attacks led them to believe they were some of the bodies of the railroad workers.
I'm not sure which rules I'm supposed to be making up. My comments on feline behavior come from what I learned in an animal ecology class at University of Colorado. Take it up with them if you feel they are teaching feline behavior incorrectly. I don't understand your last sentence. Maybe its because I'm a girl.
I’m not taking issue with your comments on feline behavior. You described a well known phenomenon.
What I questioned was your statement, “I submit that animals are incapable of murder. That trick Man alone knows how to play.” I responded with examples of animals killing for neither food nor defense, one of which you explained.
Now, when you smugly state animals can’t murder, then define murder as killing while cognizant of a strict rule of morality and ethics, that’s a straw man. I’ve shown examples that premeditated killings occur and I won’t argue whether it should be called murder for humans and nature for animals. It’s still the same thing.
I’m not surprised you didn’t understand the last sentence in that post, it was a joke. :eyebrow:
I’m not taking issue with your comments on feline behavior. You described a well known phenomenon.
What I questioned was your statement, “I submit that animals are incapable of murder. That trick Man alone knows how to play.” I responded with examples of animals killing for neither food nor defense, one of which you explained.
Now, when you smugly state animals can’t murder, then define murder as killing while cognizant of a strict rule of morality and ethics, that’s a straw man. I’ve shown examples that premeditated killings occur and I won’t argue whether it should be called murder for humans and nature for animals. It’s still the same thing.
I’m not surprised you didn’t understand the last sentence in that post, it was a joke. :eyebrow:
First of all, I'm sorry. I realized your last sentence was a joke. I wasn't too sure of where you were going with your NEXT to the last sentence. It felt like a barb disguised as a joke, but us girls are always hopelessly confused about such things.
I think the problem here, Bruce, is that no one has given a definition of the word "murder."
Here is how the American Heritage Dictionary defines the word:
NOUN: 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
also:
Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.
execute, assassinate, kill, murder, slay (vv.) execute, assassinate, kill, murder, slay (vv.)
"all mean “to deprive someone or something of life,” but they differ in important ways. Execute has long meant “to perform, to carry out an action or a duty, to enforce a law,” and a number of other senses not necessarily involving taking life, and for some time in the nineteenth century, commentators deplored the use of execute in the sense of “put to death.” (Their unhappiness may also have been caused in part by the fact that execute is a back-formation from execution.) But today, execute clearly also means “to put to death,” usually under order of a court: The judge sentenced the convicted murderer to be executed by means of lethal injection. (Ironically, gangsters, mobsters, and terrorists often claim to be executing victims judged guilty in their own informal tribunals.)
To murder is usually “to kill with malice aforethought and unlawfully”: He murdered the bank guard who had tried to stop him. To assassinate is “to kill a public or political figure,” and it often is a crime performed for hire or at least on assignment by an organization: The terrorists assassinated the governor of the province. To slay is a literary word—a bit old-fashioned (David slew Goliath) but beloved of the press because it fits headlines (Dissidents Slay Rebel Leader). Slay gives a change from the more common kill, which is, of course the generic term, meaning simply “to take the life of”: We killed hundreds of mosquitoes."
THESE are the definitions of "murder" and "kill" which I am using in my argument. It appears to me that you are using the two words inter-changably.
I will agree with you that animals are capable of and do commit the act of KILLING. I fail to understand how I am creating a straw man when I say animals are incapable of murder. Animals may act in a premeditated fashion, but they do not do so out of malice. You are anthropomorphizing the animal if you embue it with a human emotion such as malice. You admitted yourself that you only showed examples of animals acting in a premeditated manner, but you did not show examples of animals acting with MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. Both conditions must exist for an act of killing to become an act of murder.
Animals can, do and will perform premeditated killings. Selecting the one antelope in the herd to bring down shows that. There's a certain degree of thought that goes into it.
Animals can not murder. Even leaving behind the 'of one human' part, when they go to kill something, they aren't doing it for political reasons or anything like that. There are no reasons really, it's done by instinct and the drive to continue living and pass on genes. Taking the life of the antelope is not done because the pride has a certain grudge against that or any antelope or because they want to hear the antelope scream in terror and pain. There's no ill will or malice, as the book says, there.
Oh? So why do courts make a distinction between, say, manslaughter and murder in the 1st?
There's first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter:
Manslaughter is, generally, unintentional, as in, you busted your husband in bed with your best friend and shot them both in the heat of passion, or if you're driving down the road and someone darts in front of you, and you hit them, causing death.
Murder in the first degree is not only premeditated--you planned it, even if only five seconds before but is also murder committed while in the act of committing another felony, such as armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, etc.
Murder two is premeditated. That's what I think you mean when you say murder one.
Hoodeehoo! I finally got to use my CJ degree! Hahahahahahahahaha!! I knew it'd come in useful SOME day....
Besides, like I said before, we can't apply our laws to animals. They aren't part of our society, as is shown by the way we take over their hunting grounds and entire ecosystems, leaving them without means, then pitching a bitch when they don't understand why they can't hunt or live there anymore.
You can't call an animal a murderer for killing for food, defense or genetic advancement, because by the "laws" of their society, this is acceptable. Murder is a crime, by human standards. It is considered separate from "killing" (ie, war, hunting, self-defense). In the animal world, killing and murder aren't valid concepts. Killing is a way of life if one wants to eat or survive. It isn't murder because there is no malice, nor is there a concept of crime among animal predators.
Therefore, due to the fact that they are not part of our society, and therefore not subject to our laws, an animal cannot be guilty of the crime of murder.
So there. ;)
Sidhe
Murder in the first degree is not only premeditated--you planned it, even if only five seconds before but is also murder committed while in the act of committing another felony, such as armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, etc.
In PA, felony murder is 2nd degree. Weird quirk of state law. Premeditated murder is first degree, other murder is third. Then there's voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
In PA, felony murder is 2nd degree. Weird quirk of state law. Premeditated murder is first degree, other murder is third. Then there's voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
Yeah, I didn't differentiate between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, sorry about that.
In La., first degree is premed and while in the course of committing another felony--it has to have certain aggravating factors. Other states have different tweaks on it, I'm sure.
My point was merely that we cannot hold a non-human animal who is not considered a part of our society, nor has rights within our society, to the laws of our society, just as we would not condone murder by a human even if he WAS living in the woods and only came down once a year for groceries. He is a human, part of the human society with it's attendant laws and mores that are applicable only to humans. Whether or not he's living like an animal doesn't change the fact that the laws apply to him.
There are standards for human behavior because we need them. Animals don't need them. I don't think that animals are as inherently vicious as humans can be. I'm not downing the human race; I'm just saying that humans don't seem to have the instinctual built-in safeguards to their behavior, by which they preserve their groups, like animals do, and thus we need rules and laws to control our behavior lest we destroy our society.
We can't apply our rules to them, any more than their rules can be applied to us. Different species, different worlds, different rules for what is acceptable.
Sidhe
You are anthropomorphizing the animal if you embue it with a human emotion such as malice.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha, that's something that I could never be accused of. :D
OK, so we're in agreement that both people and animals sometimes kill for reasons we don't fully understand. But, the English language has divided these acts into different names, of which the majority apply to only humans.
That makes sense, as were are much more concerned about people killing and try to define it more precisely.
All I know is that my very well-fed kitty will kill for the hell of it if she spy's a chipmonk. I've talked to her about this but she has so far ignored me, she merely looks away like she's interested in something else. She is such a wench...
MEOW
Before a whole bunch of people condemn me ---I've been a foster mom for LOTS of little kitten's and cat's--all of them display hunting/killing traits. Especially the MALES when they want to engender their own.
Before a whole bunch of people condemn me ---I've been a foster mom for LOTS of little kitten's and cat's--all of them display hunting/killing traits. Especially the MALES when they want to engender their own.
I guess it all depends on what you mean by lots. When I worked at the Humane Society I was known to beg the higher ups to let me take pregnant dogs home so they could have the puppies. Before me even if the dog was 2 days away from giving birth they aborted the litter and fixed the dog. As long as the dog was within a few weeks of the delivery they let me take them home and then mom and pups came back when the babies were old enough. One time the dog I took home delivered 9 pups. That meant I had 14 dogs at my house (9 pups, plus the mom, my 3 dogs, and my moms 1 dog). That would seem like a lot but it was only for a few months. I loved having puppies around, I almost always wanted to keep some. Its hard when you see them born to let them go, but they hopefully went to go homes.
Well, obviously, you win Brig--I've never had that many animals in my home. I usually have about 5 cats--two are mine and the rest I am trying to socialize for the shelter--so, that means three 'strangers'---cats are kinda difficult to socialize and I don't feel like I've done my job until everybody's happy----that's just me, though. Co-dependant trait impossibe to irradicate. Don't even try. I'll just agree with you and kiss you to death.
All I know is that my very well-fed kitty will kill for the hell of it if she spy's a chipmonk. I've talked to her about this but she has so far ignored me, she merely looks away like she's interested in something else. She is such a wench...
MEOW
Before a whole bunch of people condemn me ---I've been a foster mom for LOTS of little kitten's and cat's--all of them display hunting/killing traits. Especially the MALES when they want to engender their own.
I for one am glad cats still have that killer instnct. Ray killed a weasle in our house a while back. Last year we gave some chickens to one of our neighbors because a weasle had gotten in her hen house and killed every bird. Hen houses are like magnets for vermin, I wouldn't have chickens without at least one hunter around.
That's true, Griff. A dog to roust the big ones and a cat to kill the little ones. The vermin will come for miles to a chicken coop. :worried: