Active Users:989 Time:14/09/2025 03:00:19 AM
Are you serious? Vivien Send a noteboard - 28/03/2011 08:48:54 PM
Packs of wild dogs (that are not afraid of humans!) are an acceptable solution for you? The mind boggles. Formerly domesticated animals that go wild are a whole lot more dangerous than animals that were wild to begin with.





I'm not saying they aren't out there, because I know they are, I just don't think they're as common as the phrases prevalence indicates. With truly wild dogs (e.g. dingoes) it would be a different story, which is one reason to sterilize strays, but even that story a while back out of Russia mentioned a lot more solitary strays than packs. If Moscow can sustain a large population of unvaccinated unsterilized strays it seems like America can sustain a large population of vaccinated sterile ones. Who knows? People like me might be a lot more inclined to report (or deliver) a stray to the humane society if we knew it wasn't a virtual death sentence, and that could help reduce the stray population without harming any of its members.
Your plan of sterilising and vaccinating dogs then releasing them to run free is sweet, but impractical for many reasons.

- health in general: that's a lot more doggy do, a lot more opened rubbish/garbage bags, a lot more torn carcases left to rot when the dog's had his share.

I don't consider those sufficient motives to kill animals en masse. In the city most strays subsist off the garbage, and in the countryside rotting carcasses are a periodic fact of life anyway, but the proverbial habit of dogs gorging themselves then regurgitating the excess elsewhere later to eat when hungry again will prevent a surplus of rotting carcasses.
- pack mentality can make for a very dangerous situation. Imagine a pack of hungry strays and a little kid on its own. Not safe.

My observations have been that most feral dogs avoid humans almost assiduously as wild animals do, probably in large part due to the fact that most animals who've simply been abandoned by their owners don't have pleasant memories of humans. Even <a href="http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html">this frankly alarmist site</a> claims that "The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend", indicating that if there is an "epidemic" of dog bites, it has more to do with pet owners and parents failing to monitor their charges than with vicious strays, in packs or otherwise. I've heard plenty of horror stories of dogs raised to be vicious or attacking when they felt threatened, but not even a single case of any dog attacking a human adult or child for food. Fact is, there are plenty of far less dangerous food sources.
- general menace - a dog bite hurts even without the danger of contracting rabies, and can cause a lot of damage to a person (or their pets, for that matter). A frightened, threatened, uncontrolled dog is dangerous.

Granted, but a frightened and threatened dog is usually frightened and threatened for a reason; I'm reminded of the claim that 77% of dog bites are from animals owned by family or friends of the victim. An uncontrolled dog with no cause for fright or to feel threatened is no more dangerous than an uncontrolled owl or fox, and less so than an uncontrolled bear or deer, but no one's rounding them up and putting them in cages to wait a week for death. Dog bites hurt, yes, and can be damaging, but few dogs bite unprovoked, and even when they do I've never been comfortable with a non-serious dog bite prompting the dogs death (which is also regrettably common and often mandatory under law).
Re no-kill shelters: they're great, but don't have unlimited resources. Until enough people donate enough to deal with all unwanted dogs, I'm afraid that euthanasing them is the best option. (Or the least worst option.)

And frankly, people don't even donate enough to look after the unwanted people in our countries let alone the unwanted animals. Where do priorities lie?

In a way, that's just my point: Yes, there are millions of people around the world, including many children, suffering from starvation, disease, lack of shelter, but we don't stick them in a five foot pen for a week, then execute them if no one's come to care for them and call it the least worst option. What we treat as a public service and moral positive for creatures far more capable of surviving on their own, and far less capable of understanding the need for their death, would be rightly prosecuted as reprehensible mass murder if perpetrated against starving kids. We all know the same harsh reality exists in both animal shelters and orphanages: Most people want infants to raise as their own, so the older a child or animal gets the more certain it is to never be adopted. The difference is that we don't give orphans a week to find a home and
Reply to message
This Is Why I Like Dogs So Much More Than I Like People (Animal Rescue Workers: I LOVE You!) - 27/03/2011 03:20:40 PM 1674 Views
Louisiana has a bit more on its plate than adorable animals. - 27/03/2011 06:14:01 PM 986 Views
No doubt, and I respect that; it's tightening the budget by killing animals that bothers me. - 27/03/2011 06:37:17 PM 1152 Views
Feral dogs are dangerous and destructive. It's not really an option. - 27/03/2011 06:48:06 PM 823 Views
I don't know that they are, at least, not any more so than feral cats or feral teens. - 28/03/2011 04:27:44 PM 773 Views
how many people are mauled by house cats? - 28/03/2011 04:57:32 PM 715 Views
Me, for one; I don't have complete stats on everyone though. - 28/03/2011 05:06:57 PM 886 Views
How many stiches did it take to fix it? - 28/03/2011 06:42:31 PM 889 Views
It is animal control not planned parenthood for dogs - 28/03/2011 03:13:02 AM 854 Views
Interesting how that comparison keeps being made.... - 28/03/2011 04:26:38 PM 863 Views
Yes, it is easier to kill animals than have them roaming the streets. - 28/03/2011 09:36:31 PM 966 Views
I can at least respect the honesty of that. - 31/03/2011 11:43:02 PM 863 Views
I made myself a promise. - 27/03/2011 11:28:02 PM 753 Views
I'm fairly upfront about my opinion of the value of human life vs. animal life, yes. - 27/03/2011 11:51:07 PM 922 Views
Well, we differ on this, certainly. - 28/03/2011 05:14:44 AM 963 Views
how very 1960 of you - 28/03/2011 02:15:11 PM 798 Views
To answer... - 29/03/2011 04:09:33 AM 800 Views
This is an interesting subthread to observe.... - 28/03/2011 04:52:04 PM 844 Views
You succeeded. - 28/03/2011 08:44:30 PM 858 Views
Undoubtedly. - 29/03/2011 04:12:12 AM 781 Views
You also have to consider pack animal behaviour. - 27/03/2011 06:45:14 PM 934 Views
It's ironic that I read this after I wrote that above. - 27/03/2011 11:30:06 PM 991 Views
don't forget all the wildlife they kill *NM* - 28/03/2011 03:17:02 AM 414 Views
Wildlife kills a lot of wildlife; "it's the ciiiiircle of life". - 28/03/2011 04:59:27 PM 865 Views
and like a market economy that works great until you start subsidizing one side - 28/03/2011 05:15:32 PM 869 Views
A dog that can make a deer run will hunt it. - 31/03/2011 11:32:24 PM 1036 Views
I've lived in a lot of cities and around a lot of dogs but never seen a feral dog pack. - 28/03/2011 04:28:32 PM 893 Views
Are you serious? - 28/03/2011 08:48:54 PM 721 Views
There are a few things wrong with that. - 31/03/2011 11:11:27 PM 775 Views
I'm planning on volunteering at a no-kill shelter in NJ when I go. - 27/03/2011 11:31:02 PM 856 Views
Sweet, and the prospect of volunteers at no kill shelters changes the economics greatly. *hugs* - 28/03/2011 04:26:29 PM 938 Views
I'm trying to spend that time on "me" stuff. - 29/03/2011 04:13:54 AM 779 Views
Probably wise; good luck and God bless with that. - 01/04/2011 12:27:09 AM 954 Views
It is sad but what can you do? - 28/03/2011 03:05:40 AM 879 Views
I'm not sure how this would be helpful? - 28/03/2011 06:04:26 PM 761 Views
I don't think it is wrong to neuter a dog for behavior reasons - 28/03/2011 06:35:16 PM 869 Views
I was with you until... - 28/03/2011 09:09:14 PM 764 Views
I said it was the cynical side of me not the rational side - 28/03/2011 09:31:22 PM 884 Views
Liberals are bigger fans of animal control than conservatives? - 28/03/2011 09:49:35 PM 708 Views
If you could only choose one, it would be better to choose the female. - 28/03/2011 10:03:44 PM 742 Views
WHY??? *NM* - 28/03/2011 10:08:30 PM 356 Views
Wait, no, you're right. - 28/03/2011 10:13:58 PM 784 Views
no no you were right - 29/03/2011 02:18:44 AM 769 Views
Ah, yeah. I was assuming 100% sterilization, which is unfeasible. Never mind. *NM* - 29/03/2011 03:16:22 AM 365 Views
Ghavrel, nooooooooo! Give reason and ethics a chance first! - 29/03/2011 03:27:29 AM 981 Views
I already said it makes sense to do both. I definitely support neutering! - 29/03/2011 04:01:09 AM 984 Views
Do you know what else is absurd? - 29/03/2011 04:09:37 AM 741 Views
A clown reading Camus? *NM* - 29/03/2011 05:31:21 AM 341 Views
that would be absurd, glad I never even suggested it *NM* - 29/03/2011 02:13:39 PM 365 Views
I think you just made my point - 29/03/2011 02:16:19 AM 816 Views
Eh forget it. Not worth my time. *NM* - 29/03/2011 03:10:03 AM 846 Views
proably true. I should know better than to fight faith with reason - 29/03/2011 03:15:49 AM 880 Views
I'm not here to debate doggie sex *NM* - 29/03/2011 03:15:56 AM 729 Views
that is good because from what I can tell the subject escapes you - 29/03/2011 02:34:37 PM 817 Views
Considering that it's much harder to fix females than males - 28/03/2011 10:07:47 PM 813 Views
how hard it is makes zero differience - 29/03/2011 02:25:17 AM 795 Views
I think that last bit was uncalled for. *NM* - 29/03/2011 04:15:44 AM 331 Views
not at all - 29/03/2011 01:23:03 PM 804 Views
For the uneducated of us (i.e. me) - 28/03/2011 09:40:07 PM 823 Views
Vasectomy: sterile but will still want to mate. Neutered: no mating behavior at all. *NM* - 28/03/2011 09:56:41 PM 381 Views
Someone needs to sit my dog down and explain this to him. - 28/03/2011 09:59:25 PM 745 Views
you probably had him cut to late - 29/03/2011 02:27:49 AM 792 Views

Reply to Message