Jump to content
FootprintsinSand

Dogs are sentient beings

59 posts in this topic

Snook   
10 hours ago, ish said:

I heard one of the animal lib representatives use this phrase on telly and it’s really stuck with me (because it’s such bullshit, not because it’s deep & thought provoking)

In the past 6 months I’ve had my 2 very old dogs put to sleep. Did they want to die? I’d say no, though I didn’t ask them. Once, I put a dog to sleep for behavioural reasons, she definitely didn’t want to die - she was young and healthy. Is there ever an animal who wants to die? 

We, the humans, get to make the call and get to make it humane for their best interests. My animals definitely passed away humanely, despite any protests about it anyone not involved in their situation could imagine they had. 

 

I wonder if you’ll  remember those words to yourself when it comes time for you to say goodbye to your pets?

Good cherry picking of a few words without their context. I was talking about animals that are used for food, not our pets. You can't euthanise cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc with the drugs we use to humanely euthanise our pets, if people are going to eat them. I'm not aware of any humane method of killing animals that people are going to eat and if that's bullshit, please let me know what those methods are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we kill our own meat , the particular animal is dispatched with a firearm  as it is still grazing, or whatever .It is in its familiar surroundings, where it was born . 
For those interested ....there is an excellent book .

Quote

 "A vegan-turned-hunter explores the connections between humans and their food sources, inviting us to reconsider what it means to eat.

While still in high school, Tovar Cerulli began to experiment with vegetarianism. By the age of twenty, he was a vegan. Ten years later, in the face of declining health, he found himself heading into the woods, rifle in hand.

Through his personal quest, Cerulli bridges the seemingly disparate worldviews of hunting and vegetarianism: Can fishing and hunting be respectful ways for humans to connect with nature and their food? How harmless is vegetarianism? How do we make peace with the fact that life is sustained by death?
At once compassionate and probing, THE MINDFUL CARNIVORE draws on personal anecdotes, philosophy, history, and religion, offering fresh, thought-provoking ideas about the food on our plates."

from GOODREADS


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snook   
56 minutes ago, persephone said:

When we kill our own meat , the particular animal is dispatched with a firearm  as it is still grazing, or whatever .It is in its familiar surroundings, where it was born . 
For those interested ....there is an excellent book .


 

That's how some extended family members who have a small farm said they kill their animals. I'm still not sure I'd call it humane, especially for those animals who don't die instantly, but it's infinitely better than a slaughterhouse. It's interesting that there would be an uproar if that was how people started killing their pets, instead of taking them to the vet, but most people don't feel the same way when it's other sentient creatures. I remember when I was involved with some rescues years ago, the massive outcry when it became known that a more rural council was killing dogs by shooting them.

 

I'm a lot less uncomfortable with the idea of people killing animals on an as needed basis for their own consumption, than I am with the mass production and slaughter of animals that has become the norm. There would certainly be a lot less animals with miserable lives and a terrifying or painful death, if everyone had to go out and kill and prepare their own meat. I'm betting that you'd suddenly have a lot more vegetarians/vegans though, at least in the cities and suburbia. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Snook said:

I'm still not sure I'd call it humane,

I do, in our case as it is absolutely instant ..and no one around them usually notices. As an aside , because there is zero stress the meat is of better quality .

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snook   
23 minutes ago, persephone said:

I do, in our case as it is absolutely instant ..and no one around them usually notices. As an aside , because there is zero stress the meat is of better quality .

Instant is good, as is it not scaring any of the other animals. I would hope that everyone who kills animals this way is skilled enough to also make it instant. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   

what this route is going to do, is open the door to the taking of any animal regardless of  health and condition score, having access to food and water, clean living area will open end the number being seized and euthanased because they are "neglected" because not walked often enough and or "traumatised" because they dont greet every stranger as a new best friend and that is going to achieve what?  more income for solicitors and "welfare charities"

 

what does it achieve for the animals taken?

 

well in the case of the border collies in sa the magistrate signed off on every one of those taken being destroyed based on their being shy. on the grounds they might become savage?

 

yet kangaroos will not be allowed to be called sentient beings, solely because the law wants to still be able to issue permission to cull them, truth sure is stranger than fiction all right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   

what this route is going to do, is open the door to the taking of any animal regardless of  health and condition score, having access to food and water, clean living area will open end the number being seized and euthanased because they are "neglected" because not walked often enough and or "traumatised" because they dont greet every stranger as a new best friend and that is going to achieve what?  more income for solicitors and "welfare charities"

 

what does it achieve for the animals taken?

 

well in the case of the border collies in sa the magistrate signed off on every one of those taken being destroyed based on their being shy. on the grounds they might become savage?

 

yet kangaroos will not be allowed to be called sentient beings, solely because the law wants to still be able to issue permission to cull them, truth sure is stranger than fiction all right

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For enforcement and prosecution, how does a state/territory law stand up against federal? Meaning POCTAA. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 12:19 PM, Snook said:

Instant is good, as is it not scaring any of the other animals. I would hope that everyone who kills animals this way is skilled enough to also make it instant. 

You know we really don't have to eat animals. I have been a pesco-vegetarian (not a vegan) for seven years and my health is excellent for someone in their middle to late seventies. I do eat a lot of chick peas and lentils and I drink soy milk with calcium added. I don't eat eggs but I do eat fish once a week and I have a little milk in my coffee. I really don't need meat but unfortunately my dogs do and I have to cope with that. As some early posters have said people are eating too much meat and it is shameful to see it being thrown away. I also think people eating less meat would be better for our environment as fewer grazing animals and more growing of vegetables and legumes etc would be better for the planet.

 

Sorry powerlegs we posted at the same time.

Edited by FootprintsinSand
I changed vegetarian to pesco-vegetarian which more accurately describes my diet. More information can be found here https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/pescatarian-diet#section2
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snook   
1 hour ago, FootprintsinSand said:

You know we really don't have to eat animals. I have been a vegetarian (not a vegan) for seven years and my health is excellent for someone in their middle to late seventies. I do eat a lot of chick peas and lentils and I drink soy milk with calcium added. I don't eat eggs but I do eat fish once a week and I have a little milk in my coffee. I really don't need meat but unfortunately my dogs do and I have to cope with that. As some early posters have said people are eating too much meat and it is shameful to see it being thrown away. I also think people eating less meat would be better for our environment as fewer grazing animals and more growing of vegetables and legumes etc would be better for the planet.

 

Sorry powerlegs we posted at the same time.

I don't eat meat either. I did manage to go vegan for several months but couldn't sustain it for reasons I won't go in to on a public post. Even when I did eat meat I still had low iron and low B12, which are the main nutritional arguments for eating meat, and had to supplement. Eating meat or not eating meat makes no difference to my health, so I prefer to not eat it. 

 

Edit: Just adding that my dog is on a raw BARF diet and although it grosses me out, it's what's best for him. I strongly disagree with people who feed their dogs vegetarian/vegan diets. 

Edited by Snook
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was vegetarian for some years - but do enjoy being an omnivore :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

I'm an omnivore... and mindful of waste... I eat leftovers, and always ask for a doggy bag if out and the meal has been too big to eat in one sitting. Think of it as a free lunch... lol!

 

I don't produce much waste for my bins either... it's not uncommon for me to take a month to fill my red bin enough to warrant putting it out for pickup.

 

My job requires me to be mindful of all relevant laws, regulations, and codes of practice relating to the animals in my care... and I am tasked with maintaining best practice at all times for them.

 

My personal pet dogs really don't fancy being taken out for walks, or on leads full stop really... so we have playtime in the yard for their exercise requirements instead. They do like going for car rides, so sometimes for a treat, they get a ride for 10 mins or so, then they race back inside and ensconce themselves on their fave pieces of furniture and dream happy dog dreams... hehe!

 

I'm not a fan of blanket rules/regulations enforcing some namby-pamby idea that all animals of a certain type will benefit from the same regimes/treatment. Apart from the 5 freedoms, most other things should be based on individual animal needs/requirements IMHO.

 

T.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   
On 15/05/2019 at 9:56 AM, Snook said:

Good cherry picking of a few words without their context. I was talking about animals that are used for food, not our pets. You can't euthanise cows, pigs, sheep, chickens etc with the drugs we use to humanely euthanise our pets, if people are going to eat them. I'm not aware of any humane method of killing animals that people are going to eat and if that's bullshit, please let me know what those methods are. 

you have missed a bit, when the rspca shot Ruth downeys cattle, they "euthanised" them.

 

when the rspca chap shot the 175 Murry Grey cattle he "euthanised" them. When they shoot them they still say they "euthanised" them.  It does not necessarily mean a dose of green dream as so many assume.

 

so when the abattoir stuns and kills the animals there, they too were "euthanised" its just the sanitary word for killing them.

 

Yet we constantly hear how cruel the knackery is for shooting the horses and cattle they "euthanise" in exactly the same manner and the two rspca inspectors "euthanised" ruths and the murray gray studs cattle?

 

The big difference being, Knackery's kill them in a crate with one shot to the head, that is law..... many of Ruths were gut shot first as they ran through a 12 foot gate and finished off with up to 2 more shots..(try it some time, its incredibly hard to do a single to the head shot as they run through a gate).. If you did that you would be charged, because its illegal to do so. If you did that its not called "euthanised" it is called aggravated cruelty?

 

cant figure how to down load the photo.

 

but page 25 is him standing at the gate shooting them, the black cow is going down after he fired. oops "euthanised" her......  just scroll to the page... dont read the story. too upsetting. The writer couldn't keep himself to just the facts. so very over emotional writing.

 

https://cairnsnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-ruth-downey-inquisition-1.pdf

 

page 26 is taken of him "finishing her off"   ooops............ I mean "euthanising" her for the second time.  So lucky cows aren't sentient isn't she?

 

 

 

Edited by asal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   

on another note.

 

interesting read ankc site this morning

 

It's okay, he's friendly
23 April · 

The fall of the dog. During the Victorian era, the notion of dogs as household pets emerged. They became synonymous with family life. In the last few decades, they were burdened with the task of being a mini human trapped inside a dog's body. As such, effective tools are now viewed as cruel. Pretty much everything is cruel to dogs currently. Unless you're plying them with food, affection, toys and entertainment, they're probably abused. Slip lead? Cruel. Prong collars? Cruel. Ecollar? Cruel. Physical correction with hand? Cruel. Bonker? Cruel. Spatial pressure? Cruel. Expecting dog to obey and conform? Cruel.

I know thousands of dog owners online who are all struggling with one or more of these: reactivity, aggression, stubborn behaviour, excitement, humping, resource guarding, livestock worrying, stealing food, pulling and dragging owner on walk, digging holes, barking, escaping, nipping, fence fighting, anxiety, fear, nervousness, over excitement etc. They're usually very far from achieving resolution. I believe they will mostly never find solutions. Because the solutions they're given need lots and lots and lots of time, energy and effort. If you're employed, raising children, not in excellent health, do anything but train dogs for a living... you're not going to resolve many serious behaviour issues with one hour of training a day. Thankfully the tranquillisers, anti depressants, CBD oil and pheromone collars might subdue the dog artificially. Ultimately though, these dogs will typically be chaotic and hard to handle outdoors.

The dog used to be viewed as vermin, or useful for real life problem solving eg pest control, guarding, helping to hunt, pull carts or track scents. Slowly slowly, his status altered to domestic pet. He often lived outdoors, was chained, or lived indoors without being humanised to the level of toddler. Now, of course, as we approach the height of this destructive thinking, we see that all forms of correction are all bad. I just read some drivel in psychologytoday that tried to pass off a sham piece of student research as a genuine work. The work of an undergraduate en route to acquiring a masters degree at a low ranked 'university'. The funny little dissertation research was scaffolded by the academic comedy of Victoria Stilwell, Jean Donaldson, studies from 1908 involving... mice, and plenty of very old studies from psychology journals. Despite using heavy bias and deceit, the conclusion was paraded like the Emperor's New Clothes: Hear ye hear ye! The guardians of the dog hereby herald that saying NO to a dog or indicating error to a dog when training a new behaviour is bad. It renders the dog unable to perform anywhere near the ability of a dog who's ONLY given praise and reward. So yes, saying NO is also cruel.

Everything is cyclical in life. Nothing ever lasts. Sanity vanished and left in its place emotional hysteria and academic fraud. But the dog who is a predator, continues to struggle to understand why he's so useless, frustrated, bored, misunderstood and having to lead his owner minute by minute. Leading his owner on walks, initiating interaction, having to defend his belongings and space from his owner and others and generally take charge. It's a lot for a baby or toddler in dog fur to cope with. The fur babies are therefore becoming more and more erratic. Their fur moms are even more upset. Emotion layered over emotion.

Dog attacks in the UK have increased despite BSL. How many sheep attacks have you read about just this year alone? How many harrowing reports of children being savaged by fur babies have you read about? Heard about fur babies attacking lots of other fur babies too? Heard about the off lead fur babies constantly harassing leashed fur babies? The dog is slowly but surely returning to his much earlier status of vermin. He will once again be the scary, unpredictable and avoided figure he used to be.

Don't believe me? Visit all the dog reactivity, enrichment, training, appreciation and fan groups. The same stories over and over again. Thousands and thousands of worn out owners who can't understand why fur baby Rover is so unreasonable. Owners who are returning or rehoming their fur babies. Owners who are having them killed. Owners who live with several fur babies all living in separate rooms. Owners whose fur babies are aggressive to their human babies.

The dog was elevated to the status of fur human and is en route back to his old status as that animal you avoided.

 
 
 
  •  
    L W Sorry. I think it’s BS. I trained the Old way with a correction chain and I was very good at it. My dogs received lots of obedience titles and they looked pretty miserable doing it. I changed to clicker training and raised my dogs the same, no force, just trust and respect and clear expectations and boundaries. And guess what. My clicker trained dogs are just as obedient, have more titles and love what they do. Good trainers/owners have good dogs. Poor owners and trainers have poorly behaved dogs. Same goes for kids. You don’t need to be abusive to have trust and respect and don’t blame the methods or tools. I’m sure these people who had poorly behaved dogs existed, there was no Facebook forums for them to be on. Hell we had a dog when I grew up as a kid that bit both my siblings and the neighbor. But nobody cared back them and that’s just what dogs did.
Edited by asal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maddy   
On 16/05/2019 at 10:28 AM, FootprintsinSand said:

You know we really don't have to eat animals. I have been a vegetarian (not a vegan) for seven years and my health is excellent for someone in their middle to late seventies. I do eat a lot of chick peas and lentils and I drink soy milk with calcium added. I don't eat eggs but I do eat fish once a week and I have a little milk in my coffee. I really don't need meat but unfortunately my dogs do and I have to cope with that. As some early posters have said people are eating too much meat and it is shameful to see it being thrown away. I also think people eating less meat would be better for our environment as fewer grazing animals and more growing of vegetables and legumes etc would be better for the planet.

 

Sorry powerlegs we posted at the same time.

Sorry, but you are not a vegetarian. You're eating an animal that may have been suffocated to death, crushed to death under the weight of other fish, frozen to death or otherwise caught/killed in a way that would be totally unacceptable if the animal in question was cute and furry. A fish is not a vegetable.

The way fish are harvested (or farmed, in the case of things like salmon) is horrendously inhumane, destructive and wasteful. And if you want to talk about environmental harm, commercial fishing is responsible for a considerable amount of it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snook   
1 hour ago, asal said:

you have missed a bit, when the rspca shot Ruth downeys cattle, they "euthanised" them.

 

when the rspca chap shot the 175 Murry Grey cattle he "euthanised" them. When they shoot them they still say they "euthanised" them.  It does not necessarily mean a dose of green dream as so many assume.

 

so when the abattoir stuns and kills the animals there, they too were "euthanised" its just the sanitary word for killing them.

 

Yet we constantly hear how cruel the knackery is for shooting the horses and cattle they "euthanise" in exactly the same manner and the two rspca inspectors "euthanised" ruths and the murray gray studs cattle?

 

The big difference being, Knackery's kill them in a crate with one shot to the head, that is law..... many of Ruths were gut shot first as they ran through a 12 foot gate and finished off with up to 2 more shots..(try it some time, its incredibly hard to do a single to the head shot as they run through a gate).. If you did that you would be charged, because its illegal to do so. If you did that its not called "euthanised" it is called aggravated cruelty?

 

cant figure how to down load the photo.

 

but page 25 is him standing at the gate shooting them, the black cow is going down after he fired. oops "euthanised" her......  just scroll to the page... dont read the story. too upsetting. The writer couldn't keep himself to just the facts. so very over emotional writing.

 

https://cairnsnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-ruth-downey-inquisition-1.pdf

 

page 26 is taken of him "finishing her off"   ooops............ I mean "euthanising" her for the second time.  So lucky cows aren't sentient isn't she?

 

 

 

What I actually said was that you can't euthanise animals humanely with the drugs we use for our pets, if the the intention is to eat the animal. I didn't specify that drugs are the only means of euthanasia. Euthanasia is about ending the suffering of sick or old animals (including humans), not about a specific method. Killing healthy animals for food is not euthanasia. 

 

As for your efforts to drag the RSPCA in to every single discussion on this forum, I don't care who's pulling the trigger, what you described is inhumane and cruel. And we really don't need photos of it if you're still trying to add them. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   
1 hour ago, Snook said:

What I actually said was that you can't euthanise animals humanely with the drugs we use for our pets, if the the intention is to eat the animal. I didn't specify that drugs are the only means of euthanasia. Euthanasia is about ending the suffering of sick or old animals (including humans), not about a specific method. Killing healthy animals for food is not euthanasia. 

 

As for your efforts to drag the RSPCA in to every single discussion on this forum, I don't care who's pulling the trigger, what you described is inhumane and cruel. And we really don't need photos of it if you're still trying to add them. 

do not intend to. they can look at them if want to on the link and if they say its euthanasia then why should I not quote them? They are the experts remember. They are the ones our politicians are asking how to draft legislation.

 

seems the badge makes all the difference.

Perhaps instead of hiring slaughter people at abbotiors they should be hiring special constables and then not only RSPCA approved but also euthanised . the demonstrators wouldn't have a leg to stand on then and no more shut downs surely?

 

none of the animals shot were aged or sick, nor intended to be eaten. as for the drugs they only look a peaceful end because among the mix is the key ingredient that does the peaceful look.. totally paralyses all the muscles so no tremors to be seen.

 

leave that out, they are dead just as swiftly my vet assured me. but he was short that one ingredient that day.

 

the difference was heartbreaking for me no matter how much he assured me she really was dead and no longer suffering. she twitched and her body struggled to breathe for what seemed like forever, still have nighmares.. its all in the presentation 

 

He assured me continually, she never suffered and was gone. 

Edited by asal
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snook   

I'm aware that the euthanasia drugs don't always result in a peaceful death and I intend to have my dog sedated by the vet before he's given those drugs, when the time comes. I'm sorry that you experienced such a traumatic euthanasia of your dog. It would have been very distressing. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebanne   
35 minutes ago, Snook said:

I'm aware that the euthanasia drugs don't always result in a peaceful death and I intend to have my dog sedated by the vet before he's given those drugs, when the time comes. I'm sorry that you experienced such a traumatic euthanasia of your dog. It would have been very distressing. 

Snook please speak to your vet in advance about sedating first. My vet says sedating can slow down the effect of the drug as the heart is slower to pump. In saying that I did have one dog sedated first as he was a greyhound and he didn't sit and was standing and the vet (locum) was worried he would move when it came time to inject the euthanising drug. He didn't. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snook   
13 minutes ago, Rebanne said:

Snook please speak to your vet in advance about sedating first. My vet says sedating can slow down the effect of the drug as the heart is slower to pump. In saying that I did have one dog sedated first as he was a greyhound and he didn't sit and was standing and the vet (locum) was worried he would move when it came time to inject the euthanising drug. He didn't. 

Thank you for sharing that. Justice has had the same vet for about 10 years and I trust her knowledge and advice, so I'll certainly talk to her about it first. She's also the kind of person who would raise any concerns she had about sedating first, if I asked her to do it without prior discussion. When the time comes, I just want to make it as easy and painless for my boy as possible. I appreciate you letting me know that sedation might not be as straight forward in this particular process as I've been led to believe. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×