Animal Cruelty? - Page 4

ninjatoth · October 23, 2009, 11:09 AM

I wonder if it was cruel to save a cats life like I did.I walked out to the barn and found a litter of ice cold kittens,there was about 4-5 kittens,all stiff.I went to pick them up and all the sudden one just came alive,it was cold,almost stiff,but meowing loud,so I took it in the house and warmed it up and began drop feeding it with milk,it was only a day or 2 old.Well,it survived,and 6 years later that cat is still around going strong,but,it is very slow.It is retarded,can't purr,can't meow now,it's just dumb,I have seen it run right into the path of dogs,etc.Luckily we got it fixed so that she couldn't have babies.If she had babies she probably wouldn't be able to take care of them.It's nickname is dumdum,but what have I created?

orangello · October 23, 2009, 01:59 PM

^^^ Tough call in my opinion; i wouldn't want to live life at half speed, mentally speaking. Of course, i seriously doubt the cat realizes it is dumb, and i doubt the other cats are smart enough to make fun of its lack of mental abilities. Does this mean all mentally ill children should be "put down"; certainly not. It's probably good i don't have kids.

hogdogs · October 23, 2009, 02:19 PM

I have done CPR on new born pups knowing they might "not be all there upstairs" from oxygen loss... thus far none have gone on to survive more than a few days so i don't know but I tried my best. The ones born to sorry mothers were the last as I won't continue to feed a gyp dog that is a poor mother.
To me it shows they lack a genetic trait required of superior specimens of any specie...
I guess mrs.h-dogs spoiled me there...
Brent

ninjatoth · October 23, 2009, 02:27 PM

one thing I forgot to mention about the cat is,that it's mother was abandoned,and needed shots to save it's life,so her mother was a small cat stunted,so when that little mother had kittens,she abandoned them,which is how we got dumdum.

wyobohunter · October 24, 2009, 12:14 AM

My wife called me at work because she couldn't find our dog... She was worried that she may have ran down to the highway & got hit. I came home early (for my wifes sake) to look for the dog. She caught me stuffing shells into the shotgun and was extremely alarmed. "She might be lost in the woods and the bears have been gettin' the guy down the roads' chickens" I explained. Yeah, that was true, but (also) a single slug is way cheaper than a vet bill can be. Not that I'd have shot the dog if it were a minor injury, but if we're talkin' intensive care treatment I've put her out of her misery. My wife is from the city part of Florida and hasn't been around farms, ranches or hunting right up until she moved to Wyoming. She actually cried (sobbing cries) when she saw me stomp on a wounded Grouse's head to finish it off. I didn't know she was watching me out the window. Again, not cruel IMO, fast and effective. The wife will eat game and fish I bring home, but she'll take no part in the harvest. She, as many on this forum do, feels that it is cruel to shoot/kill animals that I have no intention of eating. I'm not at war with varmints at all, but I'll shoot the occasional Coyote and would like to take one each of a really nice Wolf, Lynx and Wolverine. I'm hopin' & prayin' that my two daughters aren't quite as "tender hearted".

tyrajam · October 24, 2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

People have no rights they do not imbue upon themselves. People that live in this country seem t forget that.

That is the new progressive thinking that is ruining our country. When our founders wrote our constitution, they deliberately decided to add that we are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights". It doesn't matter if anyone is religious or not, the brilliance of this is that if God gave us our rights, only God can take them away. If our rights come from people, then people can take our rights away. This whole new philosophy is about giving people (government) the power to take away our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

shortwave · October 24, 2009, 11:03 AM

wyobohunter, IMO, thats sensible. Cruelty would be not putting that animal out of its misery. Again, IMO, sometimes people get so attached to their pets they fail to foresee the quality of life the pet will have after repairs are made by a vet on an injury/illness sustained by the animal. Its almost a since of thinking with your heart instead of your head which usually translates into human selfishness. A friend of mine has a 16yr. old lab thats does nothing but lay and whine due to its arthritis. Also dogs all but blind. Friend has to carry dog outside to do its business and more often than not, friend has to hand feed dog cause dog hurts to bad to get up and make it to its bowl. He can`t bring himself to take dog to vet and do the responsible thing and has even told me it needs to be done. I've offered to take dog to vet but to no avail. To me thats cruel.

MLeake · October 24, 2009, 11:04 AM

... with regard to the .22 to the head being an efficient, instant killer, the Bobby Kennedy assassination is a really bad example.

After being shot in the head, and after Sirhan Sirhan was subdued by Rafer Johnson and Rosey Grier, among others, Kennedy was still not only alive but conscious. He asked, "Is everybody safe, OK?" He was conscious for several minutes thereafter.

This is not a good argument for the quick, humane effect of a .22.

As far as veterinary euthanasia goes, we've learned through unpleasant experience that a bit of planning goes a long way. With a little prior coordination, the vet now prepares a painkiller and soporific mix of drugs. The initial shot calms and quiets the dog, and there's no pain reaction whatever to the lethal injection.

All things being equal, the only way my pets would be put down by a firearm would be if there were an accident or attack involving massive, unsurvivable trauma in a remote location.

Uncle Buck · October 24, 2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Any thread involving ethics should be closed IMO. Nothing to gain.

I have to disagree with you on this one. So long as their are no personal attacks and the dialogue remains on topic, it is not only interesting (at least to those of us who have posted), but also tries to get someone else's point of view into question.

I wonder if ethics should be taught in schools, but then the problem is, whose ethics do you teach.

What better place to discuss ethics about firearms and hunting than a forum dealing with this topic?

I have stated my feelings on the ethic of hunting and I look forward to hearing everyone else's. I think some of them are misplaced or misunderstood, but I respect their right to voice the opinion. Some of the folks here I would love to hunt with, others I would shoot with, but not hunt.

It helps us explain and understand things like "I am a farmer, a hunter and a conservationist." A lot of people think a conservationist should not hunt. I feel a true conservationist needs to hunt, or allow hunting, because there are a great many stories of dear herds starving because of overpopulation. I remember as a kid they did something about hunting in Mass., basically stopping it, and the next year the power companies where having a hard time because the squirrel population had gotten out of control and were shorting out transformers and things.

I would love to see a mountain lion or a wolf. But I know what a bobcat and coyotes do to my livestock. Again, for me it comes down to finances. I can not afford to let wild animals eat my livestock, but I can afford to plant grasses and bushes that encourage quail to nest along the fields. (I do not hunt quail.)

I could cut the dead trees down on the property and sell the fire wood, or I can leave them there and let the wild birds and bats nest in them when they begin to rot.

I put up bird houses and bat houses around my place and give them to friends. We all have our little way of helping the wildlife and be conservationist.

But unlike some people I will never believe it is OK to burn down a housing development to stop people from moving in to the country (Their version of it). I do not believe any animal has more rights than a person. I also believe that a person who owns animals or hunts animals have certain responsibilities to the animals they keep or hunt.

So again, so long as we keep the name calling to something reasonable and the discussion intelligent, I feel I at least benefit from it.

cat9x · October 24, 2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Its almost a since of thinking with your heart instead of your head which usually translates into human selfishness.

Does it not bother people that pets in this country experience a better quality of life, better medical treatment, better nutrition, and more legal rights than millions of human beings in third world countries? To me that's cruelty.

shortwave · October 24, 2009, 01:15 PM

. cat9x, please explain.

2DaMtns · October 24, 2009, 09:17 PM

Quote:

As far as veterinary euthanasia goes, we've learned through unpleasant experience that a bit of planning goes a long way. With a little prior coordination, the vet now prepares a painkiller and soporific mix of drugs. The initial shot calms and quiets the dog, and there's no pain reaction whatever to the lethal injection.

This is the way I usually recommend to have it done also. It makes a huge difference, better for the animal, better for the owner, better for the vet.

Quote:

Does it not bother people that pets in this country experience a better quality of life, better medical treatment, better nutrition, and more legal rights than millions of human beings in third world countries? To me that's cruelty.

I bet your car, guns, house, or any other item you may own gets better care than most people in these same third world countries. Does that also constitute cruelty to you? Also, the reason we are so advanced in our medical care has a lot to do with veterinary medicine. Had any rabies, black plague, intestinal parasites, or anything like that lately? No? Then thank a vet. Have you had to pay $50 a pound for ground beef lately? No? Then thank a vet. We do a lot more to help you than you probably realize. And it's up to the owner of the animal to decide how to spend their money. If you think it's ridiculous that someone will spend $2000 to save an animal's life rather than donate it to a charity to help a person in a third world country, then make the sacrifice the next time your car needs a new transmission, or you want a new gun. Then, I will give creedence to your argument. Until then, it is meaningless and only has to do with how people elect to spend their money.

wyobohunter · October 24, 2009, 09:48 PM

Quote:

the only way my pets would be put down by a firearm would be if there were an accident or attack involving massive, unsurvivable trauma in a remote location

I was living in Ninilchik at the time so, it was over an hour to any vet. Also, I think a shotgun slug to the brain is likely just as painless as anything a vet can administer, but a whole lot cheaper.

cat9x · October 25, 2009, 12:51 AM

Quote:

I bet your car, guns, house, or any other item you may own gets better care than most people in these same third world countries. Does that also constitute cruelty to you? Also, the reason we are so advanced in our medical care has a lot to do with veterinary medicine. Had any rabies, black plague, intestinal parasites, or anything like that lately? No? Then thank a vet. Have you had to pay $50 a pound for ground beef lately? No? Then thank a vet. We do a lot more to help you than you probably realize. And it's up to the owner of the animal to decide how to spend their money. If you think it's ridiculous that someone will spend $2000 to save an animal's life rather than donate it to a charity to help a person in a third world country, then make the sacrifice the next time your car needs a new transmission, or you want a new gun. Then, I will give creedence to your argument. Until then, it is meaningless and only has to do with how people elect to spend their money

I never said I was not guilty of this, only pointing out the obvious, sad, truth.

Art Eatman · October 25, 2009, 10:34 AM

Watching perceptions is fun, whether animal cruelty or lifestyle needs.

PETA and HSUS go berzerkoid against our system which spends billions of dollars per year on animal care and vet bills, etc. Why don't they go to northeast Asia? After all, the Korean word for "dog" is "supper". (I'll never forget my startlement, back in 1954, seeing a Korean man carrying a smallish dog. The four paws were tied together like a suitcase handle, making it an easy tote.)

Mleake, okay, but I've read for years that the brain doesn't feel pain. Regardless, I wouldn't drive the 90 miles from my house to the nearest vet.

ZeroJunk · October 25, 2009, 10:41 AM

If you shoot an animal in the head the muscle spasms can go on for a while. Matter of fact a hog can almost break your leg if you start messing with him too soon. Personally, I don't want to look at it on a pet whether my mind says they can't feel it or not.

hogdogs · October 25, 2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Personally, I don't want to look at it on a pet whether my mind says they can't feel it or not.

I do not want to look on at the demise of any animal especially a pet or hunting dog. But I do feel the responsibility is mine and mine alone to "take care of business" for the purpose of gathering meat or easing the suffering of a pet.
Brent

ZeroJunk · October 25, 2009, 11:15 AM

Quote:

I do not want to look on at the demise of any animal especially a pet or hunting dog. But I do feel the responsibility is mine and mine alone to "take care of business" for the purpose of gathering meat or easing the suffering of a pet.
Brent

I know. But, if it doesn't need to be done right that second the vet is only two miles away and I had just as soon give him sixty bucks. That's whay my wife did with the $7000 cat or $7060 cat, I suppose.

shortwave · October 25, 2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

I never said I was not guilty of this, only pointing out the obvious, sad truth.

To bring up the demise of third world countries or to apologize for how the U.S. spends its money,right or wrong, is not only thread veer, its an insult. The trillions of dollars and blood spent in third world countries by the U.S. has been astronomical. I`ll stop for now as I just watched 'We Were Soldiers' and am a bit sideways. Don`t want to offend anyone!

ninjatoth · October 25, 2009, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Does it not bother people that pets in this country experience a better quality of life, better medical treatment, better nutrition, and more legal rights than millions of human beings in third world countries? To me that's cruelty.

This sums up my attitude on things.Don't get me wrong,I have no problem with someone helping animals,but what I do have is a problem with is when someone who won't give to human charities,but will give to animal ones.If someone gives to an animal charity and also gives to human charities,that's fine,but people are first.

2DaMtns · October 25, 2009, 04:01 PM

I still maintain that it's just about how people spend their money. Would you rather someone spend $5000 gambling in Vegas before they donate it to the animal charities? If you buy a friend or family member a gift and spend $500 on it and don't donate an equal amount to a charity, then you are as much at fault as the people who donate to animal charities before human charities.

zahnzieh · October 28, 2009, 12:52 AM

I have known hunters who "hunt" cruelly. There are other psychological issues going on with these people - issues of control, blood lust, anger. They also project that cruelty oftentimes to their pets, even children. I refuse to hunt with people like that.

orangello · October 30, 2009, 10:27 AM

"Does it not bother people that pets in this country experience a better quality of life, better medical treatment, better nutrition, and more legal rights than millions of human beings in third world countries? To me that's cruelty."

"This sums up my attitude on things.Don't get me wrong,I have no problem with someone helping animals,but what I do have is a problem with is when someone who won't give to human charities,but will give to animal ones.If someone gives to an animal charity and also gives to human charities,that's fine,but people are first."

Tolerance guys, tolerance; not everyone shares the same values for different things such as people in foreign lands or pets or feral cats & dogs. Why should everyone have to share the same values for such things? This is my personal problem with certain religions or more precisely with the more conservative parts of some religions (not politically "conservative", more like "less tolerant of differing opinions"); people have the right (whoever/whatever gave it) to their own opinions and beliefs. I personally don't much care about the starving children in Africa, though hunger in this country matters to me greatly. I personally don't feel the need to support Bible ministry to other countries, as i am not a Christian myself (though i do appreciate that the Bible provides very good guidelines for living).

Should i have to support the foreign ministry of Muslim groups even though i am not a Muslim? I don't think so; i think i should support whatever causes I deem needy or appropriate. To do otherwise is basically a lie in my opinion. If a group went door-to-door demanding that all decent people pitch in to help build a levee system in Death Valley to save its inhabitants from the risk of astronomically unlikely flooding, would i be wrong to say "no thanks"? Free will FTW.

Brasscatcher84 · October 30, 2009, 10:35 AM

I've never subscribed to the notion that animals have rights, but I may have to change my opinion after the last election. I'm pretty sure there were some animals that voted for Obama with ACORN's help.

zombieslayer · October 30, 2009, 10:38 AM

I've save many animal's lives. I hunt, but animal cruelty just gets under my skin. My dad raised walker hounds for hunting deer, and I can't hunt with dogs to this day. After hunting season, you can drive out and find starving, lost, abandoned dogs that either couldn't be found or were just left cause they weren't useful anymore. I have a retarded cat that was recued, too

. I was raised to eat what I hunt (for the most part).

October 24, 2009, 12:14 AM	#80
wyobohunter Senior Member Join Date: August 21, 2008 Location: Back in Wyoming Posts: 1,125	Cruel or sensible? My wife called me at work because she couldn't find our dog... She was worried that she may have ran down to the highway & got hit. I came home early (for my wifes sake) to look for the dog. She caught me stuffing shells into the shotgun and was extremely alarmed. "She might be lost in the woods and the bears have been gettin' the guy down the roads' chickens" I explained. Yeah, that was true, but (also) a single slug is way cheaper than a vet bill can be. Not that I'd have shot the dog if it were a minor injury, but if we're talkin' intensive care treatment I've put her out of her misery. My wife is from the city part of Florida and hasn't been around farms, ranches or hunting right up until she moved to Wyoming. She actually cried (sobbing cries) when she saw me stomp on a wounded Grouse's head to finish it off. I didn't know she was watching me out the window. Again, not cruel IMO, fast and effective. The wife will eat game and fish I bring home, but she'll take no part in the harvest. She, as many on this forum do, feels that it is cruel to shoot/kill animals that I have no intention of eating. I'm not at war with varmints at all, but I'll shoot the occasional Coyote and would like to take one each of a really nice Wolf, Lynx and Wolverine. I'm hopin' & prayin' that my two daughters aren't quite as "tender hearted". Last edited by wyobohunter; October 24, 2009 at 12:22 AM.

October 24, 2009, 11:04 AM	#83
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Art Eatman... ... with regard to the .22 to the head being an efficient, instant killer, the Bobby Kennedy assassination is a really bad example. After being shot in the head, and after Sirhan Sirhan was subdued by Rafer Johnson and Rosey Grier, among others, Kennedy was still not only alive but conscious. He asked, "Is everybody safe, OK?" He was conscious for several minutes thereafter. This is not a good argument for the quick, humane effect of a .22. As far as veterinary euthanasia goes, we've learned through unpleasant experience that a bit of planning goes a long way. With a little prior coordination, the vet now prepares a painkiller and soporific mix of drugs. The initial shot calms and quiets the dog, and there's no pain reaction whatever to the lethal injection. All things being equal, the only way my pets would be put down by a firearm would be if there were an accident or attack involving massive, unsurvivable trauma in a remote location.

October 30, 2009, 10:38 AM	#100
zombieslayer Senior Member Join Date: September 11, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,198	I've save many animal's lives. I hunt, but animal cruelty just gets under my skin. My dad raised walker hounds for hunting deer, and I can't hunt with dogs to this day. After hunting season, you can drive out and find starving, lost, abandoned dogs that either couldn't be found or were just left cause they weren't useful anymore. I have a retarded cat that was recued, too. I was raised to eat what I hunt (for the most part). __________________ "An angry prophet, denouncing the hypocrisies of our time"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

October 23, 2009, 11:09 AM	#76
ninjatoth Junior member Join Date: March 21, 2009 Location: sanford,mi Posts: 590	I wonder if it was cruel to save a cats life like I did.I walked out to the barn and found a litter of ice cold kittens,there was about 4-5 kittens,all stiff.I went to pick them up and all the sudden one just came alive,it was cold,almost stiff,but meowing loud,so I took it in the house and warmed it up and began drop feeding it with milk,it was only a day or 2 old.Well,it survived,and 6 years later that cat is still around going strong,but,it is very slow.It is retarded,can't purr,can't meow now,it's just dumb,I have seen it run right into the path of dogs,etc.Luckily we got it fixed so that she couldn't have babies.If she had babies she probably wouldn't be able to take care of them.It's nickname is dumdum,but what have I created?

October 23, 2009, 01:59 PM	#77
orangello Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2009 Posts: 566	^^^ Tough call in my opinion; i wouldn't want to live life at half speed, mentally speaking. Of course, i seriously doubt the cat realizes it is dumb, and i doubt the other cats are smart enough to make fun of its lack of mental abilities. Does this mean all mentally ill children should be "put down"; certainly not. It's probably good i don't have kids.

October 23, 2009, 02:19 PM	#78
hogdogs Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 31, 2007 Location: Western Florida panhandle Posts: 11,069	I have done CPR on new born pups knowing they might "not be all there upstairs" from oxygen loss... thus far none have gone on to survive more than a few days so i don't know but I tried my best. The ones born to sorry mothers were the last as I won't continue to feed a gyp dog that is a poor mother. To me it shows they lack a genetic trait required of superior specimens of any specie... I guess mrs.h-dogs spoiled me there... Brent

October 23, 2009, 02:27 PM	#79
ninjatoth Junior member Join Date: March 21, 2009 Location: sanford,mi Posts: 590	one thing I forgot to mention about the cat is,that it's mother was abandoned,and needed shots to save it's life,so her mother was a small cat stunted,so when that little mother had kittens,she abandoned them,which is how we got dumdum.

October 24, 2009, 11:03 AM	#82
shortwave Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 2007 Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO Posts: 5,970	wyobohunter, IMO, thats sensible. Cruelty would be not putting that animal out of its misery. Again, IMO, sometimes people get so attached to their pets they fail to foresee the quality of life the pet will have after repairs are made by a vet on an injury/illness sustained by the animal. Its almost a since of thinking with your heart instead of your head which usually translates into human selfishness. A friend of mine has a 16yr. old lab thats does nothing but lay and whine due to its arthritis. Also dogs all but blind. Friend has to carry dog outside to do its business and more often than not, friend has to hand feed dog cause dog hurts to bad to get up and make it to its bowl. He can`t bring himself to take dog to vet and do the responsible thing and has even told me it needs to be done. I've offered to take dog to vet but to no avail. To me thats cruel.

October 24, 2009, 01:15 PM	#86
shortwave Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 2007 Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO Posts: 5,970	. cat9x, please explain.

October 25, 2009, 10:34 AM	#90
Art Eatman Staff in Memoriam Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA Posts: 24,798	Watching perceptions is fun, whether animal cruelty or lifestyle needs. PETA and HSUS go berzerkoid against our system which spends billions of dollars per year on animal care and vet bills, etc. Why don't they go to northeast Asia? After all, the Korean word for "dog" is "supper". (I'll never forget my startlement, back in 1954, seeing a Korean man carrying a smallish dog. The four paws were tied together like a suitcase handle, making it an easy tote.) Mleake, okay, but I've read for years that the brain doesn't feel pain. Regardless, I wouldn't drive the 90 miles from my house to the nearest vet.

October 25, 2009, 10:41 AM	#91
ZeroJunk Senior Member Join Date: August 14, 2006 Location: Browns Summit NC Posts: 2,589	If you shoot an animal in the head the muscle spasms can go on for a while. Matter of fact a hog can almost break your leg if you start messing with him too soon. Personally, I don't want to look at it on a pet whether my mind says they can't feel it or not.

October 25, 2009, 04:01 PM	#96
2DaMtns Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 2008 Posts: 457	I still maintain that it's just about how people spend their money. Would you rather someone spend $5000 gambling in Vegas before they donate it to the animal charities? If you buy a friend or family member a gift and spend $500 on it and don't donate an equal amount to a charity, then you are as much at fault as the people who donate to animal charities before human charities.

October 28, 2009, 12:52 AM	#97
zahnzieh Senior Member Join Date: September 19, 2006 Posts: 206	I have known hunters who "hunt" cruelly. There are other psychological issues going on with these people - issues of control, blood lust, anger. They also project that cruelty oftentimes to their pets, even children. I refuse to hunt with people like that.

October 30, 2009, 10:27 AM	#98
orangello Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2009 Posts: 566	"Does it not bother people that pets in this country experience a better quality of life, better medical treatment, better nutrition, and more legal rights than millions of human beings in third world countries? To me that's cruelty." "This sums up my attitude on things.Don't get me wrong,I have no problem with someone helping animals,but what I do have is a problem with is when someone who won't give to human charities,but will give to animal ones.If someone gives to an animal charity and also gives to human charities,that's fine,but people are first." Tolerance guys, tolerance; not everyone shares the same values for different things such as people in foreign lands or pets or feral cats & dogs. Why should everyone have to share the same values for such things? This is my personal problem with certain religions or more precisely with the more conservative parts of some religions (not politically "conservative", more like "less tolerant of differing opinions"); people have the right (whoever/whatever gave it) to their own opinions and beliefs. I personally don't much care about the starving children in Africa, though hunger in this country matters to me greatly. I personally don't feel the need to support Bible ministry to other countries, as i am not a Christian myself (though i do appreciate that the Bible provides very good guidelines for living). Should i have to support the foreign ministry of Muslim groups even though i am not a Muslim? I don't think so; i think i should support whatever causes I deem needy or appropriate. To do otherwise is basically a lie in my opinion. If a group went door-to-door demanding that all decent people pitch in to help build a levee system in Death Valley to save its inhabitants from the risk of astronomically unlikely flooding, would i be wrong to say "no thanks"? Free will FTW.

October 30, 2009, 10:35 AM	#99
Brasscatcher84 Junior member Join Date: April 14, 2009 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 128	I've never subscribed to the notion that animals have rights, but I may have to change my opinion after the last election. I'm pretty sure there were some animals that voted for Obama with ACORN's help.