Ninso Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Very interesting discussion! I agree with those who would euthanize a dog with issues first, rather than a well-adjusted dog, if there was a choice between the two and one had to go. However, I disagree with using the terminology of some dogs "deserving" to die and some "deserving" to live. Dogs aren't humans and aren't moral beings. They are captives to their genetics, upbringing and circumstances. No dog wakes up and says "I think I'm going to be dog-agressive today. I understand that it's wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway." The only one "deserving" of punishment is the person who intentionally breeds a careless litter or fails to properly raise the dog as a pup. There must be a moral component to an individual's actions in order for us to say that a person is "deserving" of some consequence on the basis of those actions. The dog (even a dog that kills a person) doesn't have this. He simply does the best he can with what he's given. However, just because a dog doesn't "deserve" to die, doesn't mean we shouldn't euthanize a dog that is a danger to people or other dogs, if there is no person willing or able to manage that dog. There are way more dogs than homes and more dogs with issues than people willing and able to deal with them. My rescue has has to make a couple of these decisions lately and it's not fun, but some of these dogs truly can never be trusted, even after they have been "rehabilitated" and most average homes out there are not equipt to handle the issues if/when they crop up again. Meanwhile, lots of perfectly nice and adoptable dogs are dying every day because the aggressive dog has been in foster for a year, taking up a space that could have saved lots of other dogs. I do agree though with the people who said that if there is someone who wants to adopt the dog in question here and demonstrates that they are capable of dealing with the issues, they should be allowed to--the dog doesn't sound like it's so dangerous that death is the only way to protect society. To sum up, I don't think it would be wrong to put the dog down, but being that the dog is not at "fault" it would be nice if there was a way to keep him alive and make sure he doesn't hurt anybody again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurae Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Very interesting discussion! I agree with those who would euthanize a dog with issues first, rather than a well-adjusted dog, if there was a choice between the two and one had to go. However, I disagree with using the terminology of some dogs "deserving" to die and some "deserving" to live. Has there even been any posts that claimed some dogs "deserve" to die? Such a straw man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Beer Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 What I think is that folks are getting caught in semantics, which often happens on this forum. Maybe if we just turned it around and said nice dogs deserve a chance to live, and if that means that not-so-nice dogs have to be killed so those nice dogs have longer to live, well, then it's maybe less offensive? It's true that most dogs don't *deserve to die," but perhaps some dogs do deserve a better chance to live than others? J. I think semantics is definitely difficult on this type of forum. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not really finding anything "offensive". I have a different position from some of you. Holding a different position and discussing different positions is a far cry from being "offended". I'm curious - why would you think I, or anyone else in this particular discussion, was "offended" because of expressing a different point of view? That is an interesting question of semantics. * If there are people on the forum who think that dogs with issues "deserve" to die, that is not "offensive" to me. I don't hold the same position, but I would find it surprising if anyone were "offended" by that fact. Even in the form that you stated above, I hold a different position. I do not personally hold that some dogs deserve a better chance to live than others - I think that all dogs deserve a chance. At the same time, of course I recognize that in this imprefect world we live in, that's never going to happen and that choices about which ones live and which ones die need to be made prudently. * ETA: I edited the statement above to eliminate poor wording that definitely implied something that I did not mean to say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Kristine, My most recent post wasn't directed at you specifically. It seems there are a number of folks responding to this thread that find it upsetting/offensive/whatever when the statement "a dog deserves to die" is made. It's the same reaction we see when someone mentions culling without mention of S/N. I get that you think no dog *deserves* to die. But I still think it's a question of what one means by "deserve." If I had a dog who was mauled and killed by another dog, I might think the attacking dog deserves to die. Not in the logical sense of the term deserve, because clearly the attacking dog doesn't understand right from wrong and crime and punishment in a human society, but I don't think I'd argue over the word "deserves" whith someone who has been in that hypothetical situation and then used the phrase "deserves to die." And I think we both agree that in our society many dogs *will* die, deserving or not. So what we're really talking about is which dogs *get* to live or die. I happen to believe that there are some dogs who should have a greater opportunity to get to live than others, given that some are going to have to die anyway. It's clear you disagree with that. I honestly have a hard time understanding how people could believe that given the number of dogs killed daily in shelters, all of the dogs should have an equal opportunity. Do you think a lottery system is the way shelter workers should choose which dogs to euthanize? I can't think of a better criterion for choosing the ones who don't get a chance than dogs with known dog or people aggression. That's not the same as saying those aggressive dogs deserve to die, but rather that there are other dogs who really should be given the greater opportunity to find a home, given the limited space in shelters and the limited number of adopters out there. In the case of the person whose blog started this whole thing, I can see where folks could logically argue that the dog doesn't *deserve* to die for its actions (as in it has no concept of crime and punishment), but the fact is that laws weren't complied with and the consequence of that is the death of a dog (something the owner was apparently well aware of when she failed to muzzle her dog and let it escape). The owner doesn't *deserve* to get her dog back because she has clearly shown that she is incapable of controlling the dog or complying with the law. Does the dog deserve to die for doing what is in its nature (apparently) to do? No, not in that sense. But we are a society of laws and the human who was responsible for protecting that dog and making sure it didn't end up where it is now failed in her responsibility. Does the dog deserve to die for the human's failure? Again, no. But if we can agree that the dog shouldn't go back to an owner who is incapable of controlling it, where does that leave us? Put the dog in a shelter or rescue and let someone else try their hand at controlling the dog? Some have suggested that. And that's where the divide begins. Aside from risk and liability issues of doing so, if someone makes a conscious decision to save a shelter/rescue spot for a known aggressive dog, that really does mean that somewhere a well-adjusted, non-aggressive dog may be one of those chosen to go to death row. Does either dog in this example deserve to die? No. But one of them surely will, and IMO it should be the dog with the lesser likelihood of being easily adopted into J. Q. Public's home. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShoresDog Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 I agree, LauraE, "deserves" is a straw man word and is causing problems. We're confusing it with "prioritization." When any number fewer than 100% of the dogs in need can be rescued, rehabilitated if necessary, and rehomed, then choices must be made. We're also confusing it with the process of deciding what must be done with a problem dog. "Deserve" is such a value-laden word, it just seems inappropriate to the world of dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninso Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Has there even been any posts that claimed some dogs "deserve" to die?Such a straw man. Uh, no, but there were lots of posts discussing which dogs "deserved" to live more. And one that said a dog who killed a person might deserved to die. I was simply pointing out that the term wasn't the right one to use for this particular discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Beer Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 I was simply pointing out that the term wasn't the right one to use for this particular discussion. You know, when it comes down to it, I think that's pretty much exactly what I meant, as well. You said it much more succinctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caerus Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Do you say, well, it's not the dogs fault, so don't put the aggresive dog to sleep? It's not the serial crimanals fault so lets just let him go? I think you were more referring to the mindset of some people, but I do feel like it should be pointed that aggressive dogs cannot be compared to serial killers. Humans know and understand the difference between right and wrong. Dogs definitely don't "get" our moral code. Not that I think you don't know that, but to clarify for people who believe that dogs do understand our "right and wrong" (i.e. the "my dog peed on the floor because he is mad at me for leaving him home all day" crowd). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsms99 Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 I think you were more referring to the mindset of some people, but I do feel like it should be pointed that aggressive dogs cannot be compared to serial killers. Humans know and understand the difference between right and wrong. Dogs definitely don't "get" our moral code. Not that I think you don't know that, but to clarify for people who believe that dogs do understand our "right and wrong" (i.e. the "my dog peed on the floor because he is mad at me for leaving him home all day" crowd). Yes and no. Dogs don't seem to be born with an innate morality, and there is debate about humans. However, dogs USUALLY can be trained to understand and abide by the human code in a way that differs little from morality. If I come home and my dogs don't greet me, it means something is wrong. Usually garbage. But their response comes BEFORE I know about the garbage, so they understand 'right and wrong'. With aggression, it can be more of a challenge. Still, regardless of how much they understand, there are cases of aggression that justify death. For example, a dog attacks another one and won't quit regardless. Maybe it kills the other dog, maybe it gets beaten away. Could it be trained to stop in the middle of aggression? Maybe. Is there any reason why society should put up with the chance of a repeat? I think not. I don't care how good a trainer you are, you are not accepting the risk for yourself. You are accepting it for all of us around you - and I don't trust my dog's life to your skill. BTW - the only time I took a healthy dog in to be killed was a lab/something mix that became seriously fixated on my wife. She became more and more hostile to anyone near my wife, including kids and dogs. She knew biting a person would bring down the Wrath of Bob, but she increasingly didn't seem to care. I eventually - after reading a lot of books and asking for advice - decided the risk to others wasn't acceptable. I couldn't trust her around the house. I couldn't trust her around strangers. I couldn't give her away and hope for the best. I mention it because the same dog, when she didn't get enough attention from my wife, would disappear for a bit...and we would find a pile of poop in a prominent place. It happened dozens of times. You won't convince me she didn't know exactly what she was doing - her behavior was very consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenajo Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 You can call it morals, or ??, but its without a doubt that there are distinct personalities out there. I've had one dog, a wee btch named Gwen, that planned, and attempted, a number of executions of her packmates here. Amoral? Social climber? Brilliant canine statagest with a malicious intent? Capable of tremendous damage that was never her fault, and only happened when no human was in the area (or at least none she was aware of) I called her Marie Laveau LOL (and no, it was seriously not funny living with her). I had several trainer friends who thought I was nuts when I pegged her with that within 2 days of her arrival. "She's so sweet!" That comment, after they say some of her work become "oh sweet Jesus" If you deal with enough dogs, you will find that even if you don't anthorpomorphise, you can still see the peronalities and "moral codes" at work. Both for good and bad. Some dogs just don't want to cause trauma or drama. Others live on it. I think you were more referring to the mindset of some people, but I do feel like it should be pointed that aggressive dogs cannot be compared to serial killers. Humans know and understand the difference between right and wrong. Dogs definitely don't "get" our moral code. Not that I think you don't know that, but to clarify for people who believe that dogs do understand our "right and wrong" (i.e. the "my dog peed on the floor because he is mad at me for leaving him home all day" crowd). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1sheepdoggal Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 l So put me in the category of a person who does think nice dogs are more deserving in general. Double ditto. Trekie Alert! The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.....or the one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurae Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Double ditto. Trekie Alert! The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.....or the one. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Darci, I often think of the Federation's directive as a guiding principle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1sheepdoggal Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 HAHAHAHAHAHA! Darci, I often think of the Federation's directive as a guiding principle Seems....Logical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Beer Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 Trekie Alert!The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.....or the one. I will not be assimilated! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1sheepdoggal Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 I will not be assimilated! :D OK wheres the Borg Queen? She was here awhile ago! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.