Feeding your dog. On live kittens.

[The Atheist]

A man decides to feed his dog five kittens and films it.

To me, that's little different from me catching and gutting half a dozen marlin and taking a video of it, but the SPCA and legal system are rather pissed off about it and will no doubt send this young man (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10626787&ref=weg)to jail for as long as legally possible.

What penalty would you give him and why?

[A.A. Alfie]

How were they prepared?

[Redtail]

That's the kind of owner that pit bull owners hate.

[TragicMonkey]

The cuter something is, the more its life is worth, of course.

So the penalty will hinge on how attractive the perp is.

[Moss]

Am I the only one to think that recording the whole thing was an attempt to create an outrage? If it now bites his ass he had it coming. Seems pretty willful to me.

[Steelmage]

I hope this ******* gets what is coming to him. Why is it okay to kill cats or kittens? It seems like a lot of posters on this thread are condoning this action.
Do not circumvent the autocensor with clever spellings.

[HansMustermann]

Is it more acceptable when a cat eats live mice? Does it make it less acceptable if the mice are bought at a pet store? And, yes, I know someone who buys his cat a happy meal like that now and then.

[Redtail]

Is it more acceptable when a cat eats live mice?

Yes.

Does it make it less acceptable if the mice are bought at a pet store?No.

And, yes, I know someone who buys his cat a happy meal like that now and then.Are you planning to turn him in?

[TragicMonkey]

Three situations:

1. I buy a live mouse and feed it to my pet snake.
2. I buy a live mouse and smack it with a hammer, killing it instantly.
3. I lay a mousetrap in my basement, and it snaps on a mouse's leg, severing it. The mouse dies from blood loss and shock.

2 is criminal, 1 and 3 are not. Which ones are considered acceptable, ethically, vary depending on who you ask but I'd say the conventional, mainstream answer would be that 3 is perfectly okay, 1 is icky but questionable, and 2 is definitely wrong.

Yet all three involve the same thing, killing a mouse. I'd understand if the least painful method of death were the most acceptable, but oddly, it's not. An instant death from a hammer has got to be less painful to the mouse than the trap, or being eaten (I'm not sure how the mouse actually dies there--does the snake kill it, then eat it, or does it get swallowed alive and conscious and suffocate?).

So judging the ethical value of the three scenarios doesn't hinge on the results, which are all equal (dead mouse), nor on the methods (because the most gruesome method is the most accepted). So what's left to base judgment on?

The purpose. It's the intent of the person performing the action that determines our ethical judgment in these scenarios. In 1, I was sustaining one life at the cost of another. Icky, uncomfortable, but such is nature. Nobody would blame the snake in the wild for eating a mouse. Discomfort over this one arises because a human is required to facilitate this transaction, due to the snake's circumstances. In 3, I was ridding my home of vermin, preventing damage to property and health risks arising from having pests. An unfortunate necessity, but few would argue it wasn't necessary. But in 2, the obviously wrong one (in conventional opinion), what was the purpose? Well, without a good explanation, there seems to be no purpose in smashing a mouse with a hammer. It didn't feed another animal, the mouse wasn't an uninvited pest as I bought it, and I wasn't dissecting it for biology class or whatever. The act is wrong because it had no apparent purpose at all. The death of the mouse was unnecessary, and apparently achieved nothing.

So in this dog/kitten case, everything hinges on the purpose of the guy who do it. Does he have a good reason why he did it? Was there a lack of dog food, for example? Barring a good explanation of an alternative purpose, we are likely to assume this was done for either no purpose or a bad or foolish one, which would make the action wrong.

[The Painter]

catching and gutting half a dozen marlin

If this is true (which I doubt) you are a savage. Marlin is a catch and release fish. If you're killing them you should be feed to the dogs.

The Billfish Foundation (http://www.billfishfoundation.org/new/billfish.asp?page=about)

[Rasmus]

I hope this ******* gets what is coming to him. Why is it okay to kill cats or kittens?

For the same reasons it's okay to kill cows and pigs. If the dog did actually eat the kittens in the end it's just live feeding.

It seems like a lot of posters on this thread are condoning this action.Yes. In the sense that I think it should probably be legal for him to do as he did. I am not approving of it in any way, and I question his motives - but if my butcher just gets a kick out of killing large animals that's still perfectly legal for him to do, too.

[A.A. Alfie]

.

Yet all three involve the same thing, killing a mouse. I'd understand if the least painful method of death were the most acceptable, but oddly, it's not. An instant death from a hammer has got to be less painful to the mouse than the trap, or being eaten (I'm not sure how the mouse actually dies there--does the snake kill it, then eat it, or does it get swallowed alive and conscious and suffocate?).

It would depend on the snake.
If venomous it would atrike, the animal dies and the snake consumes it.
If a python, the prey has its' life sqeezed from it and the mouse is consumed.

Either way, mousey dies first.



I have two dogs (Jack Russell/Fox terrier), when we go away camping they often catch and kill rabbits - the record for one of them is 11 in a week. They also kill mice and rats around the place. Frankly I don't have a problem with that.
A lot different to the OP scenario - and whilst I don't condone what the fool has done, I think the main problem here is that the kittens are cute. They are pets and a lot of us humans feel disgust if they are hurt. It invokes similar feelings in us as (some) Asian countries eating dogs imo.

[A.A. Alfie]

If this is true (which I doubt) you are a savage. Marlin is a catch and release fish. If you're killing them you should be feed to the dogs.

The Billfish Foundation (http://www.billfishfoundation.org/new/billfish.asp?page=about)

They are predominantly catch and release. I think it depends on the country. That said, I've eaten marlin: what's the problem?

[Redtail]

For the same reasons it's okay to kill cows and pigs. If the dog did actually eat the kittens in the end it's just live feeding.

Apparently, that's not the case.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3259944/Man-fed-kittens-to-pitbull-and-filmed-it

[The Painter]

They are predominantly catch and release. I think it depends on the country. That said, I've eaten marlin: what's the problem?


Population depletion. How long ago did you have this Marlin?

I've eaten dog. I may have eaten cat also. ( Local Chinese restaurant legend.)

[A.A. Alfie]

Population depletion. How long ago did you have this Marlin?

I've eaten dog. I may have eaten cat also. ( Local Chinese restaurant legend.)

Cook Islands, 2009. They were on the menu at some of the better local restaurants.

[Rolfe]

Three situations:

1. I buy a live mouse and feed it to my pet snake.
2. I buy a live mouse and smack it with a hammer, killing it instantly.
3. I lay a mousetrap in my basement, and it snaps on a mouse's leg, severing it. The mouse dies from blood loss and shock.

2 is criminal, 1 and 3 are not.[....]


Just to point out that under Scots and English law, that is not the case. The crime is "causing unnecessary suffering". If you kill an animal (not of a protected species or someone else's property) instantly, and your advocate pleads the law properly, you will not be convicted.

1 and 3 would depend on whether the suffering was judged to be "unnecessary" or not. Trapping vermin and feeding reptiles that require live feeding might fall on the right side. If you're into animal cruelty, though, I would recommend not pushing your luck.

My own view to some extent hinges on the "require" part. Personally, I couldn't keep a reptile that had to be provided with live prey, but I also wouldn't get into too much of a pissing contest with someone who did. However, providing live prey to an animal that doesn't require such food turns my stomach. Not because what happens to the prey is in the end any different from a wild rabbit or mouse caught by a dog or a cat, but because of what it says about the inhumanity of the person who did such a thing.

Rolfe.

[Rasmus]

Apparently, that's not the case.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3259944/Man-fed-kittens-to-pitbull-and-filmed-it

No, legally it might not be. But then, I disagree with the law. (unless it also forbids that snakes are fed with live mice.)

[The Atheist]

The cuter something is, the more its life is worth, of course.

So the penalty will hinge on how attractive the perp is.

Not very.

He's going to get the book thrown at him.

Am I the only one to think that recording the whole thing was an attempt to create an outrage? If it now bites his ass he had it coming. Seems pretty willful to me.

No, I think he's just not very smart.

I hope this ******* gets what is coming to him. Why is it okay to kill cats or kittens? It seems like a lot of posters on this thread are condoning this action.

Note the following post and answer it, please:

Is it more acceptable when a cat eats live mice?

I would also add in that cats in this country kill thousands of birds a day, usually in a brutal way, playing with them for as long as they can stay alive. We also use dogs for pig-hunting, and if you aren't familiar with this plan, it involves a pack of dogs hunting down, bailing up and taking chunks out of the pig until the dog owner comes along and cuts the pig's throat.

Perfectly legal to torment a pig to death but not kittens.

If this is true (which I doubt) you are a savage. Marlin is a catch and release fish. If you're killing them you should be feed to the dogs.

No, I haven't caught and killed six marlin, but I have caught thousands of fish and killed a fair precentage of them. I used marlin because everyone knows what they are and one fish is much akin to another when you kill it.

As to catching & releasing, you do know records for marlin caught, killed and weighed actually exist, don't you?

Cook Islands, 2009. They were on the menu at some of the better local restaurants.

Funny corollary bringing that up - a Tongan man was arrested here last year for killing and eating his dog (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10591615). The dog had "become unruly" and was prone to bite people, so the chap in question decided to bonk it on the head and cook it on the barbecue.

He got let off with a wrist slap as I recall, but given the hardness of dog skulls, I doubt it was an instant death.

[I Ratant]

1952 or so in Germany, my Dad took me and my brother to a local dog-training school put on by the jagermeisters in Wurzburg.
The training involved releasing beagles that chased rabbits and cats.
The rabbits had the Achilles ligament in their rear legs scissored thru and their ears lopped off, the cats had their claws pulled.
It was interesting to see just how far up a tree a clawless cat could get before dropping to the ground to be torn apart.
We never went to another one of those.

[Michael Redman]

I'm more concerned with his mental state than the cuteness of the animal, or the necessity of its death.

[Raconteur]

Note the following post and answer it, please:

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Is it more acceptable when a cat eats live mice?

I would also add in that cats in this country kill thousands of birds a day, usually in a brutal way, playing with them for as long as they can stay alive. We also use dogs for pig-hunting, and if you aren't familiar with this plan, it involves a pack of dogs hunting down, bailing up and taking chunks out of the pig until the dog owner comes along and cuts the pig's throat.

Perfectly legal to torment a pig to death but not kittens.

Do you not see the difference between a cat eating a mouse that it has caught in the wild, and a man deliberately feeding kittens to his dog?

[Mark6]

We also use dogs for pig-hunting, and if you aren't familiar with this plan, it involves a pack of dogs hunting down, bailing up and taking chunks out of the pig until the dog owner comes along and cuts the pig's throat.
Why?

Really, why not just shoot the pig? Aside from cruelty to the pig, this sounds like seriously dangerous to the dogs -- wild pigs are vicious and have tusks.

[Rolfe]

I would point out that the pig-hunting described above is illegal in Britain and would be considered indescribably barbaric. Ditto the German dog-training.

There is a reason cats hunt. If they lost that instinct, they'd starve the minute their human wasn't there to open the tin. It's deep-seated precisely because it is so essential to survival in the wild. There's a reason they appear to "play" with their prey too. They're not sadists. They're in real danger when they get their face close enough to the prey to inflict a killing bite. Hence the darting in and out, and tiring the prey out and wearing it down.

I'd like to be able to wave a wand and prevent pet cats killing birds and even mice too. It's not going to happen. Should we then hold ourselves to no better a standard than that of a dumb animal?

This is as much (and probably more) about the state of mind of the human being, as about the suffering of the animal. But consider. People meet horrible violent deaths in car accidents every day. Does that mean it's OK to murder someone?

Rolfe.

[Steelmage]

For the same reasons it's okay to kill cows and pigs. If the dog did actually eat the kittens in the end it's just live feeding.



Yes. In the sense that I think it should probably be legal for him to do as he did. I am not approving of it in any way, and I question his motives - but if my butcher just gets a kick out of killing large animals that's still perfectly legal for him to do, too.

Or why is okay for him to feed his pitbull puppies, or baby humans? Is that stupid question? Of course you will tell me it is a dumb question. There is only one reason why he is feeding live kittens to his pitbull, it is to make the animal meaner with the possible intent to use this dog for fighting.

Please do not try to use: "will it is okay for a cat to eat mice" , because it is different for my cat to eat rodents invading my house. I do not go to the pet store and buy mice to feed my cats. If you think wild mice are cute, go find some then play with them. Find out on your own how mean mice can get, you will be surprised. There is a big difference between a cat killing a wild mouse, and feeding pet mice to a cat.

[Rasmus]

Or why is okay for him to feed his pitbull puppies, or baby humans? Is that stupid question? Of course you will tell me it is a dumb question. There is only one reason why he is feeding live kittens to his pitbull, it is to make the animal meaner with the possible intent to use this dog for fighting.

Yes, of course.

And, yes, as far as I think they should be allowed to feed them kittens, they should be allowed to feed them puppies, too. Human babies - not so much.

Please do not try to use: "will it is okay for a cat to eat mice" , because it is different for my cat to eat rodents invading my house. I do not go to the pet store and buy mice to feed my cats.

No, but you would if you had a pet snake. And you *could* go out and buy a dozen life traps and hope the mice get caught in those before your cat gets them - if you wanted to.

If you think wild mice are cute, go find some then play with them. Find out on your own how mean mice can get, you will be surprised. There is a big difference between a cat killing a wild mouse, and feeding pet mice to a cat.

"cute" has nothing to do with it imho. And I think kittens and puppies are cute. And I fully agree that the guy in question has a few major issues (and at least no good intentions...) But a law that allows people to kill animals for food, and allows them to feed some of them to some other animals should not make it illegal to feed another kind of animal to yet another kind of animal. And I generally distrust laws that just force people to be nice, too.

[HarryKeogh]

I hope he gets the max. The guy's a psycho.



It arose from an incident at a party at a house in Childers Road last September, prosecutor Vicki Thorpe told the court.

Mankelow was on his way into the property with his 18-month old pitbull dog Pepe.

Something in a parked truck attracted the dog's attention. When Mankelow looked inside, he saw five kittens, their eyes not yet open, in a cardboard box.

He took the box from the truck to a reserve alongside the property.
He tipped the kittens out of the box for his dog, which attacked them one by one, urged on by Mankelow, who recorded the whole attack on his cellphone.

All of the kittens were killed.

Someone called an SPCA officer who identified the remains of five kittens, with broken bones. At least one kitten had been disembowelled.

The officer estimated they were aged between six and 10 weeks.
Mankelow initially denied his actions, but then admitted it after being shown the video.

[roger]

There is only one reason why he is feeding live kittens to his pitbull, it is to make the animal meaner with the possible intent to use this dog for fighting..bit of an aside, but if this is his intent it is flawed. Dogs separate species into prey and non-prey. Broadly speaking, smaller species are more likely to fall into that category. My pit hunts and catches moles/voles and the like. She tries to get squirrels and bunnies to, but doesn't suceed. She plays with dogs and horses. She's completely indifferent to prarie dogs for some reason. And this is true for all dogs, not just pits. So, I kind of doubt feeding the dog live bait will suddenly make it desire to attack dogs. As others have noted, there are 'sports' in the US that use dogs to hunt pigs, mountain lions, rats (rat terriers - it's not just a name), coons (coon dog - not just a name), etc. None of that translates into dog fighting.

[Rolfe]

Sounds to me like it was pure sadism. Cruelty for the sake of cruelty. Pleasure in causing and watching a helpless creature suffer.

It makes me sick, and no only because such people frequently progress to violence and cruelty to other people as well.

Rolfe.

[quadraginta]

I don't find anything fundamentally wrong with a dog eating kittens. Not in a general sense of ethics, since that doesn't pertain. This dude, however is not approaching that perspective. He didn't need to feed the dog kittens. He obviously knew it would be badly received, and made a point of recording it to demonstrate to all his attitude. The guy is mentally ill.

But I'd like to add yet another reason that his act was a social transgression. He was training his dog that cats were food.

Where I grew up if a dog killed a chicken it generally developed a taste for chickens, as food. It was a normal practice for a farmer to put down a chicken-killing dog, not only to protect their own stock, but out of regard for their neighbors as well. Most people would even welcome the information that their dog had been seen killing chickens, and respond by protecting the community, not the dog.

This guy was training his dog to eat his neighbors' pets. Probably (hopefully?) not on purpose, but that would be the end result.

Not only that, he wasn't doing the dog any favors for other reasons. Not if the dog ever had an opportunity to go out and tangle with cats on it's own. Contrary to popular imagery, and kittens notwithstanding, an adult cat can do a respectable job of defending itself against a dog. Yes, even a pit bull. There's a reason that the cats I Ratant mentioned were de-clawed. I grew up with a dog that was blind in one eye because it got in the way of our cat and a food dish. That dog was half husky, half wolf, and rescued from the wild. Teaching a dog to attack cats is not entirely unlike teaching a parrot to say "Here, kitty, kitty." Sooner or later it will end badly for the dog.

After they get done throwing the book at this guy I hope there is some sort of mental help available to him, but I guess it's probably too late for that. If he were a dog he'd likely have to be put down.

[Morrigan]

I hope he gets the max. The guy's a psycho.*quote*
I just died a little inside. What a loathsome, disgusting human being.

[The Atheist]

Why?

Really, why not just shoot the pig? Aside from cruelty to the pig, this sounds like seriously dangerous to the dogs -- wild pigs are vicious and have tusks.

Only wimps shoot wild pigs - real men cut their throats.

Yes, it is fairly hard on the dogs - I've seen several killed or cut to bits by tusks.

There is a big difference between a cat killing a wild mouse, and feeding pet mice to a cat.

Rubbish. Dead is dead, and cats kill mice, rats and birds very slowly.

How on earth can you claim it's different?

Sounds to me like it was pure sadism. Cruelty for the sake of cruelty. Pleasure in causing and watching a helpless creature suffer.

It makes me sick, and no only because such people frequently progress to violence and cruelty to other people as well.

Rolfe.

I agree that he has some serious issues to deal with, but I find the actual process of him feeding the kittens to the dog no more cruel or sadistic than halal killing of animals for human consumption.

But there's money involved in that, so we do it cheerfully.

[fuelair]

Apparently, that's not the case.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3259944/Man-fed-kittens-to-pitbull-and-filmed-it

Based on the article I have no probl:mad:em with the punishment of the two - both got less than they would have if certain of us had been present, I am quite certain.

[AvalonXQ]

From the sound of it, they weren't his kittens.
That makes a big difference to me.

[GreenLines]

You know, at first I was thinking jail time for the kid, but after reading a few of the replies it doesn't seem as bad, even though I'm a cat lover. Now those **********s who lit a bag that had a kitten in it and threw it out the window while driving down a road, they can eat a bowl of dicks and get butt ********** in prison.

[MikeMangum]

I don't find anything fundamentally wrong with a dog eating kittens. Not in a general sense of ethics, since that doesn't pertain. This dude, however is not approaching that perspective. He didn't need to feed the dog kittens. He obviously knew it would be badly received, and made a point of recording it to demonstrate to all his attitude. The guy is mentally ill.

But I'd like to add yet another reason that his act was a social transgression. He was training his dog that cats were food.

Where I grew up if a dog killed a chicken it generally developed a taste for chickens, as food. It was a normal practice for a farmer to put down a chicken-killing dog, not only to protect their own stock, but out of regard for their neighbors as well. Most people would even welcome the information that their dog had been seen killing chickens, and respond by protecting the community, not the dog.

This guy was training his dog to eat his neighbors' pets. Probably (hopefully?) not on purpose, but that would be the end result.

This.

There is NO moral difference between feeding your dog kibble made with chicken or beef (an animal had to be killed for the meat product) and feeding a dog an animal, except for potentially differences in the humaneness of the death. If the animal is killed humanely, there is no difference. The species of animal is irrelevant for moral purposes. Except as noted above in quadraginta's post. Feeding a snake live rats isn't going to impact the neighbors; the chance of them having a pet rat that they allow to wander around outside is low. The chance of a neighbor having a pet cat that they allow to wander around outside is high.

It's like the difference between training a guard to attack a dummy made up to look like a masked adult intruder with a gun, and training the dog to attack a dummy made up to look like an 8 year old girl with a backpack.

[shadron]

It would depend on the snake.
If venomous it would atrike, the animal dies and the snake consumes it.
If a python, the prey has its' life sqeezed from it and the mouse is consumed.

That accounts for maybe 20% of the animals caught and eaten by snakes. The rest essentially go down the tube live, unless they have a coronary beforehand.

[I Ratant]

....

Not only that, he wasn't doing the dog any favors for other reasons. Not if the dog ever had an opportunity to go out and tangle with cats on it's own. Contrary to popular imagery, and kittens notwithstanding, an adult cat can do a respectable job of defending itself against a dog. Yes, even a pit bull. There's a reason that the cats I Ratant mentioned were de-clawed. I grew up with a dog that was blind in one eye because it got in the way of our cat and a food dish. That dog was half husky, half wolf, and rescued from the wild. Teaching a dog to attack cats is not entirely unlike teaching a parrot to say "Here, kitty, kitty." Sooner or later it will end badly for the dog.

After they get done throwing the book at this guy I hope there is some sort of mental help available to him, but I guess it's probably too late for that. If he were a dog he'd likely have to be put down.
.
Pit bull 0, Porcupine... probably nude! 1500 quills in the dog. :)

[I Ratant]

That accounts for maybe 20% of the animals caught and eaten by snakes. The rest essentially go down the tube live, unless they have a coronary beforehand.
.
Received a sequence of photos of a Black Snake eating a Rattler.
The Rattler was still rattling as the rattle vanished down the throat of the Black Snake.

[JoeTheJuggler]

To me, that's little different from me catching and gutting half a dozen marlin and taking a video of it, but the SPCA and legal system are rather pissed off about it and will no doubt send this young man (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10626787&ref=weg)to jail for as long as legally possible.

While I tend to agree with you on the gutting of marlins thing, many people make a distinction based on how near something is phylogenetically to humans. Mammals are much nearer than fish.

The cuter something is, the more its life is worth, of course.

So the penalty will hinge on how attractive the perp is.
Nah. See above. I think the argument is based on things closer to humans have more of an ability to suffer.

Is it more acceptable when a cat eats live mice?
You suggest we arrest cats for not obeying human laws? There are many things cats do that are morally unacceptable for humans to do. If a cat has forced sex with another cat, does it mean it's OK for humans to do the same?

This is the same as the anti-vegetarian argument that lions kill and eat prey. My response is that I'm not advocating vegetarianism for lions, and I'm not a lion.

Does it make it less acceptable if the mice are bought at a pet store? And, yes, I know someone who buys his cat a happy meal like that now and then.
Well at least here you're talking about human behavior. Yes, I think it's wrong for a human to cause a cat to torture a mouse. (Cats kept as pets don't hunt and kill the way a feral cat would.) If the mice are humanely killed (the way the food animals that make say cat chow are), then it would be a different story. I'm not sure what the laws are on this narrow issue.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is NO moral difference between feeding your dog kibble made with chicken or beef (an animal had to be killed for the meat product) and feeding a dog an animal, except for potentially differences in the humaneness of the death. If the animal is killed humanely, there is no difference.
I would say most people agree probably agree with you here.

The species of animal is irrelevant for moral purposes.
I would say most people would disagree with you here. In fact, I don't know of anyone who is OK with feeding human babies to any animal, so right there we've got a species issue. Few people would be OK with feeding the babies of our nearest relatives--the other great apes. And so on.

At some point, we draw a line on what is OK to treat as food and what isn't based on its similarity to humans (probably as a stand-in for something else, like "consciousness" or ability to suffer or the capacity to have desires that may be thwarted or fulfilled). Even vegetarians do this. (Few, for example, draw the line between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.)

I think similar reasoning is used within our own species on the question of abortion. (The taboo against cannibalism probably has other components though. . .)

I think this has a lot to do with our mental capacity for morality. It seems, in part, to be dependent on mirror cells--our ability to imagine ourselves from the outside. Seeing animals more similar to us makes us empathetic to them, and then we often apply something like the Golden Rule.

On top of all this, the domestic animals we treat as pets have a special place even compared to other domestic animals. We treat them as honorary humans (even honorary members of the family--the closest relations to the self).

[Redtail]

No, legally it might not be. But then, I disagree with the law. (unless it also forbids that snakes are fed with live mice.)

He took the box from the truck to a reserve alongside the property.
He tipped the kittens out of the box for his dog, which attacked them one by one, urged on by Mankelow, who recorded the whole attack on his cellphone.
All of the kittens were killed.
Someone called an SPCA officer who identified the remains of five kittens, with broken bones. At least one kitten had been disembowelled.
The officer estimated they were aged between six and 10 weeks.



From that description it doesn't seem to me that the dog ate them.




Rubbish. Dead is dead, and cats kill mice, rats and birds very slowly.

How on earth can you claim it's different?



I think Rolfe covered it pretty well.


.
Pit bull 0, Porcupine... probably nude! 1500 quills in the dog. :)

:eye-poppi

[the_smasher]

I'm having a problem with the word "feeding". After reading the Stuff page linked above, it seems the kittens died more for the owners entertainment and less for the dogs sustenance.

[Pinkymcfatfat]

My Aunt was a farmer for many years. She didn't just go out into a pen and start slicing the throats of cattle and hogs. She seperated out the animals for slaughter, then used a captive bolt gun, death was instantaneous.

This man wanted to make a gruesome snuff video of his dog eating kittens (although it certainly sounds like they weren't eaten, just mauled to death). This was VERY stupid on his part and I do hope he gets whats legally coming to him.

[roger]

.
Pit bull 0, Porcupine... probably nude! 1500 quills in the dog. :)
That's not a pit bull.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_pit_bull_vs_porcupine.htm
http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/porcupinedog.asp

[I Ratant]

Well, I see yer point, the breed makes all the difference in the world as to tenacity of purpose! :)
And inability to sense a losing fight. :(

[Rolfe]

I agree that he has some serious issues to deal with, but I find the actual process of him feeding the kittens to the dog no more cruel or sadistic than halal killing of animals for human consumption.

But there's money involved in that, so we do it cheerfully.


I'm sorry, but don't even start me on the subject of halal or shechita slaughter. I could go on all day. Search the forum deep enough, and you'll probably find the posts.

Ban it. Now if not sooner. Thank you.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I'm having a problem with the word "feeding". After reading the Stuff page linked above, it seems the kittens died more for the owners entertainment and less for the dogs sustenance.


it was also theft, as the kittens appear to have belonged to someone else.

And even if the kittens had been "food" for the dog, there is an enormous difference between killing an animal humanely for food (ours or our pet's), and gratuitously encouraging a pet animal to kill other animals in a gruesomely painful way.

The spontaneous actions of a dumb animal cannot be judged by the standards of human morality. The victims of such actions are more akin to the victims of accidents.

Rubbish. Dead is dead, and cats kill mice, rats and birds very slowly.

How on earth can you claim it's different?


Because some animals die in horrible accidents, it's OK for someone to cause an animal to die in the same way, deliberately, for entertainment?

If that's what you or anyone is actually saying, I'd be interested to hear a defence of the position.

Rolfe.

[A.A. Alfie]

That accounts for maybe 20% of the animals caught and eaten by snakes. The rest essentially go down the tube live, unless they have a coronary beforehand.

??
Citations please. While I acknowledge my generalisation, my understanding is the vast majority of prey will be dead (or near death) when consumed from either poison or constriction.

.
Received a sequence of photos of a Black Snake eating a Rattler.
The Rattler was still rattling as the rattle vanished down the throat of the Black Snake.

Death rattle?
It is possible that the rattle was the 'nerves twitching' after death or the tail end reacting (shaking) because of what the rest of the body was experiencing being pulled 'muscularly' down the predator?

While I tend to agree with you on the gutting of marlins thing, many people make a distinction based on how near something is phylogenetically to humans. Mammals are much nearer than fish.

But just as tasty.
:)

[The Atheist]

I'm sorry, but don't even start me on the subject of halal or shechita slaughter. I could go on all day. Search the forum deep enough, and you'll probably find the posts.

Ban it. Now if not sooner. Thank you.

Rolfe.

Fat chance.

One of our major exports is lamb to the middle east and all animals must be killed by halal slaughter. We ain't killing that cash cow while the wool market remains depressed.

An interesting point is that a South Island abattoir/freezing works has decided to drop halal, losing the ME exports, and use only humane killing.

They are by far the busiest freezing works in the South Island as many farmers object to the inherent cruelty of halal and are trucking animals from all over the place to send them to that specific works.

[The Atheist]

Because some animals die in horrible accidents, it's OK for someone to cause an animal to die in the same way, deliberately, for entertainment?

If that's what you or anyone is actually saying, I'd be interested to hear a defence of the position.

Rolfe.


No, I'm not talking about accidents, I am specifically referring to domestic cats, owned by humans, which kill and eat birds, mice and rats.

I just find it disturbing that we harbour many double standards [esp in NZ] in this type of case. You clearly see halal as cruelty, yet it's almost compulsory here because we pander to customer desire for strange rituals. I also mentioned pig hunting, which is highly legal, yet is unbelievably cruel to both pig and dog.

Whether an animal is killed for entertainment or food doesn't make any difference to me - dead is dead and cruelty is cruelty.

Should I mention sow stalls or battery hens?

[Rolfe]

Fat chance.

One of our major exports is lamb to the middle east and all animals must be killed by halal slaughter. We ain't killing that cash cow while the wool market remains depressed.


There's more than one way to kill a cat, to coin an apposite phrase.

A lot of shechita-killed meat, and a fair bit of halal-killed meat, goes into the normal food chain. Ordinary people are eating it without any way to know.

Try making it compulsory to label all meat killed without the use of pre-stunning, and don't suppress the information about what this entails, and see how attitudes start to change. When the cash cow of general sales suddenly dries up, it may be that the prohibition on pre-stunning might get a bit less hardline.

You see, the arguments against pre-stunning, simply using the captive bolt immediately prior to the ritual slaughter, are pretty specious. It's just not PC to challenge them. But most people wouldn't much care for the details of what the animals go through without the pre-stunning. And sales of the meat to a lot of these "most people" are crucial to propping up the ritual slaughter business.

I agree that doesn't address your export problem. I'd be reluctant to do that anyway, because I believe ritual slaughter near to the farm of origin is a lot less inhumane than live exports to Saudi Arabia followed by ritual slaughter. Sometimes you do what you can.

If you guys are actually avoiding the live exports part, then you're ahead of us.

An interesting point is that a South Island abattoir/freezing works has decided to drop halal, losing the ME exports, and use only humane killing.

They are by far the busiest freezing works in the South Island as many farmers object to the inherent cruelty of halal and are trucking animals from all over the place to send them to that specific works.


Well done that business and those farmers. I think you make my point for me. Do what we can, and sometimes we get further than we might have imagined. Do nothing (like we're doing, sadly), for fear of anti-Islam and anti-Semtic accusations, and no progress is possible.

Rolfe.

[Raconteur]

No, I'm not talking about accidents, I am specifically referring to domestic cats, owned by humans, which kill and eat birds, mice and rats.


Rolfe has already covered that. A cat using its natural hunting instinct to kill a mouse in the wild is not comparable to a man feeding live kittens to his dog.

[Rolfe]

No, I'm not talking about accidents, I am specifically referring to domestic cats, owned by humans, which kill and eat birds, mice and rats.


And I was drawing a close analogy with a mouse or bird falling prey to a cat, and it falling victim to any other accident. On the grounds that the cat is not a moral being and cannot and does not intend suffering for its prey. I was specifically contrasting that with a human being choosing to inflict equivalent suffering on the mouse or bird, for entertainment purposes.

I just find it disturbing that we harbour many double standards [esp in NZ] in this type of case.


If you're making the point (rather separate to my mind) that by supporting our pet cats we are indirectly reponsible for these "accidents" I agree you have a point. I think it's a different point, however.

You clearly see halal as cruelty, yet it's almost compulsory here because we pander to customer desire for strange rituals.


Halal bad, shechita much worse. We have exactly the same problem here. And spineless politicians who won't do a damn thing about it. It's not even about banning the ritual slaughter as such, it's about shifting the prejudice against using the captive bolt on the animal immediately before that. And to do that you don't even have to make it compulsory, you just have to give the nod to the pressure groups who would like to extend their own power to choose by introducing new labelling regulations.

But the spineless politicians won't even listen to that suggestion.

I also mentioned pig hunting, which is highly legal, yet is unbelievably cruel to both pig and dog.


Not highly legal here, mate, not at all. So we're up on you on that one anyway.

Whether an animal is killed for entertainment or food doesn't make any difference to me - dead is dead and cruelty is cruelty.


So my point about human responsibility didn't get through? That there is a difference between an animal dying in an accident, and having the same injuries deliberately inflicted by a human being? And that being killed by a natural predator was a lot closer to dying in an accident than being sadistically killed for human pleasure?

Otherwise, until "the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them [....] and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock [....] They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain...." comes to pass, then you seem to have the perfect excuse to do whatever the hell you like to an animal.

I sense from your posts critical of ritual slaughter and suchlike that you don't really feel that way. I think you're intending to criticise double standards. And I'm bang alongside you. However, if you're going to say that you can't object to a human being torturing an animal to death for sadistic pleasure because some other animals are killed by predators, then you've got a long wait before you can object to the torture.

Should I mention sow stalls or battery hens?


I think I already had a go at these. Oh no, that was in a different thread about half an hour ago. You may also like my opinion of badly-formulated accommodation guidelines for free-range poultry that end up giving these birds more horrible deaths than anything seen in Stalag Hen.

Carry on.

Rolfe.

[A.A. Alfie]

Rolfe has already covered that. A cat using its natural hunting instinct to kill a mouse in the wild is not comparable to a man feeding live kittens to his dog.

At the risk of another derail (this thread has heaps - but I'm really enjoying it and them), there is a big difference in a cat (feral or domestic) killing a mouse as opposed to killing a kiwi, bandicoot, parrot or any other indigenous species.
On this issue, I have a big problem with cats; their instincts and their owners in much the same fashion I have a problem with the sicko feeding his dog kittens in the OP.

[Rolfe]

Rolfe has already covered that. A cat using its natural hunting instinct to kill a mouse in the wild is not comparable to a man feeding live kittens to his dog.


I think TA is conflating two points here. The part where he's being critical of people for supporting pet cats and so increasing the predator pressure on the wildlife is a valid argument.

I just don't think it cuts it as an argument to condone throwing live kittens to your dogs, for the sheer fun of it.

Rolfe.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

What I would have wanted to do if those had been my kittens would be to find the dog, shoot it, chop it into about six pieces and leave them on his doorstep. I could never bring myself to do that, however, so I'd settle for beating the guy until he stopped moving.

[JoeTheJuggler]

A lot of shechita-killed meat, and a fair bit of halal-killed meat, goes into the normal food chain. Ordinary people are eating it without any way to know.

While I understand your point, there certainly is a way to know you don't eat shechita-killed or halal-killed meat.

[JoeTheJuggler]

At the risk of another derail (this thread has heaps - but I'm really enjoying it and them), there is a big difference in a cat (feral or domestic) killing a mouse as opposed to killing a kiwi, bandicoot, parrot or any other indigenous species.
Wait a second, are you saying a mouse is not indigenous anywhere?

I would hazard a guess that at least one species or another is indigenous every place domestic cats are except for Australia.


On this issue, I have a big problem with cats; their instincts and their owners in much the same fashion I have a problem with the sicko feeding his dog kittens in the OP.

Does it give you pause (in your opinion of cats--not the sicko described in the OP) to consider that the domestic cat is the result of human-made selection? That is, even feral individuals of Felis silvestris catus are in a way humans' responsibility.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think TA is conflating two points here. The part where he's being critical of people for supporting pet cats and so increasing the predator pressure on the wildlife is a valid argument.

On a tangent, my brother-in-law (a vet) thinks there's something immoral about letting pet cats outdoors. Do you have an opinion on that issue, Rolfe?

He has several reasons: many get killed by cars and dogs, communicable diseases, and especially the issue of making more cats without taking responsibility for them. (Now most of these arguments can be disarmed by responsible ownership--proper immunizations and having your own cats spayed or neutered. They still get run over by cars.)

My two cats started out as strictly indoor cats. Now, I let the one out on occasion, but she still has a mostly indoor cat mentality, so she doesn't stay out for long or roam very far. The other shows little interest in going out, and never stays out for more than a minute.

[Cain]

I understand that every time a kitten's killed, God masturbates.

[fuelair]

What I would have wanted to do if those had been my kittens would be to find the dog, shoot it, chop it into about six pieces and leave them on his doorstep. I could never bring myself to do that, however, so I'd settle for beating the guy until he stopped moving.Much better the latter - the dog has an excuse, the rectum doesn't.

[fuelair]

I understand that every time a kitten's killed, God masturbates.

If I believed there was any god, given how the world works, I would have to believe that. Children would doubtless give it a triple whacker.

[A.A. Alfie]

Wait a second, are you saying a mouse is not indigenous anywhere?

I would hazard a guess that at least one species or another is indigenous every place domestic cats are except for Australia.

We have native mice here too. :D


Does it give you pause (in your opinion of cats--not the sicko described in the OP) to consider that the domestic cat is the result of human-made selection? That is, even feral individuals of Felis silvestris catus are in a way humans' responsibility.

And as a result, the humans should not allow the killers pussy cats to stray outside to play with the natives.

[Rolfe]

On a tangent, my brother-in-law (a vet) thinks there's something immoral about letting pet cats outdoors. Do you have an opinion on that issue, Rolfe?

He has several reasons: many get killed by cars and dogs, communicable diseases, and especially the issue of making more cats without taking responsibility for them. (Now most of these arguments can be disarmed by responsible ownership--proper immunizations and having your own cats spayed or neutered. They still get run over by cars.)

My two cats started out as strictly indoor cats. Now, I let the one out on occasion, but she still has a mostly indoor cat mentality, so she doesn't stay out for long or roam very far. The other shows little interest in going out, and never stays out for more than a minute.


He doesn't post here as Dogdoctor, does he?

Oh, nevermind. Been round that one way too often. Meetings of minds are unlikely to occur this side of the millennium. And, er, you should see the whole of the picture my avatar is a detail of.

Rolfe.

[Redtail]

We have native mice here too. :D




And as a result, the humans should not allow the killers pussy cats to stray outside to play with the natives.

What about working farm cats?

[Rolfe]

And as a result, the humans should not allow the killers pussy cats to stray outside to play with the natives.


Not being in the Antipodes, I'm not going to fight this one.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

OK, here you are.

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/jref/rolfe-l.jpg

I know. I'm a bad kitty. :c1:

Rolfe.

[JoeTheJuggler]

And as a result, the humans should not allow the killers pussy cats to stray outside to play with the natives.

But I thought you said you were holding the cats themselves responsible. My point is, from a moral point of view, if an organism doesn't have a choice (and cats really aren't able to become vegetarians or to develop a humane kill system for their prey without human intervention), then it doesn't make sense to hold them morally culpable for something.

At any rate it's cool how this dovetailed with my other tangential question!

[JoeTheJuggler]

He doesn't post here as Dogdoctor, does he?
I doubt it. He is pretty firm in his conviction though. I've always vacillated. When I've adopted cats that were already accustomed to going outside, I never had the heart to keep them in. (Then I'd keep up with their shots and so on.)



Oh, nevermind. Been round that one way too often. Meetings of minds are unlikely to occur this side of the millennium.
I was wondering if this was a consensus among vets. I assume having your pets spayed and neutered is a consensus, right?

[The Atheist]

If you're making the point (rather separate to my mind) that by supporting our pet cats we are indirectly reponsible for these "accidents" I agree you have a point. I think it's a different point, however.

Probably.

My real point was that we really don't have much in the way of moral superiority to send this bloke to jail for what I'm sure will be the maximum. I believe that's three years, as although we've recently increased penalties, it wasn't retrospective and this one was before the law change.

Not highly legal here, mate, not at all. So we're up on you on that one anyway.

No chance it will happen here, none whatsoever. Reason: Maori consider is a traditional right, and as in Norwegians and whaling, traditional rights trump every other argument.

You may also like my opinion of badly-formulated accommodation guidelines for free-range poultry that end up giving these birds more horrible deaths than anything seen in Stalag Hen.

Carry on.

Rolfe.

Yep. That's an area where I think we do get points - some association or other does audits with public results to keep the free in "free range" and our chooks are largely well cared for.

It's a bit like wankers who protest about sow stalls then eat wild pork not having a clue how it got to their plate.

Ignorance is strength.

At the risk of another derail (this thread has heaps - but I'm really enjoying it and them), there is a big difference in a cat (feral or domestic) killing a mouse as opposed to killing a kiwi, bandicoot, parrot or any other indigenous species.
On this issue, I have a big problem with cats; their instincts and their owners in much the same fashion I have a problem with the sicko feeding his dog kittens in the OP.

Another one where no preaching is required. Feral dogs and cats are almost entirely responsible for extinction of native birds in some areas.


I just don't think it cuts it as an argument to condone throwing live kittens to your dogs, for the sheer fun of it.

Rolfe.

You're right.

The problem is a system which allows deliberate and extreme cruelty to animals for eating but with extreme penalties if you do it for fun.

On a tangent, my brother-in-law (a vet) thinks there's something immoral about letting pet cats outdoors.

I find that interesting.

Over here, it's the exact reverse; someone trying to keep a cat purely inside would be seen as cruel.

On the other hand, my neighbour's cat has just been to the vet for the third time in three months to be sewn up after being mauled by a couple of very nasty local cats who were here first.

[A.A. Alfie]

What about working farm cats?

Different imo. They usually have acres and acres of farm land around them. The indigenous wildlife (save for the odd bird and lizard perhaps) will be in outlying bush. Hopefully the kitty kat is filled up with mouse pie any way.

But I thought you said you were holding the cats themselves responsible. My point is, from a moral point of view, if an organism doesn't have a choice (and cats really aren't able to become vegetarians or to develop a humane kill system for their prey without human intervention), then it doesn't make sense to hold them morally culpable for something.

At any rate it's cool how this dovetailed with my other tangential question!

Nah, you can't help your genes, neither can a cat.
I was making a point more about the cats roaming around uncontrolled.
I live on the back of some wetlands and can see the little fu..ers darlings out and about stalking.
Sometimes my air rifle gets an outing (just kidding).

[dbilleaux]

wat....

[Rolfe]

I was wondering if this was a consensus among vets. I assume having your pets spayed and neutered is a consensus, right?


It's cultural. In areas fraught with danger for cats, it's seen as irresponsible to let them out, period. Dogdoctor lives in Hawaii, and it seems cats allowed outside there rarely live to see their fifth birthday. He's so vehement about it, he attacked a poster here who started a thread mourning their own cat which had been killed by a car.

Round here, the frequency of road accidents isn't usually seen as high enough to justify locking cats inside. People who do fear such things, often pedigree breeders, tend to have enclosed outdoor runs and things like that. I've also seen ingenious devices to stop cats getting over a garden fence. People living in high flats do keep indoor cats though.

Having pets spayed and neutered if they are not required for breeding is advocated, yes. It would be a bit self-defeating if we doctored the lot of them!

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

My real point was that we really don't have much in the way of moral superiority to send this bloke to jail for what I'm sure will be the maximum.


Why not? I don't see the argument that because you can't prevent all cruelty, you shouldn't attempt to prevent any.

I said in a previous post, you do what you can. I'd allow your halal slaughter if the alternative was live shipping to Saudi, followed by halal slaughter. Which may be the exact situation. Doesn't mean you don't have it in your sights for later, either.

The fact that some people keep pet cats, and some of these cats increase the predator pressure on the local wildlife, is no reason to condone what he did. As I think you agreed.

Another one where no preaching is required. Feral dogs and cats are almost entirely responsible for extinction of native birds in some areas.


I understand that. But it really is a separate issue. An ecological one rather than an animal welfare one. And it's a specific antipodean problem that I wouldn't presume to tell you how to tackle. It still doesn't mean we can't condemn the guy who set his dog on the kittens.

The problem is a system which allows deliberate and extreme cruelty to animals for eating but with extreme penalties if you do it for fun.


So which is better? We let the guy off for the kitten-killing, or we work towards eliminating deliberate and exgtreme cruelty to animals for eating? I'm for the latter, all the way. But going easy on the kitten-killer isn't going to help me get there, at all. Bear in mind that outside the backwater of ritual slaughter, there is complete consensus about the need to devise the most humane slaughter methods possible. Research is ongoing. This is actually a ghetto problem, horrible though it is.

The problem there is extreme political correctness that's terrified of being accused of religious intolerance or anti-semitism. That's what needs to be targeted. Sighs of impotence that we shouldn't squash that vermin who killed the kittens isn't going to get you anywhere, and taken too far will merely give the impression you don't care about the kittens either.

Rolfe.

[Redtail]

Different imo. They usually have acres and acres of farm land around them. The indigenous wildlife (save for the odd bird and lizard perhaps) will be in outlying bush. Hopefully the kitty kat is filled up with mouse pie any way.



Fair enough. Most of the farms around here are hobby farms of not much more than 5 acres and they are usually where our ferals wind up. The larger ones adopt 3-5 depending on what they're growing/storing.

[Redtail]

It's cultural. In areas fraught with danger for cats, it's seen as irresponsible to let them out, period. Dogdoctor lives in Hawaii, and it seems cats allowed outside there rarely live to see their fifth birthday. He's so vehement about it, he attacked a poster here who started a thread mourning their own cat which had been killed by a car.

Round here, the frequency of road accidents isn't usually seen as high enough to justify locking cats inside. People who do fear such things, often pedigree breeders, tend to have enclosed outdoor runs and things like that. I've also seen ingenious devices to stop cats getting over a garden fence. People living in high flats do keep indoor cats though.

It's odd granted we live in a very rural area, but the only Cat Ranch cat that has been lost to a car in 10 years was in the driveway. (poor thing was hiding from the rain too close to the tire.)

Having pets spayed and neutered if they are not required for breeding is advocated, yes. It would be a bit self-defeating if we doctored the lot of them!

Rolfe.

Yep.

[Rolfe]

I think this thread has illustrated a wider point about cultural attitudes to animal suffering that interests me considerably.

If you simply take the situation in Britain, you can see a very striking rise in public revulsion against animal cruelty over the past 150 years or so. The most important milestone at the start of this was the publication of Anna Sewell's Black Beauty in 1877. This was a deliberate attempt to raise public consciousness about animal suffering, and I recall being very much affected by it when I read it as a child. Sewell was influenced by earlier writing on the subject, and in her turn influenced many more people to become activists. Thus we have Kate and Nina Hosali in the 1920s campaigning to improve the lives of working animals in North Africa, and many others.

In the years since then, the huge change in public attitudes has been accompanied by changes in legislation. Many blood sports that were once extremely popular are now banned. Mutilations to animals that were once considered acceptable or even essential to good husbandry have been banned, and the trend is towards further restrictions in these matters. Research into more humane methods of slaughter was undertaken and continues. And so on. We have now banned fox hunting, which would have been unthinkable only a few decades ago, and the docking of puppies' tails, ditto. I could list many other things, but these are the two most recent advances.

While the global trend seems to be towards greater animal welfare, countries progress at different speeds. The difference that seems to me most striking is between Britain and the USA. In Britain declawing of cats is not only banned, the idea never seems to cross anyone's mind. And yet in the USA many vets view the operation as essential for a cat to "fulfil its role as a house pet". In Britain both docking and ear cropping of dogs are banned, while in the USA the view is that these mutilations aren't a matter for concern. In Britain, pig meat from castrated males cannot be sold under the principle quality assurance mark, and so although castration of piglets isn't illegal, it just doesn't happen. In the USA, farmers and consumers protest that "boar taint" makes such meat inedible. In Britain, no surgical alteration to the tails or legs of show horses is permitted, but such things are required for showing certain breeds in the USA. And so on.

The more I look at the matter, the more it seems to be an extremely cultural phenomenon. In Britain, the docking of puppies was banned only very recently, and there's still a very significant level of resistance to the ban. However, ear cropping has been banned for so long I can't remember when that happened. Nobody is agitating to be allowed to crop the ears of Dobermanns, because they don't remember a time when it was done, and they see no need for it to be done. I think that in a generation, the same thing will apply to tail docking. It certainly was the case with tail docking of horses, which was banned in about the 1950s. The very idea wouldn't even cross a horseman's mind these days.

How far does this go? I don't know. I think it goes as far as the point where banning a mutilation is actually detrimental to animal welfare (as might be the case with docking of sheep), or where the management consequences of banning a relatively minor procedure become a big issue. And only time will tell on that one. We haven't yet banned anything that turned out to have been a good idea after all.

I know people who are very keen to ban spaying and castration of dogs and cats. They call it "sexual mutilation" (which is of course a technically correct description) and carry on about the rights of the animals being infringed. I think they're a bunch of anthropomorphic lunatics. I don't think animals have rights, I think we have responsibilities. And I don't think a cat or a dog is sophisticated enough to regret that it doesn't want to do something nobody is physically preventing it from doing if it likes. I see the management and health benefits conferred by neutering, and I support the procedure.

However, am I right? I don't know. We could be having this conversation in 100 years, and perhaps my successor will be commenting on how successful the neutering ban has been and how nobody would dream of subjecting healthy animals to ovariohysterectomy, OMG how barbaric. Possibly better contraceptives will facilitate this.

I hope I'm right in believing that every country is moving in the same direction. Some have advanced further than others, and others are very backward and very slow. Some issues don't arise in certain countries anyway. We don't carry out mulesing on sheep, never have, for example. I like to point this out to students, and ask them to consider the possibility that their country may well move towards banning declawing or ear cropping (for example) in future, and how much of our attitudes are a product of the time and the place we happen to find ourselves in.

What I very much hope is that there will be no regressive movement to counterbalance this. I don't agree with TA's counsel of despair, that we can't criticise any animal cruelty because of the amount of cruelty that is still condoned. We pick our battles, and fight them one at a time. Practising the art of the possible can get you a long way. Appearing to condone the torture of kittens for fun on the grounds that we haven't yet succeeded in enforcing best practice in all slaughterhouses is not to my mind a constructive approach. Condemning inhumane slaughter with the same vehemence we condem the torture of these kittens is going to get us a lot further. Bit by bit.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

While I understand your point, there certainly is a way to know you don't eat shechita-killed or halal-killed meat.


Sure. But should I, as someone who enjoys meat and has no problem with standard routine slaughter procedures (which are used on the vast bulk of the animals slaughtered in this country) be forced to go entirely vegetarian simply because my government refuses to label the relatively small quantity of meat in the general food chain which has come from animals that weren't pre-stunned?

I would actually support that if it were part of an organised boycott campaign to force the required labelling legislation through. I don't see the point, as an individual.

Rolfe.

[The Painter]

How about this guy;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article7029058.ece

Do you catsup on cat stew?

[Damien Evans]

Wait a second, are you saying a mouse is not indigenous anywhere?

I would hazard a guess that at least one species or another is indigenous every place domestic cats are except for Australia.

You'd be wrong. Australias only native placental mammals are rats and mice, just about all of them are endemic, and most are threatened due to feral cats, dogs, foxes and habitat destruction.

http://www.alicespringsdesertpark.com.au/kids/nature/mammals/mouse.shtml

[Howie Felterbush]

This cat killing guy is oviously a bit unhinged. who finds a bag of kitties and immediately thinks, "I should feed these to my dog and video record the whole process"?

But, in his defense, Bush did it first!
http://i45.tinypic.com/2s7jtle.jpg

[Ethan Thane Athen]

How about this guy;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article7029058.ece

Do you catsup on cat stew?

Interestingly, despite being what most people would call a 'cat lover' (I have 4 currently and that's the smallest number I've ever had) I'd have no problem with this. As long as the cats were reared for food and killed humanely then I see no difference between eating cat (or dog) over any other meat. If it tasted nice and was fine nutritionally and hygienically then no worries.

Obviously I wouldn't condone stealing peoples pets off the street to serve up but that would be the same whether it was a cat, a dog, a rabbit or a cow!

[Rolfe]

How about this guy;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article7029058.ece

Do you catsup on cat stew?


Read it to the end.

Yesterday he said that he had only been joking about the recipe, and he had been misunderstood.

He added: “Mind you, I wasn’t joking all that much. In the 1930s and 1940s, when I was a boy, people certainly did eat cat in the countryside around Arezzo.” Food historians said that Italians in cities such as Vicenza devised cat recipes in times of economic hardship. Inhabitants of Vicenza are still nicknamed magnagati (cat eaters), and in some butchers’ shops rabbits are sold with their heads to assure buyers that they are not cats.


By the time of liberation in 1945, there wasn't a cat left alive on the island of Guernsey. Neighbours still don't talk to each other on account of what one knows or believes happened to their cat during the occupation.

Rolfe.

[mumblethrax]

I don't see the point, as an individual.
This isn't just a collective action problem, because every one of those animals matters, and every person who abstains introduces economic pressure that mitigates the harm done to the animals you're concerned about.

Or to put it another way, you do what you can.

[HansMustermann]

There is a reason cats hunt. If they lost that instinct, they'd starve the minute their human wasn't there to open the tin. It's deep-seated precisely because it is so essential to survival in the wild. There's a reason they appear to "play" with their prey too. They're not sadists. They're in real danger when they get their face close enough to the prey to inflict a killing bite. Hence the darting in and out, and tiring the prey out and wearing it down.

I pretty much grew up with cats killing and playing with mice. Great-grandma's house was where we kids were whenever we didn't have to go to school, and let's just say her only pest-control were the cats.

I'll disagree.

I've seen the same cats just go for the kill, and they can kill a mouse in no time at all. Even from the front.

But then at other times the same cats would play with an increasingly injured mouse for half an hour.

I've _never_ seen a mouse even try to fight back. Even when we put a kitten on top of one in a bucket. Rats fight back. Mice don't seem to. (Or presumably not against something the size of a cat.) Mice invariably just try to get away with their life. There is nothing to dodge, no elaborate strategies are needed, etc.

One of the cats had gotten a taste for hunting rats. She was good at it too. I've never seen her play with a rat. With rats the way to go was the standard killer bite at the throat, as quick as she could get to said throat.

But again the same cat would play for half an hour with a half-dead _mouse_ who doesn't fight back.

Now I wouldn't say cats are "sadists", because they simply lack the notions involved in "sadism". Cats however like to play. Well, probably better described as "train" than simple "play", but really that seems to be it. Just like they like to play with a feather on a string or a plush toy, they also play with their live food.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I pretty much grew up with cats killing and playing with mice. Great-grandma's house was where we kids were whenever we didn't have to go to school, and let's just say her only pest-control were the cats.

I'll disagree.

I've seen the same cats just go for the kill, and they can kill a mouse in no time at all. Even from the front.

But then at other times the same cats would play with an increasingly injured mouse for half an hour.

I've _never_ seen a mouse even try to fight back. Even when we put a kitten on top of one in a bucket. Rats fight back. Mice don't seem to. (Or presumably not against something the size of a cat.) Mice invariably just try to get away with their life. There is nothing to dodge, no elaborate strategies are needed, etc.

One of the cats had gotten a taste for hunting rats. She was good at it too. I've never seen her play with a rat. With rats the way to go was the standard killer bite at the throat, as quick as she could get to said throat.

But again the same cat would play for half an hour with a half-dead _mouse_ who doesn't fight back.

Now I wouldn't say cats are "sadists", because they simply lack the notions involved in "sadism". Cats however like to play. Well, probably better described as "train" than simple "play", but really that seems to be it. Just like they like to play with a feather on a string or a plush toy, they also play with their live food.

As the owner (well really they're just kind enough to let me live in their house) of several hunter-killer felines I'd agree with that.

[I Ratant]

A cat that took up residence in the Flight Test hanger was playing with a mouse.
I stopped it from doing that, and removed the mouse and released it alive.
The cat evinced no more interest in the situation.
This same cat would sit in the middle of the empty hanger.
Birds nesting in the rafters 80 feet up, where the cat couldn't possibly get, would fly down and dive bomb it.
One swipe with a paw, and one dinner, self-delivered.
That the young in the nest the birds were protecting would soon die with this pointless "defense" of the nest wasn't part of the bird's nature.

[Morrigan]

Rolfe kept talking about "docking" and I had no idea what it was. Apparently it's the clipping of an animal's tail, the fleshy part too. And people clip animal ears.

I never heard of that before. Why the hell would anyone do that? :confused:

[CORed]

That accounts for maybe 20% of the animals caught and eaten by snakes. The rest essentially go down the tube live, unless they have a coronary beforehand.

That's correct. I once happened upon a garter snake in the process of eating a mouse alive while I was fishing. It wasn't pretty. The mouse was squealing and struggling.

[I Ratant]

Rolfe kept talking about "docking" and I had no idea what it was. Apparently it's the clipping of an animal's tail, the fleshy part too. And people clip animal ears.

I never heard of that before. Why the hell would anyone do that? :confused:
.
Fashion.
Dobies get ears docked as a matter of course.
Tails get cut off Spaniels.
And practicality..
A long hard tail does damage in a house when wagged.

[sadhatter]

To me it all seems to be down to the hunting aspect. Some people have made very good points about domestic cats and the like hunting birds and whatnot, and how people, including myself think this is fine.

And some have made points that we kill other animals to eat and that is also fine.

But this a-hole, is not in either category.

If the man would have pre killed the kittens maybe he would have some kind of justification. Personally i don't know the animal cruelty laws involving kittens, so i do not know if this is even legal, i would hope not, but that is just personal opinion.

Or if the guy had let his dog hunt wild cats ( we have an infestation of them around where i live, and while i can't bring myself to shoot them, i can see the need of doing so and i wouldn't try and stop someone for doing so.) i wouldn't have a problem. That is hunting, each animal has nature's chance of winning.

But he did neither of these, it wasn't about food, as the man could easily buy dog kibble. And if it was just a sustenance issue he would have killed the cat before hand.

And it is not a (for lack of a better term) " sporting " issue, because it was not a hunt, simply a fixed fight.

The guy is a tool, probably the type of person who listens to gwar or icp and dosn't understand they are satirical. He obviously just wanted to be able to claim his dog ate kittens to get some cred among his equally spooky friends, and now i hope that it bites him in the ass as hard as possible.

Though the song Licksore does come to mind as to what the best punisment would be for him.

[Steelmage]

No, but you would if you had a pet snake. And you *could* go out and buy a dozen life traps and hope the mice get caught in those before your cat gets them - if you wanted to.

Sorry, what you are doing is a=b=c=d, not all things are equal. Humans are animals as well. We do not condone humans killing and eating other humans. Both Rolfe and Juggler said it better then I would have stated it ealier.



Rubbish. Dead is dead, and cats kill mice, rats and birds very slowly.

Sorry, no, I have seen cats catch and eat mice whole. Your arguement, as such, not so good.

One of you is a least a atheist, so since humans do not have souls, and since they are just animals. Then when one human eats another human that must be okay, like the Maori use to do. Oh, so when it is your species (or your arse) it's not okay.

It is called bounds of reason. There is no reason in killing kittens by feeding them to a dog. Specially when there is plenty of other food sources for the animal. Just like we do not except killing a human to feed another human. Dogs and cats are pets through human intervention, we should treat them a little better then what this arse-hole did.


Rolfe kept talking about "docking" and I had no idea what it was. Apparently it's the clipping of an animal's tail, the fleshy part too. And people clip animal ears.

I never heard of that before. Why the hell would anyone do that? :confused:

We had a rottweiler once, a huge one, about 27" to 29" inches at the shoulder, never dock his tail, and his tail would knock anything (and everything) down from tables.

[A.A. Alfie]

Rolfe kept talking about "docking" and I had no idea what it was. Apparently it's the clipping of an animal's tail, the fleshy part too. And people clip animal ears.

I never heard of that before. Why the hell would anyone do that? :confused:

There was a practical side, not simply asthetic or household convenience. I understand the practice is illegal here these days.

I understand from an old friend who breeds Jack Russells that the tails were docked (n them) for better retrieval of the dog from the 'fight' - I can't say for bigger dogs.

For example. Lets say the dog is hunting and has cornered its prey down a log hollow, hole or similar. The dog wont just back out because you call it, so it needs to be physically removed.
Even if you could get to it and grab it by the collar or scruff you might get bitten, so you grab it by the tail. If the tail was long and you grabbed it near the end, you would end up hurting the animal.
By grabbing it at the 'root', you can literally lift the entire animal off the ground without pain or pull it from the hollow (I have seen it done and can do it with my undocked foxy x JR - at the front).



http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=391&pictureid=2418

[Moss]

Is it worth the effort to consider the dog in this case as a tool used by an emotionally disturbed young man to kill the kittens?
And I do think his intent does make a difference. He did not do it to feed his dog. The intent was to kill the kittens. I'm with sadhatter on this.
We may have a double standard about cute and fluffy things being easier to empathise with. But that seems to be a problem of our human wiring. I wonder how much we can help that.
The intent of the perpetrator also makes me wonder if society wouldn't be helped more with him getting counseling or mandatory therapy. Because killing animals for fun is a often associated with antisocial tendencies.

[luchog]

My own view to some extent hinges on the "require" part. Personally, I couldn't keep a reptile that had to be provided with live prey, but I also wouldn't get into too much of a pissing contest with someone who did. However, providing live prey to an animal that doesn't require such food turns my stomach. Not because what happens to the prey is in the end any different from a wild rabbit or mouse caught by a dog or a cat, but because of what it says about the inhumanity of the person who did such a thing.
It really depends on the circumstances.

For starters, there are very very few reptiles which require live prey. The vast majority are just fine with frozen/thawed. Those few that do can typically be weaned off of them to f/t with a little effort, especially if they're juveniles.

I know a few people who feed live. One does so because his snake is seriously temperamental and simply will not eat f/t no matter how many times he's tried (Python regius, which is notoriously picky). The rest do it because it's "more natural"; and won't be swayed by the fact that parasites, diseases, and injuries to snakes by prey are also "more natural" and very likely if you're not very careful. I knew one girl who had a Rosy Boa she insisted on feeding live for that reason, and which was eventually blinded by a mouse she fed it; as well as a guy who similarly fed live rats to his Ball/Royal Python, until one day a rat killed it.

I have, unfortunately, known a couple of idiots who fed live animals to their giant snakes (both Burmese Pythons), because it was "cool". Until the snakes got too big for them to handle.

[luchog]

My own view to some extent hinges on the "require" part. Personally, I couldn't keep a reptile that had to be provided with live prey, but I also wouldn't get into too much of a pissing contest with someone who did. However, providing live prey to an animal that doesn't require such food turns my stomach. Not because what happens to the prey is in the end any different from a wild rabbit or mouse caught by a dog or a cat, but because of what it says about the inhumanity of the person who did such a thing.
It really depends on the circumstances.

For starters, there are very very few reptiles which require live prey. The vast majority are just fine with frozen/thawed. Those few that do can typically be weaned off of them to f/t with a little effort, especially if they're juveniles.

I know a few people who feed live. One does so because his snake is seriously temperamental and simply will not eat f/t no matter how many times he's tried (Python regius, which is notoriously picky). The rest do it because it's "more natural"; and won't be swayed by the fact that parasites, diseases, and injuries to snakes by prey are also "more natural" and very likely if you're not very careful. I knew one girl who had a Rosy Boa she insisted on feeding live for that reason, and which was eventually blinded by a mouse she fed it; as well as a guy who similarly fed live rats to his Ball/Royal Python, until one day a rat killed it.

I have, unfortunately, known a couple of idiots who fed live animals to their giant snakes (both Burmese Pythons), because it was "cool". Until the snakes got too big for them to handle.

I don't know anyone who feeds live animals (aside from fish) to any other kind of critter, reptile or mammal, who does it for any other reason than to enjoy watching the kill. Bloodthirsty idiots. Torturing and killing animals is one of the most common signs of a budding serial killer.

[luchog]

That accounts for maybe 20% of the animals caught and eaten by snakes. The rest essentially go down the tube live, unless they have a coronary beforehand.

Not true. All prey animals are killed by snakes before ingestion; either through venom, constriction, or beating. Eating a live animals would be highly counterproductive for a snake, since there would be no guarantee it wouldn't wake up and try to claw it's way out from the inside. Mice, rats, and rabbits have very sharp claws.

Constriction is a particularly slow and unpleasant way for an animal to die, which is one of the reasons that responsible snake owners feed only frozen/thawed (the others being issues with parasites and aggression, and simple convenience). Beating is a very rare method of killing, typically only used by non-venomous snakes that prey on other snakes, and is almost as unpleasant as constriction.

[The Atheist]

I don't agree with TA's counsel of despair, that we can't criticise any animal cruelty because of the amount of cruelty that is still condoned.

That wasn't what I was at, but your post is a masterpiece.

[The Atheist]

Sorry, no, I have seen cats catch and eat mice whole. Your arguement, as such, not so good.

I take it English isn't your first language, so I'll explain carefully and give you a few hints along the way.

I didn't say that cats always play with their prey, but if you think they don't, then you can't have seen many cats.

(It's argument)

One of you is a least a atheist, so since humans do not have souls, and since they are just animals. Then when one human eats another human that must be okay, like the Maori use to do. Oh, so when it is your species (or your arse) it's not okay.

It's "an" atheist. "A" before consonants, "An" before vowels - with, of course a few exceptions in the "you" sounding "u", as in unicorn.

Now for a tricky one, the "use" after Maori in the second sentence. You need to use the past tense form of the verb: "used". It seems a bit odd, because it isn't pronounced correctly a lot of the time, but it's right.

Your structure is leaving me confused as well. The whole thing is a bit of a mystery to me and I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

On one hand, I see a position that atheism can't have morals regarding cannibalism, and on the other, I see an assertion that cannibalism's ok as long as it's not one's own arse being eaten.

You may well have a valid point in there, but I'm not getting it, so please feel free to try again.

It is called bounds of reason. There is no reason in killing kittens by feeding them to a dog. Specially when there is plenty of other food sources for the animal. Just like we do not except killing a human to feed another human. Dogs and cats are pets through human intervention, we should treat them a little better then what this arse-hole did.

Actually, there are several reasons why one would kill kittens by feeding them to a dog, and this is where my moral uncertainty comes in.

Referring back to Rolfe's magnificent post where she mentions neutering & speying of cats - we have an enormous problem with stray and feral cats in New Zealand and people who don't neuter cats are as much criminals as the perpetrator of the kitten deaths, in my view. (That doesn't mean I'm equating the level of moral crime, just that both acts are criminal.)

New Zealand (NZ) has no native mammals or snakes, so bird life became unbelievably diverse; we have some of the most beautiful and unusual birds on the planet. Alas, a lack of predation for millions of years meant that many of these birds gave up on flying and no longer have that ability. Thousands of stray cats kill millions of native birds, and as well and being beautiful and unusual, our native birds are also mostly rare and endangered.

Five dead kittens is five fewer predators, and was their death any worse than the hundreds of kittens a day which die at the owners' hands in any of these creative and common ways to kill spare kittens: hammer, boot, drowning, starving, throwing from cars, dropping off bridges or having their necks inexpertly wrung?

Note that I don't necessarily agree with that position, but it's valid, especially in NZ's context.

Myself? I'd just outlaw keeping animals as pets. The enormous majority of cruelty to animals goes unreported and unknown. I've seen things which would make you puke just hearing about them. I just can't see it being worth the price to appease a few good owners who have an odd desire to own a live toy. If you want to stop cruelty, stop letting humans own animals.

But I agree we should treat them a little better than the said POS.

[The Atheist]

And in a surprise sentencing, Te Ahu Aaron Mankelow was today sentenced to seven months in jail and banned from owning animals for 10 years (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3350413/Gisborne-man-jailed-for-feeding-kittens-to-dog).

Reaction has not been polite, with everyone jumping up and down at a lack of severity.

Maybe the judge is a bird-fancier?

[quarky]

Not true. All prey animals are killed by snakes before ingestion; either through venom, constriction, or beating. Eating a live animals would be highly counterproductive for a snake, since there would be no guarantee it wouldn't wake up and try to claw it's way out from the inside. Mice, rats, and rabbits have very sharp claws.

Constriction is a particularly slow and unpleasant way for an animal to die, which is one of the reasons that responsible snake owners feed only frozen/thawed (the others being issues with parasites and aggression, and simple convenience). Beating is a very rare method of killing, typically only used by non-venomous snakes that prey on other snakes, and is almost as unpleasant as constriction.



Not true. I've seen black snakes trying to choke down frogs, feet first, many times. Its a very slow swallowing process, and the bullfrogs scream like a baby, sometimes for an hour.

[HansMustermann]

Sorry, no, I have seen cats catch and eat mice whole. Your arguement, as such, not so good.

I gather you never had the honour of having the cat try to share a still screaming bird with you? :p

Or a friend's cat actually tried to bring in live mice and eat them in her bowl, as they had taught her to do with the other food. Almost had a nervous breakdown when my friend took her mouse and set it free :p

But basically it depends. Sometimes they just chomp the mouse's head off, which I guess is as instant and merciful a kill as it gets. But it's not a rule. Sometimes they'll play with an increasingly wounded mouse for half an hour flat. And sometimes they'll bring it alive to feed it to their kittens or to their human room mate.

Basically let's not idealize cats. They're a very efficient and obligate carnivore, and a large part of that efficiency comes from being inclined to train whenever the opportunity presents itself. Which can equally mean pouncing on a feather on a string or releasing a wounded mouse just to pounce on it again. And again.

They're not sadists just because, as I was saying, they simply don't have the mental capacity or notions required for that. But they're doing nasty stuff nevertheless.

Don't get me wrong, though, the guy in the topic is still an idiot, because as a human he's supposed to have them.

[Rolfe]

And in a surprise sentencing, Te Ahu Aaron Mankelow was today sentenced to seven months in jail and banned from owning animals for 10 years (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3350413/Gisborne-man-jailed-for-feeding-kittens-to-dog).

Reaction has not been polite, with everyone jumping up and down at a lack of severity.

Maybe the judge is a bird-fancier?


Sounds about right to me, actually.

Rolfe.

[A.A. Alfie]

Not true. I've seen black snakes trying to choke down frogs, feet first, many times. Its a very slow swallowing process, and the bullfrogs scream like a baby, sometimes for an hour.

What sort of black snake?
How old? It sounds kinda inexperienced if anything.

I am no 'expert' on snakes but I have owned a few and take more than a passing interest in them.

We have only anecdotal stuff to counter this but I repeat, my understanding of snakes is they will either constrict to death (or near death) or inject venom to bring about death (or near death) prior to consuming.

Do we have an expert in the house? :)


I appreciate you have specific problems with cats in NZ, and I feel for you - or rather, for your bird life. I wouldn't know what to advise, though I'd support the compulsory neutering of everything feline on the islands if you could get the legislation passed. However, few countries have your specific problems, and the lives of countless people - and their pets - are enormously enriched by the relationship.

Rolfe.

Excellent post Rolf

[quarky]

What sort of black snake?
How old? It sounds kinda inexperienced if anything.

I am no 'expert' on snakes but I have owned a few and take more than a passing interest in them.

We have only anecdotal stuff to counter this but I repeat, my understanding of snakes is they will either constrict to death (or near death) or inject venom to bring about death (or near death) prior to consuming.

Do we have an expert in the house? :)



Excellent post Rolf



An expert?

Yeah. Me.

Honest, too.

The black rat snake anecdote I mention:

Not once.

More like 100 times.

The crying noise the bullfrog makes is loud. Its the reason I've witnessed this so many times. The crying noise brings one out of the house to see what's happening. Anecdotaly, when the snake catches the frog face first (luck of the draw) you don't hear it.

Look it up. I can't be the only one that's witnessed this. So many times.

But, hey:

I live in a pretty wild place, and I observe stuff.

Btw, many species of snakes will choke down a chicken egg. I've also witnessed this too many times. I even put plastic eggs in the henhouse to thwart them. Guess what?
A snake will swallow a fake egg too...much to their demise.

[A.A. Alfie]

An expert?

Yeah. Me.

Honest, too.

The black rat snake anecdote I mention:

Not once.

More like 100 times.



I don't disbelieve you at all, but all we have is what you are telling us.
What sort of black snake?
Where do you live?

You seem to be talking about one type (species) of snake. Like I say, my understanding is -by and large - that snakes kill either via constriction or venom prior to consuming their prey.

In my perusal of the internet as well as my own literature on this I can't find any reference to snakes eating their prey live.

Where I live we have black snakes too. Venomous animals that strike at their prey, injecting them with venom that will kill them. They then eat.

eta. I do understand that some species that eat defenseless animals (such as worms or frogs) will eat their prey live, but they are an exception to most (larger) snakes that eat mammals and birds which could inflict some serious injury.

[quarky]

I don't disbelieve you at all, but all we have is what you are telling us.
What sort of black snake?
Where do you live?

You seem to be talking about one type (species) of snake. Like I say, my understanding is -by and large - that snakes kill either via constriction or venom prior to consuming their prey.

In my perusal of the internet as well as my own literature on this I can't find any reference to snakes eating their prey live.

Where I live we have black snakes too. Venomous animals that strike at their prey, injecting them with venom that will kill them. They then eat.

Your understanding is lacking.

Lots of times, a snake must grab and run. No time to constrict. The black snakes I mention are constrictors; non-venomous.
Their teeth slope inwards and they have a hard time letting go, once they pounce.

My observations concern snakes in the wild. I have no idea how they behave in terrariums, though I could imagine its more relaxed.

[A.A. Alfie]

Your understanding is lacking.

Lots of times, a snake must grab and run. No time to constrict. The black snakes I mention are constrictors; non-venomous.
Their teeth slope inwards and they have a hard time letting go, once they pounce.

My observations concern snakes in the wild. I have no idea how they behave in terrariums, though I could imagine its more relaxed.

My understanding is lacking with many things and seemingly this one snake - agreed.
That is why I ask, where you live and what sort of black snake?
If they are in fact "constrictors" I would be very surprised if they dont constrict.

So, where and what? Can/will you tell us or not? I would like to learn here. :confused:

[Thunder]

were they good little kitties...or bad little kitties?

[luchog]

Not true. I've seen black snakes trying to choke down frogs, feet first, many times. Its a very slow swallowing process, and the bullfrogs scream like a baby, sometimes for an hour.

Sorry, I misspoke when I said "all". I should have said "all mammal, reptile, and avian prey"; since amphibian, insect, and piscine prey are often eaten live, due to their lack of physical defenses.

[luchog]

You seem to be talking about one type (species) of snake. Like I say, my understanding is -by and large - that snakes kill either via constriction or venom prior to consuming their prey.
Once minor correction, envenomating and constriction are not the only methods of killing. Flailing (beating against nearby objects or ground) is also used by some species, most notably the Indigo snakes (Drymarchon spp.) native to the Southeast US.

[A.A. Alfie]

Once minor correction, envenomating and constriction are not the only methods of killing. Flailing (beating against nearby objects or ground) is also used by some species, most notably the Indigo snakes (Drymarchon spp.) native to the Southeast US.

Yeah, I got a bit of that in a previous post.
I would love to have some numbers on what % of snakes eat their prey live. It would seem none (or next to none) that eat mammals or birds. Just some weak as piss snakes in the US. :)

[quarky]

My understanding is lacking with many things and seemingly this one snake - agreed.
That is why I ask, where you live and what sort of black snake?
If they are in fact "constrictors" I would be very surprised if they dont constrict.

So, where and what? Can/will you tell us or not? I would like to learn here. :confused:

Sorry about that. This is a bit off-topic, and I'm here because I hate cats, but:

I live on the northern edge of the Cumberland Plateau of the southern Appalachian mountains in the U.S.

I could dig up the latin names. The generic names of some of the snakes I've seen 'grabbing' frogs are 'black rat snake'; queen snake; king snake; and black racer. Even more varieties caught swallowing eggs.

I have a pond very near my house, with lots of frogs, hence these observations.

[Bill Thompson]

Let's feed babies to sharks and film it.

[A.A. Alfie]

Sorry about that. This is a bit off-topic, and I'm here because I hate cats, but:

I live on the northern edge of the Cumberland Plateau of the southern Appalachian mountains in the U.S.

I could dig up the latin names. The generic names of some of the snakes I've seen 'grabbing' frogs are 'black rat snake'; queen snake; king snake; and black racer. Even more varieties caught swallowing eggs.

I have a pond very near my house, with lots of frogs, hence these observations.

Thanks for that - very interesting and I've learned a few things.
I've done a little investigation and have a few facts on the snakes mentioned....

Black Rat snake
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ReptilesAmphibians/Facts/FactSheets/Blackratsnake.cfm

Diet in the Wild
Rat snakes are primarily known as rodent eaters, however other food preferences do exist. As juveniles, rat snakes eat small lizards, baby mice, and an occasional small frog. Adult rat snakes have a diet mainly consisting of mice and rats, but also include chipmunks, moles, and other small rodents. Adults also eat bird eggs and young. Rat snakes kill their prey by constriction.

Queen snake

I can’t find anything definitive but they appear to be constrictors. That said, they also appear to take non dangerous prey live (molted shellfish, frogs and minnows)

King snakes
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ReptilesAmphibians/Facts/FactSheets/Commonkingsnake.cfm

Diet in the Wild
They feed on other snakes, small mammals, lizards, birds, turtle eggs, and frogs. They are a constrictor.

Black Racer snakes

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/herpetology/fl-guide/Colubercpriapus.htm

Racers are opportunistic predators whose diet is as varied as their choice of habitat. It feeds on frogs, lizards, snakes, rodents, and birds and their eggs. In Florida, frogs, lizards and small snakes make up the majority of the Racer's diet. Despite its scientific name, Coluber constrictor, the Racer is not a true constrictor and overpowers its prey by simply grabbing it in its jaws and pressing it against the ground until it stops struggling.


Is it possible that black racers and (juvenile) black rat snakes sometimes get mixed up?

[Cain]

Cats are like hot chicks: they expect thankfulness for their presence alone.

[Carefulplease]

Three situations:

1. I buy a live mouse and feed it to my pet snake.
2. I buy a live mouse and smack it with a hammer, killing it instantly.
3. I lay a mousetrap in my basement, and it snaps on a mouse's leg, severing it. The mouse dies from blood loss and shock.

2 is criminal, 1 and 3 are not. Which ones are considered acceptable, ethically, vary depending on who you ask but I'd say the conventional, mainstream answer would be that 3 is perfectly okay, 1 is icky but questionable, and 2 is definitely wrong.

Your set of examples is very nice. It seems to me that many of these ethical conundrums arise when we attempt to square our moral intuitions with consequentialist principles. They are often much more easily accommodated into some ethical system that leaves room for something resembling the principle of double effect. (I quite agree with the rest of your commentary.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

(I didn't read the whole thread. Has this been mentioned?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

[quarky]

Thanks for that - very interesting and I've learned a few things.
I've done a little investigation and have a few facts on the snakes mentioned....

Black Rat snake
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ReptilesAmphibians/Facts/FactSheets/Blackratsnake.cfm

Diet in the Wild
Rat snakes are primarily known as rodent eaters, however other food preferences do exist. As juveniles, rat snakes eat small lizards, baby mice, and an occasional small frog. Adult rat snakes have a diet mainly consisting of mice and rats, but also include chipmunks, moles, and other small rodents. Adults also eat bird eggs and young. Rat snakes kill their prey by constriction.

Queen snake

I can’t find anything definitive but they appear to be constrictors. That said, they also appear to take non dangerous prey live (molted shellfish, frogs and minnows)

King snakes
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ReptilesAmphibians/Facts/FactSheets/Commonkingsnake.cfm

Diet in the Wild
They feed on other snakes, small mammals, lizards, birds, turtle eggs, and frogs. They are a constrictor.

Black Racer snakes

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/herpetology/fl-guide/Colubercpriapus.htm

Racers are opportunistic predators whose diet is as varied as their choice of habitat. It feeds on frogs, lizards, snakes, rodents, and birds and their eggs. In Florida, frogs, lizards and small snakes make up the majority of the Racer's diet. Despite its scientific name, Coluber constrictor, the Racer is not a true constrictor and overpowers its prey by simply grabbing it in its jaws and pressing it against the ground until it stops struggling.


Is it possible that black racers and (juvenile) black rat snakes sometimes get mixed up?

I wouldn't mix them up, though some may.

Btw, these snakes are quite vulnerable when they're trying to choke down a big frog. Lots of animals (around here, anyway) would gladly eat the snake.
They tend to grab the frog and 'run' to a more hidden place. Its quite amazing how fast a black snake can slither up a tree.
Back on topic:

Feeding kittens to big snakes, anyone?

[Gaspode]

Discussion on pets split to new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=167942).

[A.A. Alfie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuUhux1oYg

[quarky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuUhux1oYg

Thanks!

(I wonder why they're hassling the snake?)

[PhantomWolf]

We don't have to worry about not doing live feedings for snakes in New Zealand. We don't have them and it is illegal to import them, or even snake products without the proper authorisation. Remember that if you want to visit and bring your favourite pair of snake skin boots.

[A.A. Alfie]

What about my cat skin boots? Are they ok?

[PhantomWolf]

What about my cat skin boots? Are they ok?

Unless they are made from some sort of exotic and protected cat.....

[A.A. Alfie]

Cool, what about my wolfskin boots, Harp seal pup slippers and my Rhino skin jump suit?

Or..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKwNbD1M1Y

[PhantomWolf]

http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/enter/personal/travellers-brochure.pdf

[Bill Thompson]

It is a crime because human beings domesticated cats and dogs. They are no longer wild animals and would not survive at this stage in evolution. We have supplied them with a kind of man-made natural selection.

They have become part of who we are now. Because of this, domesticated animals have rights. If this guy does not consider cats to be part of his family it does not matter because cats are in more homes worldwide than dogs. Lots of other people would consider one of those kittens as a family member.

What he did was cruel. Maybe he was a Catholic and thought animals don't have souls. Cat lovers would disagree.

[A.A. Alfie]

What he did was cruel. Maybe he was a Catholic and thought animals don't have souls. Cat lovers would disagree.

Maybe he was an atheist and knows animals don't have souls.:)

[Mick Houlahan]

How were they prepared?

I imagine he just told them they were gonna die.

Seriously though, the guy's a sick SOB and personally I'd just let the radical animal-rights fanatics have him.

[Damien Evans]

It is a crime because human beings domesticated cats and dogs. They are no longer wild animals and would not survive at this stage in evolution. We have supplied them with a kind of man-made natural selection.

They have become part of who we are now. Because of this, domesticated animals have rights. If this guy does not consider cats to be part of his family it does not matter because cats are in more homes worldwide than dogs. Lots of other people would consider one of those kittens as a family member.

What he did was cruel. Maybe he was a Catholic and thought animals don't have souls. Cat lovers would disagree.

Very sadly, this is not true. Otherwise many Australian and New Zealand species would not be extinct.

[PhantomWolf]

Very sadly, this is not true. Otherwise many Australian and New Zealand species would not be extinct.

While cats and dogs aren't helping many of our endangered spieces, Possums, Rats, Stoats, and ferrets are the main culprits for harming our bird life, and to my knowledge the ones that have recently (last few hundred years) become extinct are not from cats and dogs but rather the worse predator of all, man.

[luchog]

It is a crime because human beings domesticated cats and dogs. They are no longer wild animals and would not survive at this stage in evolution. We have supplied them with a kind of man-made natural selection.

Packs of feral dogs roaming various parts of the US and Europe, as well as the huge numbers of feral cats, pretty much gives the lie to this claim.

Cats in particular revert to their wild nature quite easily.