Animals

In agreement when animals are taken it should be humane. The full facts are not known on what really happened until the remains are found and studied.

Zoos, designed properly serve a very useful for research and continuation of species. Also help those that live in an urban setting a small insight into the real world. Here is the real world, ever see wolves take a calf moose and rip it to pieces while ma ma is watching, while the calf is bellowing.

Here is a good one where do you think horse meat comes from. One source is the livestock trailer that makes a run at least once a week through the interior picking up unwanted and old horses.

[UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM DIRECTED AT A TYEE WRITER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

All this outcry about the dogs, to bad the murders on hwy 16 cannot get as much attention.

Think of all the bears and wildlife killed around Whistler, for what, so called entertainment on the slopes. People complain about bull fights but will displace and kill animals for the slopes. I do not see a difference.

A few people have picked up

A few people have picked up on the hypocrisy of the Liberal Government. A mere week before this dog slaughter business came to light the childrens commissioner came out with a report on the death of 21 children while in the Governments care. The Governments response: some blatherings from the minister responsible and then, silence.

Mathieu Y ...

Before you make such a (factually wrong) claim, I would strongly recommend you read "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan and Anne Druyan. It will change your point of view on the singularity of humanity's supposed grand differences from the animals -- in particular, the great apes.

On that, you are absolutely in the wrong.

You are also wrong in that claim. There are historically many societies that have in one fashion or another and at one time or another practiced one form or another of cannibalism, and none of them are due to nutritional requirements or based upon need of sustenance.

A link: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/s/carl-sagan/shadows-of-forgotten-ancestors.htm

Van Isle ...

I don't think your point can be strongly enough emphasized.

And it must also be emphasized that it is not just the bloody Liberal Government, it is also all these bloody bleeding liberal hearts who regularly express far, far more concern about a few mistreated doggie-woggies and kittehs, than they ever even think of doing for thousands upon thousands of powerless, marginalized, and woefully mistreated humans who make up our chthonic and oh so shameful roles of poor and homeless.

Cruelty and killer whales

My understanding is that before the killer whales were in the aquarium, fishermen routinely shot them with rifles when they saw them in the wild, because they ate salmon. Was captivity good for these animals? No. But they may have inadvertently saved their entire species by giving up their lives.

@willy

So Rafe is ignorant about the perils of fish farming and you, apparently, can give us the revealed word on the subject. So go ahead and explain how one can operate net pens and not kill the ocean floor, not cause massive sea lice outbreaks that kill the smolts of wild salmon, not contaminate the marine environment with pesticides, not prevent exotic Atlantic salmon from escaping into the sea and colonizing our rivers, and please tell us how to raise fish that are not saturated with dye, hormones and poisons. And when you do pass this on to the fish farmers and governments in Norway, Chile too. They'd be happy to hear the solutions to these woes.

I agree with Van Isle

Van Isle puts this whole affair in perspective. Maybe this obsession with how we treat "pets" and how we treat people all over the world is a sign of western decadent society. Next we'll be arguing that plants are people too and then all starve.

Mathieu Y

Not wishing to be a nitpicker, I present this for your consideration:
http://discovermagazine.com/1993/apr/sabertoothedtale202
Many of the injuries, for instance, were so dramatic that the cat would surely have dragged its limbs or limped badly, yet the amount of infection or scraping means that the animal was around for a while after it ran into trouble. How could it have survived its injury if it couldn’t hunt? A solitary hunter, as most cats are, would have been a goner. This suggests that Smilodon was a social creature, like the lion. This is just an awesome injury, mutters Shaw, showing off a mashed-up pelvis with a thighbone to match. Now, this animal was so crippled that it could not have gotten enough food if it were a lone hunter. So this and other examples suggest that these animals had a social structure that actually encouraged the nurturing of injured individuals.

There can be no justification whatsoever from the survival-of-the-fittest persepctive you seem to be suggesting, for one Smilodon to keep a hideously injured mate alive, as it is very energy-intensive, and would serve no purpose in the perpetuation of the species.

So what are your thoughts on this matter?

willy

You mean, like those silly, silly ads we are bombarded with on the tube? Are you calling Alexandra Morton a liar, willy? If so, care to back this up?

Ok, which is it?

The fact they were killed, or the method used?

"We need stiffer jail time for anyone who kills a dog, or cat or any domestic animal unless they are in fear of there own personal safety"

Currently animals are property, to be disposed of humanely according to the owners wishes. I know of no penalty for humanely disposing of a cat, dog or domestical animal.

As for humane killing, which is worse, a lethal injection or firing squad? I submit a bullet is quicker and less painful.

Skywalker

What? You've never heard a plant scream as it's ripped from the ground or cut down? I guess you'll just have to listen more carefully.

All life should be treated with respect when used for our purposes. It's the least we can do.

I'm pretty sure that the bacteria that keep us alive would do the same. After all the only reason we're around is to give them some place to hang out and get fed.

Or we could always blame the "Mice".

A family member

Dog owners describe their dog as part of their family. Activities are centered around my dog, as well as conversations like talking to your dog, or through him to get a desired result. People often stop me and talk to my dog who is more than happy to engage with a wagging tail to show his appreciation. He even helps around the house by cleaning up the plates and any scrapes that may fall onto the floor. The families activities are centered around the dog and their needs and some even partner up with their dogs in singing and dancing and have ended up on Talent shows. The intelligence of dogs has been compared to small children. A loyal companion who will love you for who you are and will even protect you against a bear, or an intruder without a question, loyal to the end. And we call them the animals.

Dog meat?

I want the guests of my 2 week event to have the fun of a dog sledge ride only problem is what to do with the dogs after the party is over.
Should I:
A. give each guest a gun and a knife and let them in on the kill of the 100 dogs?
B. poison the dogs then bury them in a big hole?
C. shoot each dog and then slice their throats and bury those still living alive?
D. Pass on the sledge ride and save it for up north.

It looks like the Olympics committee could care less about the athelets despite warning of the real dangers Vanoc went ahead. Even with the death of the athlete at the start of the games the only thing Vanoc was worried about was being caught as gets caught up in it lies.
Dog is symbolic of truth

realistic options?

For all of the public's emotional reaction to this sad news of 100 Huskies being shot in Whistler I think some serious reflection is needed.

I am a dog lover, a usually broke farmer, and a 'mostly' vegetarian. Yet when my dogs have run off and gotten themselves seriously injured from chasing bears or deers, I have put them down because, I figured it was kinder to the animal and my pocket book.

What was this operator supposed to do? It costs a small fortune to feed a big working dog I can't image the bill for 100. He couldn't let them lose in the wild, as they do up north creating a feral dog problem that kills children. He couldn't give them away as pets I'm sure because working dogs need exercise not apartments. Besides who knows how the dogs would react to eye poking and hair pulling of kidees? Supposedly there's a sled dog retirement farm somewhere....really do you think they have room for 100 at once?

Lets have some positive suggestions from all those sentimental folks as to what someone who works with animals is supposed to do when their laying hens no longer produce, or the market for beef collapses, or the desire for dog sled rides has gone along with the Olympics? A welfare state for our pets when we allow many of our children to go hungry? Pass a law making it illegal to euthanize our pets and work animals as more and more of the public talk about assisted suicide for the aging and sick people?

Collectively, lets get a grip on our emotions and our fear of death. Yes, it was sad; and yes we humans can behave poorly at times. But until we become breatharians, there will be death to support our lives.

wondering

Howling Dog Whistler Inc was established to take advantage of the one time bonanza offered by the 2010 Games. As such, it knew full well that business would drop precipitously some short time after the end of the games, and should have had a business plan to "reduce inventory".

The question is: did it? And if so, what was it? And if not, why would VANOC sanction it (more chatter's comment notwithstanding)?

Rick W... John G...

Rick W, My opinion on your article is that you have already come to a conclusion and are merely searchi ng for evidence. The fact that a saber tooth tiger would save one of it's own species has absolutely nothing to do with moral and everything to do with continuation of the species. Many animals are known to take care of not only their own kind, but the other animals necessary for their food chain.

By saying animals are morally inept, I am not stating that they are stupid or lack emotion. I am saying they do not decide what is right and wrong.

John G, genetically animals and humans are very similar. We tweaked our genetics slightly and evolved the ability to use complicated tools and to understand patterns more complex than our mammal bretheren, giving us the advantage and distinction from other animals. But calling us similiar to other animals is as dumb as relating a zebra to a polar bear.

Also, you are correct about the cannibalism issue. However, again you are grasping for evidence from a predisposed point. Cannibalistic cultures were morally justified by the people who partook in them. This point needs emphasis, because currently we have a nearly worldwide cohesion of morality that does not condone killing humans for nearly any reason.

slaughter

I agree with "animals and humans" that one of the missing or dodged issues is the role of corporations and their greed for the bottom line. This is very typical of the present and future "liberal" (talk about a misnomer)governments and their corporate bosses.We are starting to see the results of that "show" last year call the Olympics.

The fact they were killed, or the method used?

This question, posed by jwstewart, is the crux of the problem. These dogs were actually killed in a way that is far more humane than how almost every animal used as food is killed.

Either animals are property, in which case this episode was tasteless but not cruel, or animals have an inalienable right to live, in which case stop eating them.

Listen to Darwin

"The fact that a saber tooth tiger would save one of it's [sic] own species has absolutely nothing to do with moral and everything to do with continuation of the species."

Not so. It does have quite a bit to do with morality, or at least proto-morality. Survival and the evolution of morality are intertwined. As Darwin argued, morality is not something pulled out of thin air by human reason. The moral sentiment -- to sympathize with others and come to their aid -- arises in social species because it promotes survival. It is therefore naturally selected for. With language, humans are able to articulate and disseminate moral rules. God did not invent morality; morality invented God to reinforce its rules.

Rafe deplores killing animals just for pleasure. But that condemnation applies to much more than activities like bullfights. Since nowadays we have no need to eat meat, the suffering and death imposed on animals to obtain meat is just for our pleasure. What's the difference between deriving pleasure from watching a bullfight and deriving pleasure from eating a hamburger? The bullfight has an element of artistry to go along with its cruelty; eating a hamburger doesn't even have that excuse.

Whether people like it or

Whether people like it or not (like the usual "oh stop eating chickens then" contingent), there is a hierarchy in the animal world. And yes, pet dogs and cats are at the top. I DON'T care as much about a random chicken getting killed for someone's consumption (I myself am a "flexitarian" and rarely eat meat) as much as I care about my pet dog who I have built a bond with over the course of 12.5 years. And I do not apologize for that. In the same way, most people do not care about a random child in a third world country who lives on the street as much as they care about their own children. Thus, there is a human hierarchy as well.

The sled dog slaughter reaction has been extreme (note the 50,000 plus members of the facebook group to boycott the Whistler company!!) mostly due to the fact that those dogs resemble the pets we as a society hold in such high regard. Having lived in a country where I've seen beautiful dogs lie on the road slowly bleeding to death (and I've stopped to stroke them as their life ebbs away) because they have been struck by cars without a care, I am proud of the outrage and compassion of Cnds in regards to what happened in Whistler. Many societies have zero respect for animal life, so we are at least one step ahead, even if we still eat meat.

BTW Rafe, how can your dog possibly be the best in the world when MINE IS?!! :))

I'm wondering, also

" Yet when my dogs have run off and gotten themselves seriously injured from chasing bears or deers, I have put them down because,......."

That's called allowing your damn dogs to harass wildlife.

trauma

The lives and deaths of any creatures as a direct consequence of commerce point to a sort of disconnect that deserves some exploration.

We always do this thing, where we redefine one thing as another for our own purposes, just because if we don't, we couldn't do the unconscionable thing we really really want to do.

I mean, I like chickens. I've raised a lot of them, pecking around the yard, given them names and petted them, and I've even fought off hawks who view chickens as their lawful prey, taking sides as it were, against nature.

I did it because I like chickens, but I raised the chickens as food, and I ate them. Fed them to my family, crispy and beautiful on a platter, stuffed and garnished with the same affection I felt for them scratching for bugs. I suppose I viewed them as my lawful prey, in some way.

But the whole idea of declaring life to be property troubles me greatly. The most remarkable part of his story was the story of the man who did it. He liked these dogs. He lived with them, apparently, because somebody had to.

But when some cold absentee owners who happened to be his employers ordered him to cull his friends, he did it. And he was so traumatized by the act that he claimed a disability, which was how the whole thing came to light.

The belief that an owner need not pay to feed an animal that sustained him with it's work, and has such power, as an owner, that he can order an employee to kill beloved animals to avoid having to, and that the employee would believe so profoundly as to actually do it, to his own eventual downfall, that belief is an artefact of the completely dehumanizing effect of the doctrine of property on the souls of us all.

Mathieu Y

And how does nurturing a permanent cripple help with the continuation of species in the "animal" world? You didn't read the article from Discover, did you?

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” - Gandhi

Rafe, the dog lover

Rafe, you seem to be suggesting that the enlightenment brought with it a slow, but eventual end to the psyche that allowed for cruelty against humans. You follow this line of reasoning by suggesting we are much too late in arriving at a similar enlightenment with respect to cruelty to animals.

An old lawyer and Anglophile like you, Rafe, surely knows that animal welfare (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) was a hot issue of debate and being hashed out by lawmakers in England as early as 1822, when the "Ill Treatment of Horses and Cattle Bill," or "Martin's Act", was passed into law. This was also a time (Industrial Revolution) when children were still being forced into coal mines, and up chimneys. Legally speaking, horses had cruelty protection in England before child labourers had rights.

I also question any claim to the existence of animal rights. The concept of ethical, humane treatment of lower species, okay, but rights? No. In order for there to be rights, there need to be corresponding duties/responsibilities. As such animals have no rights.

The dog lovers, and I include the more sophisticated utilitarians like Peter Singer, get into logical trouble the minute they start talking about rights. And in getting us bogged down in non sequiturs, we miss the important issues at hand.

When this dog cull story broke, the SPCA cruelty investigation rep was all worked up, screaming blue bloody murder, before we had anything more than one person's story via a WorkSafeBC report. The SPCA rep spent an entire day giving the media exactly what they were after: sensation, hyperbole and lots of cute, cuddly anthropomorphic terminology, which got us no further to any truth. That's another problem with certain types of urban animal lovers; their emotional bonds to Fido are so deep and anthropomorphized, they get lost in the emotions, and seem to lose touch with what it means to be a human being.

We humans use animals. The question isn't one of rights or enlightenment. The question is: How can we foster our relationships with animals in an ethically sensible, respectful, sustainable way? First Nations people have always understood the holistic connections because of their historic connection to the land. We colonialists seemed to lose this connection the industrial revolution forced most of us off the land and into cities. Animal rights seem more rooted in blue-blood classes and Ladies Temperance Societies than any kind of enlightenment.

Clever politicians sure know how to seize on this flash-fire brand of public hyperbole. Before the week was over, two Liberal leadership candidates were pledging action on animal cruelty issues, and the Premier struck a task force. Meanwhile, our modern day versions of the children in coal mines (Turpel-Lafond's version, First Nations' versions, the poor class' versions) continue on without as much as a whimper.

Who could be surprised?

This week's whitewash is more inquiry into the death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili. Last week's was the whitewash into the death of sled dogs. A month ago it was the whitewash of the Olympic committee's financial mess they made, and how they got out of it by failing to pay the last of the bills.

And for the next two weeks it will be the anniversary happy-dance and the associated whitewash of everything that went wrong with the rich people's party.

I have no idea how some of you can continue to say "this abuse will end when ordinary people will stand up for their rights and take back the governance of (fill in the blank)"

Ordinary people will never take back anything. They're too busy partying. Or getting outraged by things that have already happened. It's much easier than trying to change the things that are happening now.

This story is sad on so many levels...

...not least of which is the passion these shootings arouse in dog lovers, when people are being killed every week in Vancouver.

The man who 'had to shoot 100 dogs' was a moron. First, no one made him do it. Then he claims PTSD and rats himself out to the Workmen's Comp. So now, he has PTSD and is on PETA's Most Wanted list. He has shot himself with a slow bullet.

What angers me is the importing of dogs from the USA, for adoption as pets. This is lunacy. We have enough of our own unwanted Canadian pets without importing rejects 2,000 miles. Has the world gone batshyt, or what?

By the way, even if this dude goes to jail for life, the dogs will still be dead. But don't worry doglovers; for you, there are dogs in heaven, so there.

Before you label me a dog-hater, I like dogs more than I like people. As Mark Twain observed:

"If you take a starving dog off the street and feed it, it will not then turn round and bite you. This is the principal difference between a man and a dog".

Think About This Slaughter For A Moment

The mass slaughter of these dogs was in a a word "disgusting". Whether you are a dog lover or not is irreveleant. In your article you quoted several lines from the bible, fair enough but you forgot something even more important, we as humans are indeed guardians of this planet are we not?. In your article God was speaking to the Hebrews and telling them what they could eat and not eat. I am sorry but even the bible puts man ahead of all other creatures on earth, hence that is why we are the guardians of all things given to us. Is not the basis of life in it's essence, parents take care of thier kids,and teach them about life. Common sense, everyday decency and laws have changed over the last 2000 years and now out of nowhere the Campbell administration wants an investigation or a panel to investigate?, According to my so called religous beliefs ALL life on earth is precious and special and has a purpose. Violating these laws do not benefit anyone. Too bad Campbell and Co were not as outraged by the family that had to choose between paying the rent or buying some food to feed hungry kids, too bad that the Campbell administration also decided that the best way to run a government is to LIE to it's own citizens. I put no faith that the current administration will do much to deter this horrible act from ever occuring, all the more reason to replace them with a government that would strengthen animal welfare etc.

Should Human Moral Consideration Extend to Animals?

Should human moral considerations be extended to animals? Which animals and under what circumstances? With millions of farm, hunting, companion and work animals killed each year, aren't we all hypocrites getting bent out of shape over the 100 dogs killed in Whistler? Join the discussion on the Facebook Group, Squamish Philosophers' Café.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=153823276434&topic=19729

warbler

As such then, humans who contravene this simple yin/yang statement should then have no rights either, right?

The other, maybe the real story?

RickW pointed to a little raised set of circumstances: This company was created at the size it was to profit off a short event - the Olympics (and Para-Olympics too). Who ever created it, whoever said 'bring on the dogs', knew that since you couldn't support that size of an operation prior to the Olympic crowds, you wouldn't be able to support it afterward either. I think he did it knowing dogs would die.

Whoever approved the license for this operation also had to know this, don't you think? Whoever financed this business plan also had to at least reasonably suspect it, don't you think? I believe that a lot of people willingly supported this operation knowing the likely outcome - and no one said "stop" because they all only wanted the dollars. I think Olympic organizers, a bank, Tourism Whistler, various promoters, and some politicians were party to this eventual end, and did absolutely nothing. There will be one scape-goat, and he made money off this already.

ShortSummer

Just like the leaky condos: everyone knew - and no one gave a damn.

RickW

You posited:

"As such then, humans who contravene this simple yin/yang statement should then have no rights either, right?"

You know, Rick, what happens if I answer this. And you know where that answer leads to... another infamous Tyee comments section tangent probing the philosophical questions concerning everything except the original article above.

I'd much rather have that kind of discussion with you over beer. However, I'm a consoling sort of soul, and if it's keeping you up at night, my answer to your question is simply: wrong. [This is where I'm supposed to insert an emoticon to lessen the seriousness underlying my response, but I don't use those cyber-grammar devices, so you'll have to just settle for this post-script explanation instead]