Man's best friend

[Gurm]

This is what I don't understand. I like dogs just fine. Have always had one until I went to college. But...

It's a PET. I know, I'm a heretic.

My in-laws have a dog. She's OLD. Very OLD. They're keeping her alive with drugs that cost $150 a WEEK. That's what I would pay for DAYCARE FOR A CHILD.

Let the animal GO.

I know, they're "family". Sorry if I form a more permanent attachment with real people. Yeah, I've heard the arguments about people being jerks and dogs being loyal. And it's true - most people suck.

And I do LIKE dogs. I just don't... ahem... *LIKE* dogs.

Gpar_

[Brian Ellis]

Yup, he's skinny, but the vet is satisfied with his progress. You have to press hard to count his ribs, now: at first, each one was visible, even through his fur. It was very difficult feeding him to start with as his stomach had shrunk. His first day's meals with us were 2 x 50 ml milk, 2 x 25 g tinned puppy food and 2 x 25 g puppy croquettes. This was all he could cope with. He soon progressed to the normal 2-1/2 meals per day for a puppy of his size, but the vet suggested we up the ration for his weight by 30%, as he was seriously underweight for his size. Now he is on normal 2 meals/day (one, fresh meat, liver, kidneys, rice and veggies, boiled up together and the other puppy croquettes).

[cjolley]

Originally posted by Gurm
...My in-laws have a dog. She's OLD. Very OLD. They're keeping her alive with drugs that cost $150 a WEEK. That's what I would pay for DAYCARE FOR A CHILD...

A zero sum game between someone elses pet and your child?
How does that work?
chuck

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by Gurm
My in-laws have a dog. She's OLD. Very OLD. They're keeping her alive with drugs that cost $150 a WEEK. That's what I would pay for DAYCARE FOR A CHILD.

If
a) the dog's quality of life is good with the medication;
b) they can afford $150 per week without depriving themselves; and
c) they want it this way
then, this is their choice and their prerogative to make it.

The bit about day-care is totally irrelevant and the comparison is even insidious. If they didn't have a dog, do you think they would be paying $150 per week to a day-care centre? No!, of course not.

What you imply is that people should not be allowed to spend their money, as they wish, but according to how you think they ought to.

OTOH, if the dog's quality of life is bad, then the decision to have the dog euthanised is their's and their's alone.

--------------------------

Now, consider what you have written, but substitute "person" for dog. What then? Should they be euthanised when their drug bill reaches $150 per week, no matter their quality of life?

[Gurm]

You know, I didn't want this to get into a debate about euthenasia, but...

If a person's quality of life is very bad, with no hope of improvement, I wouldn't want ANY money spent keeping them alive. If they're unhappy, LET THEM GO.

Especially if it's an animal.

And my point was that they CAN'T really afford it. Money is tight, hard to make the mortgage payments, but oh yeah there's $650 a month for doggie narcotics.

The dog doesn't know who anyone is any more, can't walk very well (her rear legs no longer support her weight properly), and has regular seizures.

My point is that at that point, it's ridiculous to spend what many people pay for groceries or daycare on keeping an animal alive.

And don't go comparing animals to humans. I don't care HOW attached to your pets you are, comparing them to humans makes you a hypocrite every time you eat meat.

Many of the animals we slaughter and consume as food are smarter, better animals than those we keep for pets.

Love your pets. Just don't LOVE your pets... y'know?

Gpar_

[Brian Ellis]

I don't compare animals to humans. Humans ARE animals and often worse than animals with 4 legs. You rarely see mammals in the wild deliberately kill their own species, but homo sapiens does, in trumps. Is this what separates us from the animals over which we have dominion? IMHO, Man is the most degenerate animal on this earth.

[Gurm]

Now THAT won't get you any arguments from me.

I understand that some people get very attached to their animals, but I have a hard time with people who put their animals ahead of their family members.

It gets me a little riled up, because I've seen plenty of people who care more about their dog than their kids, and since having a kid I've been given a new perspective on priorities.

Gpar_

[ZokesPro]

Some people have a hard time letting things go.

[Dr Mordrid]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
I don't compare animals to humans. Humans ARE animals and often worse than animals with 4 legs. You rarely see mammals in the wild deliberately kill their own species, but homo sapiens does, in trumps. Is this what separates us from the animals over which we have dominion? IMHO, Man is the most degenerate animal on this earth.

The old saw that animals rarely kill their own species is often repeated and like many old wives tales false.

Male animals often kill the young of a previous male in order to bring females back into breeding condition; thus letting the killer males sire progeny of their own. This is widespread among mammals.

You also see what some call "ritual breeding combat", such as that between deer in rut, cause fatalities. Speaking as a hunter who spends much time in the woods I can testify to finding many whitetail deer gored to death, and also to finding both males dead when their horns lock and starvation takes care of both of 'em.

You also see territorial war in species from ants to chimpanzees; nothing new there. Wars of this kind are usually seen in social species, but is not strictly limited to them.

On example of a large scale chimp war was observed in Gabon. Field biologists estimated the casualties at 80% and fatalities in the thousands.

In at least two other documented cases large tribes of chimps have hunted down smaller tribes, killing all of them with their bare hands and teeth.

Dr. Mordrid

[Gurm]

And NONE of them justify $650 a month to keep alive when they're clearly senile and sick.

Gpar_

[Ajax]

I like that story.

[Wombat]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
I don't compare animals to humans. Humans ARE animals and often worse than animals with 4 legs. You rarely see mammals in the wild deliberately kill their own species, but homo sapiens does, in trumps. Is this what separates us from the animals over which we have dominion? IMHO, Man is the most degenerate animal on this earth.

On top of what Doc said, most other species of mammals have predators. Why kill your own sick and old when the wolfpack will do it for you?

I'd say that perhaps man is the only mammal where death by natural causes is the expected outcome.

[Nowhere]

Result of not having true natural enemies...but not only humans have this luxury.
Our way to achieve this state is technology, more common is size etc.
Elephants die mostly from natural reasons I guess...as do other great mammals (I don't count haunting for whales, elephants or other by man )
Some big reptiles too I think.

edit:
Just remembered something...

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
...
(IMHO, an untrained god is anathema and many dogs fall into this category.)
...

I fully agree that untrained one is anathema (I see many examples taken to walk here. And often I'm not shure who's the one taken to walk ). And though I never had a dog and I won't be suprised if I'll end up adopted by one at you age Brian, I'm curious whether something I've heard once about raising a dog is true...here goes.
1). During walk, dog should not go in front of owner - always beside him at most. Also the human is the one always chosing the path. (some plays on open area exluded of course)
2). When passing some entrance, doors, you go first, not the dog.
3). Meals. Dog gets his meal just after human members of the family or when they're eating for some time already.

The above preserves in dog's mind (mainly still gregarious animal, because of the roots) that he's not the most important in the family - rather something opposite.

I'm curious what Brian and other MURCers think about this.
To me it makes sense even...certainly better than a dog who thinks that he's the master and much better than using corporal punishments other than meaningful slap (no pain causing), I guess...

[Dr Mordrid]

It's true. The training ideas you posted are spot on.

A dog is not much more or less than a domesticated wolf. Genetically there is very little difference. Your family has to appear to the dog as his "pack".

The adults in the house should be the alpha male/female of the "pack" with the kids the betas. The dogs should know for dead certain that they're at the bottom of the heirarchy or you'll have problems.

Within those criteria the dog can assume responsibilities within the "pack", just as Spike has assumed the duty of surrogate mother to every kid in sight here

Dr. Mordrid

[Gurm]

Yep. The MOMENT the dog starts to think that he's the Alpha Male, trouble starts.

Gpar_