Dog on dog attacks

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:28:01 GMT

OK I'll plead guilty to a rather flippant joke,but not tohypocrisy. This thread started on the subject of should we kill dogs that have attacked other dogs. In a perfect world, with no unwanted dogs, no owners financially unable to look after their dogs properly, no owners too busy toearn a living to have time toproperly train their dogs, no evil owners who deliberately train their dogs to attack others, then we could retrain them

In the real world.................................

In another thread (rompun/ketamine anaesthesia for cats ) a veterinary surgeon who deserves our praise and admiration is volunteering to spay feral cats in Greece will be dealing with animals who are independant of humans. Are they better off than our pets ?

It's not always easy to make moral judgements-we allhave to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong

Wynne

Re: Dog on dog attacks

David Mills — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:25:12 GMT

[quote user="phipps"]

Actually, Mr Mills, I think you have Peter Singer's views a bit mixed up.

[/quote]

Actually, 'phipps', I don't think so.

What you say about Singer is correct. Speciesism is relevant as a counter to the widely held belief that being human somehow bestows specialness, as precisely demonstrated in Ms Edwards post about if a human is hurt then a dog dies, regardless of cause. That is ranking human above canine, without recourse to context, or, apparently, any justification other than 'that's what I believe'.

You are right, which was what I was looking for, that utilitarianism can go some way to helping people who hold views akin to Ms Edwards justify their position. But utilitarianism is not a byword for human interest, which you appear to believe. Under the Singer idea, ultilitarianism must include all species with a continued interest in life, and be part of a mass calculation - fine in theory, impossible in practice. Especially if it is approached with prejudicial ideas regarding bite = death, and, as I pointed out since, how many of us can accurately assess the welfare of a dog that has bitten? Actually, the dog might be wonderfully happy. And if it is one dog and one person involved, how do you rank those in the calculation? To say that every dog that is biting is miserable, as Ms Edwrads suggested, I believe to be incredibly shaky. It may still lead to the dog's euthanasia if humans decide that a happy bting dog is incompatible with their life, but this is not to say that it is morraly justifiable.

So it appears not, 'plain wrong'

As it goes, yes Singer does fudge the issue later with this idea of personhood, which is a woolly term, undefinable and more widely applicable beyond homo sapiens; for a robust response to this fudge, I suggest reading DeGrazia. It doesn't cut the mustard in my mind, but for the most part, philosophically, I do agree with Singer's ideas, partly because with current information it is the position which is likely to do least harm to other animals. I have killed aggressive dogs, if, with the information available, I have decided that the dog's continued existence poses an inordinate amount of risk to other creatures be it man, bird, cat, ferret. However, things are often not that clear cut, and their may be other ways. And one thing I abhor is 'there are plenty of happy, healthy dogs out there' - how can anyone definitively say that?

(And no, Singer does not maintain that animals are not sentient - I suggest a re-read.)

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Glen McIntosh — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:53:43 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

what part of Mr Singer's ideas you are referring to.

[/quote]

Fairly simple. No rational, logical basis for differentiating between species. Point most people make is rationality, self-awareness, future plans etc - the unanswerable response is what happens with humans with mental impairment, babies, or people who will never become rational, self-aware etc. Being speciesist is as arbitrary as differentiating race, sex, everything else.

Until we can elucidate the mental life of animals, including dogs that bite, then any assertion that a biting dog as living in misery is at best ignorant, ill-considered, and at worst human arrogance. It is an extension of the vet complex - simply because we know about disease, surgery and the like gives us no authority over what a dog may feel, think or otherwise - just as few of us have much of an idea about behaviour - and it is dangerous, irresponsible and downright uppity to think otherwise.

[/quote]

Actually, Mr Mills, I think you have Peter Singer's views a bit mixed up. Indeed your references to speciesism in the context of the argument you are making is just plain wrong. Singer is unlikely to have any problem whatsoever with the euthanasia of an aggressive dog, provided the act of euthanasia did not cause suffering to the animal, because the reason for the euthanasia of the aggressive dog is for the greater good. His philosophy is based on utilitarianism. That is: the greatest good of the greatest number is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour. Singer argues that there is no reason why this utilitarian philosophy should not be applied to animals, even though they may not be sentient, and that not to do so is to be speciesist, since humans afford value to all humans, including the non-sentient baby and mentally impaired human, simply because they are of the same species.

Being a utilitarian, Singer argues that there are no moral rights for any person or anything, only moral status. Moral status is obtained through sentience or personhood. When Singer talks about killing of babies or people with mental impairment as not being the equivalent of killing a person - because they are not sentient - he is also saying that the killing of animals (with the exception of, perhaps, the great apes) is not the equivalent of killing a person, because those animals lack personhood - that is, they are not sentient and therefore their moral status is less than that of a fully sentient human. Singer maintains that most animals do not care about whether we kill and use them for our own purposes; they care only about how we treat them when we do use and kill them.

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:09:17 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]

This was in the controversial section and someone kindly suggested it was in the wrong place, so here it is re-submitted

In the last 24 hours as an OOH vet, I have been seen or known of 6 dog on dog attacks in various parts of the area I work (city based). This has resulted in 2 deaths, a dog deemed responsible that was euthanased and 3 other bite wounds treated all round the throat. The last one was a 78 year old lady with a JRT in her arms where the attacker leapt, grabbed the JRT ear pulling both to the ground. Talking to other vets, they too have noticed an increase in the last few months. Talking to clients there are no go areas in public parks and people are now walking dogs early to avoid conflict.

Have others noticed this and should we as a profession be concerned about this?

Neil

[/quote]

Given that I am not able, for the moment, to moderate Mr Mills unpleasant remarks, I think it's time this thread moved back to the controversial section.

Re: Dog on dog attacks

David Mills — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:33:27 GMT

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]

Are we talking all species here or just higher animal species? Just asking because if it is the former then it is fairly easy to show that eating a baby leaf salad is the same as eating a baby - though perhaps easier to digest.

Malcolm N

[/quote]

Yup, variation on an old gag. Obviously animal species that can be attributed mental and physical wants, needs, and, indeed, conscious perception of the world around them. And yes, such is a problem in itself, although we can make a fairly good stab at it.

Incredibly hypocritical Ms Richards; if one is to indulge in hypocrisy, at least do it for something worthwhile, or even approaching comedic.

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Anthony Todd — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:10:50 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]I'm opting out now.[/quote]

I did a while ago, 'cos the discussion had nothing to do with the title of the thread and was, frankly, a bit puerile, not the participants of course......

If we concentrate on the title we might get somewhere with the Dangerous, or not, Dog.

Re: Dog on dog attacks

James Laidlaw — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:29:23 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Should I feel guilty for nagging owners to worm their dogs against Angiostrongylus ?After all that is species discrimination against the poor lungworm?

[/quote]

Don't forget flea, mite and tick treatments.

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:28:41 GMT

Should I feel guilty for nagging owners to worm their dogs against Angiostrongylus ?After all that is species discrimination against the poor lungworm?

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Judith Joyce — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:10:18 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Fairly simple. No rational, logical basis for differentiating between species.[/quote]

Malcolm N

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Martin Jones — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:41:18 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

OK Mr Jones, don't stop yourself now. Don't get bogged down with personalities

[/quote]

Stop myself? I can barely summon up the energy to start. And surely we're all living in a cult of personality over substance: why fight it?

If you're really that desperate to be my personal cheerleader, pop round during a Friday evening set of consults: a pep talk would be most appreciated

Re: Dog on dog attacks

plantagenet — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:22:28 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]Plantagenet has inadvertantly invoked Godwin's Law, albeit with the best of intentions, and the debate seems to have embraced the notion that Mr Mills is a fan of Adolf, without properly examining whether this is so.[/quote]

Just for the record, I did not, and would not, imply that anyone was a Nazi sympathiser. I was asked to justify why I thought all humans should be treated equally, my answer is that, if we do not do so we end up with historical tradgedies like the extermination of those thought to be 'lesser', slavery, genocide in the Balkans and Rwanda etc etc. etc. I think it is just too dangerous a philosophy.

I do believe humans (all humans) have more rights, status, priviledge etc than animals and that is shared by many people, regardless of belief or no belief.

If Mr Mills thinks I was attacking him personally, I was not, just justifying what I had previously said.

I'm opting out now.

Re: Dog on dog attacks

J G Wray — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:52:29 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]I have not the first clue what drives Mr Mills onwards; but I have looked into the same philosophies as he has, so I know where these ideas are coming from. Understanding the man is different.[/quote]

OK Mr Jones, don't stop yourself now. Don't get bogged down with personalities, where do these ideas lead and what is the impact on the provision of veterinary services - and Ms Edwards too?

JGW

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:52:29 GMT

Hmm....good point!

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:51:04 GMT

The biggest problem with animals becoming independant odf their owners is that logically that would totally absolve owners of any responsibility-which would definitely not improve animal welfare

Wynne

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:41:28 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Back to the original post, or at least the stimulus for all this.[/quote]

[quote user="David Mills"] For if animals are to become to an extent independent of their owners - or guardians - then there is potential for a clash of needs/wants/desires over which the 'owner' will no longer have complete arbitration - such as with euthanasia, not continuing medication et cetera. In these positions, vets will have to be damned sure of their welfare and ethics, and the application of such, if they are to avoid presumptive, irresponsible killing in the vein 'the dog must be unhappy because it tried to bite in the consult room'. An end to dogma, perhaps? And who has the final say?[/quote]

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but it sounds like you are argueing for animals having independant rights. However, if animals do become legally independant, with their own rights then you are correct - the vets would have the burden of making the decisions. Despite me having my own opinions I would not welcome that change of status. I want the decision for euthanasia to be made with the owner, even where aggression is concerned. If they can manage the issue, that is up to them. If it were primarily my decision then I could be held responsible for future injuries if I chose not to give the blue juice. Or justifying my decisions in court. Perish the thought.

I find it difficult to justify my opinion that humans and animals should be treated differently. I happily admit that it isn't something that I have studied and hold no specific qualifications to back up my decision. I suppose it is based on the fact that humans are aware of their own mortality whereas animals are not, alongside the fact that humans are aware of how their actions impact on others.

I do not tell clients that my opinions are based on my own experience and not based on my veterinary knowledge - I can no longer separate the two. But neither do I give the impression of being an expert in behaviour. Decisions are based on a discussion between us - it is never my decision to make alone.

I'd also like to point out that I have not and would not complain to Arlo about anything that has been said. I have had a lot worse thrown at me. But neither do I think that debates should do anything more than discuss the issue without resorting to insults or patronising language.

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:49:15 GMT

David I'm with you in so far as legislation needs to be more perceptive of an animals sentience-and the AWA is a small step forwards this-but unfortuneately we do live in a world of finite resources, and one of those finite resources is the availability of good homes I wish there was an easy answer, but I haven't found one.

At one time I did the work for the Swansea branch of the RSPCA The branch ran a re-homing centre-which had a no euthanasia policy Unfortuneately what this sometimes meant was an unappealing animaloccupied a kennel for months-whilst the Inspectors were killing animals that might have found homes quickly. These animals were never admitted to the centre, or transferred from Inspectorate (Cental Rspca ) to branch-so the branch continued to (truthfully ) state it had a no euthanasia policy

Wynne

Re: Dog on dog attacks

David Mills — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:30:37 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

Do you think you can articulate where these ideas might lead and the impact on the provision of veterinary services? Or, do you think you can articulate where Ms Edwards dogma leads to in the provision of veterinary services?

JGW

[/quote]

Back to the original post, or at least the stimulus for all this.

The inevitable progression for animals is likely to be legislation-driven and to end up with sentience recognised and a move from automata 'goods' to special protection as animals with needs, and, importantly wants, and a continued interest in existence. With such is likely to come a radical, if slow, reappraisal of use in research and farming - something the former is already experiencing in the US, that land of contradictions.

Whether you agree with the underlying philosophy or not, it should, legally at least, enforce more responsibility on owners. And, perversely, likely shift more to vets or at least welfarists or animal professionals. For if animals are to become to an extent independent of their owners - or guardians - then there is potential for a clash of needs/wants/desires over which the 'owner' will no longer have complete arbitration - such as with euthanasia, not continuing medication et cetera. In these positions, vets will have to be damned sure of their welfare and ethics, and the application of such, if they are to avoid presumptive, irresponsible killing in the vein 'the dog must be unhappy because it tried to bite in the consult room'. An end to dogma, perhaps? And who has the final say?

Re: Dog on dog attacks

David Mills — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:21:06 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]

And that Mr Mills - in my opinion, of course - rather got his bum kicked in round one by Gillian is a reason to continue the debate, not stifle it.

[/quote]

Hmmm. Hardly.

Ms Mostyn's response to accusations of speciesism:

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

As I have said, I do think humans are different to animals. On this we disagree

[/quote]

This is not a counter-argument, a deconstruction of my argument, or any sort of argument at all. It is simply a statement of position, which we knew already. Saying "I believe x because I believe x" is circular and indefensible. That way irrationality lies - racism, etc ad nauseum.

Re: Dog on dog attacks

David Mills — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:16:39 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

If the dog needed sedation to walk down the street without biting another dog or person then my actions would be different.

[/quote]

Of course. My point was that dogs have different tolerance levels to different things. Pattern of biting is that it is a dog's last resort. We should be more mindful of what dogs will tolerate, hence my abhorrence of Ms Edwards original dogmatic stance. In this I am not saying that we play to a dog's every whim but that we have to accept that some will tolerate some things, and others won't. We do it with farm animals, quite happily, but then they're only for consumption.

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

Whether an owner feels my opinion is valid, based on my qualifications and experience, is up to them.

[/quote]

I'm uncomfortable with this. Vets does not equal behaviourist, or even welfarist. We like to think we are, but we are not. Some with further training are. The problem is vets are a one-stop shop for owners, and we sometimes let them think that, for ego or whatever. If people ask your opinion then I think it's imperative we say it is our opinion as a person, nothing to do with qualifications. Unless, of course, you are a behviourist and you can give them accurate prognoses on whether the problem is manageable.

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

As I have said, I do think humans are different to animals. On this we disagree

[/quote]

This is our impasse. You haven't supplied a reason. Saying 'it's because it is what I think' is not a reason, purely because you can apply this to anything - racism, religion, green fairyism. The statement of an opinion is not a counter argument.

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:12:06 GMT

Arlo I like Martin am sorry to hear about your daughter-hope the bad spell passes fairly quickly-though I know her underlying condition will remain, but hopefully will become better controlled with age. I've known of children who had frequent seizures, but these lessened in frequency with age, so they led relatively normal adult lives-even had children, but were not allowed to drive

Yes telling Gillian to toddle off was offensive-she and I have both agreed and disagreed in the past, but although the arguments have been heated, neither of us has descended to those depths. Personal insults are usually a last stand on the part of someone who has lost the argument

Wynne

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:57:05 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]Arlo, sorry to hear about the home stuff - having to coral a bunch of pompous windbags like us is probably not helping much. As ever, if there's anything I can do, feel free to ask - and I'm certain that goes for all of us.[/quote]

Thanks Martin. Actually, I wouldn't have mentioned it, except that perhaps it puts some of my actions into some sort of context. Late at night, with all that going on, and yes, I'm probably a bit more intolerant of people sniping a each other than I might otherwise be.

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Martin Jones — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:56:41 GMT

Yes. And no.

I have not the first clue what drives Mr Mills onwards; but I have looked into the same philosophies as he has, so I know where these ideas are coming from. Understanding the man is different.

Re: Dog on dog attacks

J G Wray — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:50:50 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]

I was so not going to get involved with this one again.......

................Plantagenet has inadvertantly invoked Godwin's Law, albeit with the best of intentions, and the debate seems to have embraced the notion that Mr Mills is a fan of Adolf, without properly examining whether this is so.

I don't agree with Mr Mills, but I understand where his ideas come from:............

[/quote]

Epic posting Mr Jones. Nice to know you understand Mr Mills. Do you think you can articulate where these ideas might lead and the impact on the provision of veterinary services? Or, do you think you can articulate where Ms Edwards dogma leads to in the provision of veterinary services?

JGW

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:47:04 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Presumptive, unfounded. Have you considered that they might just not feel that strongly about it?[/quote]

No, it's not presumptive, it's the feedback I have had from a number of members.

[quote user="David Mills"]Where do you stand on this debate, Mr Guthrie? I think I can take an educated guess.[/quote]

I don't stand anywhere on this debate - I haven't considered the matter. I will now, if you like.

[quote user="David Mills"]I note you are already bringing in presumptions about what I may think about your general political viewpoint[/quote]

You said to me in a private message "If you wish to pander to some perceived offence on Mr xx's part, that is your wont, but is more in keeping with a bleeding heart liberal than a neutrel, rational editor."

I think it is therefore reasonable for me to presume as I did!

Re: Dog on dog attacks

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:37:47 GMT

Hi Martin, as I said, it's not Mr Mill's opinions which cause the problem. I don't want to stifle anyone's opinion.