From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: What would *you* have done?
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 20:48:15 GMT

David Caruso II writes:

[lots of stuff deleted]
>John Van Etten writes:
>> of us mean nasty old hunters whether or not we think this chap is
>> right in beating a dog, or is this just another part of the
>
>	No, I don't think all hunters would advocate beating a dog.  I don't
>think hardly anyone would think that.  But you did say, John, that you feel no
>qualms about shooting a pack of stray animals, such as cats.  To me, this is
>obvious abuse.  "But those animals aren't pets ... aren't property," you would
>no doubt claim.  And to that I say, "So what.  It doesn't matter." 

David, I do indeed have no qualms with shooting at feral dogs
(especially) and cats.  You've never asked me why.  Perhaps you should
hear me out before you go branding me as perpetrating "obvious abuse."
I'm not saying you'll change your mind (or even that you should), but
should at least hear why before passing judgement.  I related a story
about it over in the rec.hunting newsgroup some time ago, but will
paraphrase it again here.  Note that this is not the *only* reason why
I shoot at stray dogs running in packs.  If you call the NYS DEC
(Dept. of Environmental Conservation) I'm sure they can give you a
pretty long list of reasons why these dogs should be shot.  They even
offer a $5 bounty to hunters for shooting them sometimes.
     Anyway, I've often read the stories of coyotes and dogs packing
up and chasing people and such, but I never gave it much thought.
Then one day some years ago, one of my closest friends was out
checking his mink traps along a stream that runs through the
Marcy-South powerline cut, when he heard an awful racket.  So he ran
out into the middle of the cut and all these young children came
running around the bend and down to him, where they collapsed in the
snow.  They had been cross-country skiing, which was popular along the
powerline r-o-w.  They were all out of breath and couldn't even tell
him what they were running from or why they were so scared.  Then
around the bend came the dogs.  Fortunately, my friend always carries
a .22 rifle with him when trapping.  So he shot one of the dogs and
stopped it.  The rest stopped and then ran away.  Eric says there was
"blood in their eyes" and you should value this old mountain man's
words on such subjects.  He said they were going to take down those
little kids.
     So you and your AR friends can tell me all day long that I'm a
bad guy for shooting dogs that have packed up.  You can tell me all
the Lassie and Ole Yeller stories that you want.  You can shout about
sentience and sapience until you go hoarse.  You can call me a
hypocrite because I often claim that I "eat what I kill."  And you
can hold your breath until you all turn blue.  I'm still going to put
those pups down without a second's hesitation.  Someone's life may be
at stake.  I know too many guys that have been treed by them.


[stuff deleted]
>> in this forum?  I, for one, do not feel that animals should be beaten
>> for no good reason and have stated so many times.  And I have a slight
>> suspicion that I'm not alone in such views, among people on this side
>> of the fence.  Dogs are indeed property, but they are alive and as
>> such have certain rights that are not given to a block of wood or a
>> spare tire.
>
>	Ooh! ... "certain rights."  Please define these rights, John, and in 
>unambiguous terms.  I'd like to hear it.  And make sure not to blunder and 
>include a right like, "The right to avoid unnecessary harm."

I've never yet enumerated the "rights" that I feel animals should
have, and am not likely to fully do so here.  In general, I would say
that animals have the same "right" to life and to fair treatment that
humans do, up to the point where a human may benefit from taking the
animal's life (eating it, etc.) or by treating it in a cruel fashion
(experimenting on it, etc.), although I'm keying this in on the fly
and it is not a well thought out answer by any means.  I also feel
that additional "rights" should be incurred if the species is
endangered.
     What rights do *you* feel that an animal should have, David?
Should your dog be able to eat your neighbor's cat if it wants to?
You've said that you don't think a cat is anyone's property.  Should
your dog be able to run outdoors and kill rabbits?  Bear in mind that
you feed it, and as such it is merely killing for "sport" as you AR
folk are so fond of calling it.  Should a wolf be able to eat your dog
if it wants to?  Should wild dog packs be able to kill children?
Should they be able to kill deer?  Bear in mind the fact that they
often kill far more deer than they can eat, because they enjoy
killing.  Should a bear (a fellow omnivore) have the right to go to a
stream and eat salmon, when it *could* go and munch on berries
instead?  Just like us nasty mean old hunters, it too "has a choice."
There are countless other cases I could ask about, but I would like to
know where you draw your line (and of course, why).  You have often
said that you think nature left alone is quite peaceful (forgive me
but I can't figure out why you think that other than lack of being in
touch with it).  Should all these things I've mentioned which exist in
your peaceful "hands off" nature be considered good things?  I'm not
trying to pick on you or anything, David, but I am curious to learn
more about how you've come up with your views.


>> Do you feel that others should have the right to do things which they
>> feel are OK, but which are either illegal or unethical?
>
>	No, I don't -- not everyone.  Ethics can only be judged by their
>colleagues and their society, as mine will.  I don't expect people to disagree
>with the kind of ethics I have displayed as much as they would with someone's
>who believed it was ethical to enslave anyone with a mole on their butt cheek. 
>In my acting according to my ethical standards, I suspect I would have some
>enemies and more than some supporters.  My ethics deal with the defence of all
>innocent life.  Most people would definitely not see that as negative, even
>as broad as I have viewed it. 

I read this to mean that you think it's OK for you to break the law or
commit other unethical acts, but not necessarily OK for others to do
the same.  What makes you think that your actions in defense of "all
innocent life" are OK just because you perceive the majority of the
people as being sympathetic?  What I mean is, what means you should be
the one able to judge what is right or wrong in these cases?  Is it
that you think the end result justifies having you bear some hardship
(i.e., if you were to steal the dog and find a "good home" for it, is
it "OK" because you would be willing to pay the price of going to jail
or being fined if you got caught)?


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals