Biters Welcome
December 20, 2009 9:51 AM Subscribe
Steve Markwell runs a dog shelter in Forks, Washington for "dogs you'd rather see dead." Markwell, a 34 year old formerly from Orange County, runs the Olympic Animal Sanctuary. The dogs he takes in have long histories of biting, often to the point of serious damage, and would normally be put to death under many states' laws. For example, one recent arrival is Snaps, who was forced by his owner to viciously bite two women in Washington. Markwell has won both applause and some criticism from those who do not believe dominance or alpha dog theory are as successful in managing dogs as kindness.
A 16 yr old girl was "beating and kicking the dog" to force it to attack someone else?
What the fuck?
posted by Solomon at 10:05 AM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
What the fuck?
posted by Solomon at 10:05 AM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Solomon, if it makes you feel any better, the girl got an unusually long sentence at juvenile court. (Though not the death penalty her dog would normally have received.)
posted by bearwife at 10:12 AM on December 20, 2009
posted by bearwife at 10:12 AM on December 20, 2009
There are so many damaged dogs out there.
I just started doing some work for a service, taking care of one, adopted from a shelter. You can't get near her face, approach her directly or make any sudden moves. If your face gets near hers--like when you're trying to put her collar on, she makes a move for your throat. The other day, still a little uncertain about me, she blocked me in a room and wouldn't let me out. Fortunately someone else was in the house and managed to distract her.
She has had numerous broken bones, evidently from a beating, but since the shelter picked her up off the side of a road, it's unknown what her history is. She's terribly afraid and thus aggressive and can never be near strangers. Because she's so afraid, she doesn't run off but I worry about what would happen if she did somehow get off the property. It's clear to me that she might attack someone.
I don't know the future of a dog like this.
posted by etaoin at 10:45 AM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
I just started doing some work for a service, taking care of one, adopted from a shelter. You can't get near her face, approach her directly or make any sudden moves. If your face gets near hers--like when you're trying to put her collar on, she makes a move for your throat. The other day, still a little uncertain about me, she blocked me in a room and wouldn't let me out. Fortunately someone else was in the house and managed to distract her.
She has had numerous broken bones, evidently from a beating, but since the shelter picked her up off the side of a road, it's unknown what her history is. She's terribly afraid and thus aggressive and can never be near strangers. Because she's so afraid, she doesn't run off but I worry about what would happen if she did somehow get off the property. It's clear to me that she might attack someone.
I don't know the future of a dog like this.
posted by etaoin at 10:45 AM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
I dunno. I love dogs, but some dogs just can't live well with people for whatever reason and a humane death is far from the worst thing that can happen to a dog. I don't think keeping truly dangerous dogs alive is really the best course of action in a general sense, especially when there are so many dogs without these problems in desperate need of homes (of course, this guy likely wouldn't be providing a home for them, so that point is probably moot). Good on the guy for making an effort, though.
posted by biscotti at 11:01 AM on December 20, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by biscotti at 11:01 AM on December 20, 2009 [7 favorites]
Am I understanding correctly that most of them stay in cages? What the fuck is the point in that?
And, no, 14 months in juvy doesn't make me feel any better about that story.
posted by cmoj at 11:10 AM on December 20, 2009
And, no, 14 months in juvy doesn't make me feel any better about that story.
posted by cmoj at 11:10 AM on December 20, 2009
A 16 yr old girl was "beating and kicking the dog" to force it to attack someone else?
The dog in question was a pit bull, and unfortunately these dogs often attract owners who see them as some sort of weapon or status symbol (or penis extension), and treat them as such, instead of as, you know, pets. The idea is that you must be hard if you have a mean dog, when obviously the opposite is true. If you're really a badass you can walk down the street with a toy poodle and no one's going to say shit because you're a badass. If you need a tough dog to attack people for you you're a fucking wuss.
posted by dortmunder at 11:24 AM on December 20, 2009 [12 favorites]
I love dogs, but some dogs just can't live well with people for whatever reason and a humane death is far from the worst thing that can happen to a dog.
This is exactly how I feel. Part of being a responsible dog owner, or dog lover, is knowing when a dog is too sick, or too mean. Putting an animal to sleep can be the most loving thing you can do, sometimes, harsh as that sounds. So while I respect his work, some of it feels misguided to me.
posted by Forktine at 11:31 AM on December 20, 2009
This is exactly how I feel. Part of being a responsible dog owner, or dog lover, is knowing when a dog is too sick, or too mean. Putting an animal to sleep can be the most loving thing you can do, sometimes, harsh as that sounds. So while I respect his work, some of it feels misguided to me.
posted by Forktine at 11:31 AM on December 20, 2009
Staying in a cage for part (most?) of the time is better than being killed.
posted by Vulpyne at 11:32 AM on December 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Vulpyne at 11:32 AM on December 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
Forks, WA? Are we quite sure they're actually dogs and not members of Team Jacob?
I kid, I kid. Though I wish some of the idiot tourist money currently pouring into Forks by Twilight dorks would go to a worthy cause like this.
(I'm told by my studiomate that her brother, who lives elsewhere in Washington state, can no longer rent the vacation cabin he once rented every year because it's in the eye of the Twilight-tourism-storm and consequently has been reserved by tourists from other countries for the next five hundred consecutive years...)
posted by bitter-girl.com at 11:34 AM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
I kid, I kid. Though I wish some of the idiot tourist money currently pouring into Forks by Twilight dorks would go to a worthy cause like this.
(I'm told by my studiomate that her brother, who lives elsewhere in Washington state, can no longer rent the vacation cabin he once rented every year because it's in the eye of the Twilight-tourism-storm and consequently has been reserved by tourists from other countries for the next five hundred consecutive years...)
posted by bitter-girl.com at 11:34 AM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Staying in a cage for part (most?) of the time is better than being killed.
No. No it is not.
posted by squorch at 11:38 AM on December 20, 2009 [9 favorites]
No. No it is not.
posted by squorch at 11:38 AM on December 20, 2009 [9 favorites]
I came in here with all warm and fuzzy feelings about this guy who is helping dogs. I feel this responsibility for house pets; we as a society created and continue to create them, so we as a society are responsible to give them good lives.
And now I read so many people saying "the dogs would be better off dead".
I don't know what the answer is, but I totally support giving mean dogs a chance at rehabilitation. I have a really mean chihuahua, who is so happy in our family and very kind with us (she used to sleep with her head on my pillow). Sure, we can't let strangers play with her, but to my surprise over the years she has grown to like a handful of other people, too. I'm so happy to have that little pup in our family, who has let us rub her belly and play with her through thick and thin, and so glad no one looked at her and thought "she'd be better off dead."
posted by bunnycup at 11:42 AM on December 20, 2009 [6 favorites]
And now I read so many people saying "the dogs would be better off dead".
I don't know what the answer is, but I totally support giving mean dogs a chance at rehabilitation. I have a really mean chihuahua, who is so happy in our family and very kind with us (she used to sleep with her head on my pillow). Sure, we can't let strangers play with her, but to my surprise over the years she has grown to like a handful of other people, too. I'm so happy to have that little pup in our family, who has let us rub her belly and play with her through thick and thin, and so glad no one looked at her and thought "she'd be better off dead."
posted by bunnycup at 11:42 AM on December 20, 2009 [6 favorites]
I love dogs, but some dogs just can't live well with people for whatever reason and a humane death is far from the worst thing that can happen to a dog.
This is exactly how I feel. Part of being a responsible dog owner, or dog lover, is knowing when a dog is too sick, or too mean. Putting an animal to sleep can be the most loving thing you can do, sometimes, harsh as that sounds. So while I respect his work, some of it feels misguided to me.
I think there's a difference between labeling a dog "too mean" and knowing there are some situations where the dog might freak out.
I have 3 dogs. One of them, I could probably do anything to and not get bit. The other two (husky/malamutes) I am pretty sure I would get at least a minor bite if I was a massive jerk to them. I don't believe that possibility existing justifies labeling them as "mean".
posted by Vulpyne at 11:42 AM on December 20, 2009
This is exactly how I feel. Part of being a responsible dog owner, or dog lover, is knowing when a dog is too sick, or too mean. Putting an animal to sleep can be the most loving thing you can do, sometimes, harsh as that sounds. So while I respect his work, some of it feels misguided to me.
I think there's a difference between labeling a dog "too mean" and knowing there are some situations where the dog might freak out.
I have 3 dogs. One of them, I could probably do anything to and not get bit. The other two (husky/malamutes) I am pretty sure I would get at least a minor bite if I was a massive jerk to them. I don't believe that possibility existing justifies labeling them as "mean".
posted by Vulpyne at 11:42 AM on December 20, 2009
I think some dogs have been bred for crazy, and some dogs have been beaten and threatened until they're crazy.
Dogs in the first category can't be fixed, in my opinion; they can only be humanely euthanized. Dogs in the second category are harder to call, because I've seen them go both ways, even when treated kindly.
I'm really impressed the guy is trying as hard as he can to give something like a life to these animals, but it seems like an awful lot of them fall into category one.
posted by Pragmatica at 11:47 AM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Dogs in the first category can't be fixed, in my opinion; they can only be humanely euthanized. Dogs in the second category are harder to call, because I've seen them go both ways, even when treated kindly.
I'm really impressed the guy is trying as hard as he can to give something like a life to these animals, but it seems like an awful lot of them fall into category one.
posted by Pragmatica at 11:47 AM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
squorch,
Dogs aren't the same as people. Most people require some sort of constant stimulation or they get distressed. Dogs just go to sleep when there's nothing interesting happening.
Consider this: You are a very lucky human being if you get to spend the largest amount of your time doing things you really enjoy. Most do not. Doesn't mean you're better off dead, though.
posted by Vulpyne at 11:47 AM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
Dogs aren't the same as people. Most people require some sort of constant stimulation or they get distressed. Dogs just go to sleep when there's nothing interesting happening.
Consider this: You are a very lucky human being if you get to spend the largest amount of your time doing things you really enjoy. Most do not. Doesn't mean you're better off dead, though.
posted by Vulpyne at 11:47 AM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
There is extremely limited financial support allocated for animal welfare. The reality is that outside of tiny private operations like this one, these animals will consume scarce resources that could be put into animals that have a chance at full, loving lives. The local shelter that I work at only exists because of an *extremely* strong volunteer program, and even with 90% of the work being done with unpaid labor it's barely holding on. I don't know if these dogs would be better off dead, but I don't believe that we can justify saving them while letting dogs with a much better chance at happiness get put to sleep each week.
Unless Americans can get over our pathological fear of taxes we'll need to make these ugly choices.
Also, pit bulls can be wonderful animals but my time in shelters has convinced me that they attract the worst damned dog owners on the planet. It seems there are people hellbent on undoing thousands of years of domestication by never neutering, spaying, training, loving or controlling their "pets" thereby ensuring that the resultant animals breed like mad.
posted by uri at 11:51 AM on December 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
Unless Americans can get over our pathological fear of taxes we'll need to make these ugly choices.
Also, pit bulls can be wonderful animals but my time in shelters has convinced me that they attract the worst damned dog owners on the planet. It seems there are people hellbent on undoing thousands of years of domestication by never neutering, spaying, training, loving or controlling their "pets" thereby ensuring that the resultant animals breed like mad.
posted by uri at 11:51 AM on December 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
There's a real distinction between troubled dogs who can be rehabilitated or live with owners who are aware of their problems and limits and dogs who have been so abused or have such screwed-up genetics that they are flat-out permanently dangerous -- as well as miserable.
Neither biscotti nor forkine suggested that all dogs with aggression or fear issues/tendencies be summarily executed. Some of the rescues in my area make a big point out of taking in lots of puppy-mill refugees, and while some of those dogs eventually make a decent transition to normal dog life, a lot of them are just completely irretrievably messed up to the point where they can't reasonably function. If a dog is faced with years of living in institutionalized kennel conditions without social relationships, then that dog is indeed better off mercifully dead.
posted by FelliniBlank at 11:52 AM on December 20, 2009
Neither biscotti nor forkine suggested that all dogs with aggression or fear issues/tendencies be summarily executed. Some of the rescues in my area make a big point out of taking in lots of puppy-mill refugees, and while some of those dogs eventually make a decent transition to normal dog life, a lot of them are just completely irretrievably messed up to the point where they can't reasonably function. If a dog is faced with years of living in institutionalized kennel conditions without social relationships, then that dog is indeed better off mercifully dead.
posted by FelliniBlank at 11:52 AM on December 20, 2009
I think there's a difference between labeling a dog "too mean" and knowing there are some situations where the dog might freak out.
Definitely. I have a dog who is reactive (basically, he doesn't habituate easily or well, and over-reacts to just about everything), but he is not aggressive nor has he ever even remotely indicated aggression, he's just loud. Aggression and fear are flip sides of the same coin, and most aggressive dogs are really fearful dogs. However, some dogs are wired wrong, and other dogs have been mistreated into being crazy, and dogs who are truly dangerous for whatever reason just don't belong among humans.
posted by biscotti at 12:08 PM on December 20, 2009
Definitely. I have a dog who is reactive (basically, he doesn't habituate easily or well, and over-reacts to just about everything), but he is not aggressive nor has he ever even remotely indicated aggression, he's just loud. Aggression and fear are flip sides of the same coin, and most aggressive dogs are really fearful dogs. However, some dogs are wired wrong, and other dogs have been mistreated into being crazy, and dogs who are truly dangerous for whatever reason just don't belong among humans.
posted by biscotti at 12:08 PM on December 20, 2009
I don't know about this. I love dogs, have owned them my whole life, and have always had rescue/shelter dogs some of whom needed a lot of training and love.
But if a dog attacks a person in my mind... they should be put down, no discussion necessary. There are so many dogs in the world and so few resources. If they have behavioral problems and can be rehabilitated that's great, but to me attacking a human crosses the line of what is worth saving. I don't think there are any "bad dogs", just bad owners, and it's unfortunate that a dog has to be euthanized for something that is not it's fault.
I just can't help but think of the dogs in shelters who are being put down because they just need a little socialization or training, while people are pouring resources into animals that are basically beyond saving.
Dogs aren't the same as people. Most people require some sort of constant stimulation or they get distressed. Dogs just go to sleep when there's nothing interesting happening.
Dogs are social animals. Locking them in a cage all the time is cruel. If that is what is required because of a behavioral problems, the best thing for them (and people and other dogs) is to put them down. It's selfish to keep them alive because of our own feelings.
And related to this discussion, here is a really beautiful (and very sad, you've been warned) short film about a guy who had to put his sick dog down. Sometimes the right thing to do is not the easiest or happiest decision to make.
posted by bradbane at 12:34 PM on December 20, 2009
But if a dog attacks a person in my mind... they should be put down, no discussion necessary. There are so many dogs in the world and so few resources. If they have behavioral problems and can be rehabilitated that's great, but to me attacking a human crosses the line of what is worth saving. I don't think there are any "bad dogs", just bad owners, and it's unfortunate that a dog has to be euthanized for something that is not it's fault.
I just can't help but think of the dogs in shelters who are being put down because they just need a little socialization or training, while people are pouring resources into animals that are basically beyond saving.
Dogs aren't the same as people. Most people require some sort of constant stimulation or they get distressed. Dogs just go to sleep when there's nothing interesting happening.
Dogs are social animals. Locking them in a cage all the time is cruel. If that is what is required because of a behavioral problems, the best thing for them (and people and other dogs) is to put them down. It's selfish to keep them alive because of our own feelings.
And related to this discussion, here is a really beautiful (and very sad, you've been warned) short film about a guy who had to put his sick dog down. Sometimes the right thing to do is not the easiest or happiest decision to make.
posted by bradbane at 12:34 PM on December 20, 2009
I think there's a difference between labeling a dog "too mean" and knowing there are some situations where the dog might freak out.
Sure. You can take the sweetest, nicest, mellowest dog in the entire world, and if you provoke it enough you can get it to bite. That's not what anyone's talking about here. There are a few dogs who have been mistreated and misbred to the point that they can't safely be around other animals or people. It's our fault, collectively, as humans that we have done this to these dogs; part of our responsibility as humans to deal with that humanely and ethically.
Part of that ethical question is accepting the reality that resources are limited -- my local animal shelter, which does an amazing job on super scarce resources, has to euthanize sweet and loving, perfectly adoptable animals every week because our society throws those animals away like trash and we aren't willing to pay enough (in donations or taxes) to keep them alive).
And another part of that ethical question is saying "what kind of life is this un-adoptable animal going to have?" and making the tough call as to whether that life is better or worse than a humane death. A mentally ill and traumatized dog is not automatically better off kept alive in a cage. We made it what it is; we have to accept that sometimes that damage isn't reparable and keeping that dog alive may not be a kindness.
But we're talking about pretty extreme situations here, not someone's dog Fluffy who sometimes nips when his tail is pulled; no one is seriously advocating euthanizing every dog who displays even a hint of aggression or has been mistreated at some point.
posted by Forktine at 12:34 PM on December 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
Sure. You can take the sweetest, nicest, mellowest dog in the entire world, and if you provoke it enough you can get it to bite. That's not what anyone's talking about here. There are a few dogs who have been mistreated and misbred to the point that they can't safely be around other animals or people. It's our fault, collectively, as humans that we have done this to these dogs; part of our responsibility as humans to deal with that humanely and ethically.
Part of that ethical question is accepting the reality that resources are limited -- my local animal shelter, which does an amazing job on super scarce resources, has to euthanize sweet and loving, perfectly adoptable animals every week because our society throws those animals away like trash and we aren't willing to pay enough (in donations or taxes) to keep them alive).
And another part of that ethical question is saying "what kind of life is this un-adoptable animal going to have?" and making the tough call as to whether that life is better or worse than a humane death. A mentally ill and traumatized dog is not automatically better off kept alive in a cage. We made it what it is; we have to accept that sometimes that damage isn't reparable and keeping that dog alive may not be a kindness.
But we're talking about pretty extreme situations here, not someone's dog Fluffy who sometimes nips when his tail is pulled; no one is seriously advocating euthanizing every dog who displays even a hint of aggression or has been mistreated at some point.
posted by Forktine at 12:34 PM on December 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
On the one hand, I admire this guy for trying, big time.
On the other hand, I'm afraid he's going to end a la Grizzly Man.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:38 PM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, I'm afraid he's going to end a la Grizzly Man.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:38 PM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
I want to echo the general sentiment of "good on this guy" and want to point out that this is in no way the fault of any of the animals concerned, but I don't know that this is a great use of resources. All it tells me is that people ought to have licenses for "owning" pets.
posted by turgid dahlia at 1:29 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by turgid dahlia at 1:29 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
"I don't know that this is a great use of resources"
I think that with just about any charity/non-profit/rescue, a certain percentage of people will say this. If you don't entirely agree with his methods/mission, no problem, there's plenty of other worthwhile causes out there.
I think that this guy found a way to do something that makes a positive difference, so good for him. The post is a little bit misleading, unless I missed something in one of the links - he doesn't espouse dominance/alpha dog training. The criticism came from the dogs spending most of their time in cages.
posted by HopperFan at 1:57 PM on December 20, 2009
I think that with just about any charity/non-profit/rescue, a certain percentage of people will say this. If you don't entirely agree with his methods/mission, no problem, there's plenty of other worthwhile causes out there.
I think that this guy found a way to do something that makes a positive difference, so good for him. The post is a little bit misleading, unless I missed something in one of the links - he doesn't espouse dominance/alpha dog training. The criticism came from the dogs spending most of their time in cages.
posted by HopperFan at 1:57 PM on December 20, 2009
Sorry, didn't mean to be misleading. As the initial article makes clear, Steve Markwell indeed believes in kindness, not dominance or alpha dog theory or dog whispering. (I admit I phrased it as I did because I think there is controversy about how best to handle and manage dogs.) I believe most people involved in rescue dog work that know about him think he's great. I think he's looking to expand because he'd like some options beyond the kenneling he has to use with some of these dogs.
posted by bearwife at 2:46 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by bearwife at 2:46 PM on December 20, 2009
I find myself agreeing with the general sentiment that this guy's heart is in the right place, but that I'm not entirely sure this is the best use of resources. Granted, this is the United States we're talking about, where people have the right to pursue whatever interests they like within the law, regardless of its maximal or minimal utility, and I will absolutely stand up for his right to continue doing it.
I certainly don't agree with his quote in the article regarding other animals which are allowed to bite - hamsters, yes, because... well, has anyone ever died of injuries inflicted by a hamster? No. They have very small teeth. And I just don't hear about cats biting as a regular occurrence, though I could be wrong. Horses, on the other hand, are absolutely not allowed to just bite or kick. The concept is the same as with dogs: there's always the danger of it happening, but if it becomes habitual, the risk of serious injury is simply too great. A large dog can kill a person; so can a horse. Thus, neither are allowed to bite (or kick) in a habitual manner. I have known of horses who were euthanized because they were simply too dangerous to handle, and had been given many opportunities with different trainers, etc., to fix the problem - and I agree with that. The reason you don't hear about horses being condemned to death all the time for having injured people is twofold: a.) They're herbivorous prey animals to begin with. Flight is their reaction to 95% of perceived threats, under normal circumstances. b.) They're big, and have been domesticated and bred selectively for thousands of years, almost always with good temperament as a desired quality. Unlike dogs, (most) horses don't get bred if they show aggression towards humans.
No animal is worth a human life. I feel awful for those dogs who have been warped by cruel and terrible owners, but I think that there are far more aggressive dogs than there will ever be people like this man to save them.
Also, yikes, he says in the first article he gets bitten badly once a month? I wonder how long it'll take him to get burned out by that - that's a heck of a lot of serious bites.
posted by po at 7:29 PM on December 20, 2009
I certainly don't agree with his quote in the article regarding other animals which are allowed to bite - hamsters, yes, because... well, has anyone ever died of injuries inflicted by a hamster? No. They have very small teeth. And I just don't hear about cats biting as a regular occurrence, though I could be wrong. Horses, on the other hand, are absolutely not allowed to just bite or kick. The concept is the same as with dogs: there's always the danger of it happening, but if it becomes habitual, the risk of serious injury is simply too great. A large dog can kill a person; so can a horse. Thus, neither are allowed to bite (or kick) in a habitual manner. I have known of horses who were euthanized because they were simply too dangerous to handle, and had been given many opportunities with different trainers, etc., to fix the problem - and I agree with that. The reason you don't hear about horses being condemned to death all the time for having injured people is twofold: a.) They're herbivorous prey animals to begin with. Flight is their reaction to 95% of perceived threats, under normal circumstances. b.) They're big, and have been domesticated and bred selectively for thousands of years, almost always with good temperament as a desired quality. Unlike dogs, (most) horses don't get bred if they show aggression towards humans.
No animal is worth a human life. I feel awful for those dogs who have been warped by cruel and terrible owners, but I think that there are far more aggressive dogs than there will ever be people like this man to save them.
Also, yikes, he says in the first article he gets bitten badly once a month? I wonder how long it'll take him to get burned out by that - that's a heck of a lot of serious bites.
posted by po at 7:29 PM on December 20, 2009
On the other hand, I'm afraid he's going to end a la Grizzly Man.
Yeah, to his credit he rejects the help of Gaian pussweeds. But sharp instincts and common sense will still only take you so far. The fact is, these animals are volatile and highly unpredictable. Steve Irwin and Roy Horn were professionalized versions of Timothy Treadwell, but all this did was extend their luck.
Markwell seems to be a decent guy with a good conscience, but he is probably increasing the level of suffering in the universe by A) keeping dangerous animals alive who will most likely maim/kill him, each other, or other innocent people, B) prolonging the lives of suffering creatures, and C) misallocating limited financial and volunteer efforts away from human and animal causes with better pay-offs.
Also, I don't know how many lives of "lesser" animals it takes to feed one dog for life, but it's non-zero, and likely greater than one per dog.
The very act of keeping a carnivore alive for humane reasons is a kind of outrageous moral contradiction. A carnivore feeds on death. Is the life of one lion worth the life of 300 wildebeests? If you're keeping that lion alive, that's you're revealed belief. And prioritizing life based on position on the food chain has less moral logic to it than prioritizing life based on moral worthiness (e.g. a murderous dog vs a friendly dog), social usefulness (e.g. a parasitic stray dog vs a trained police dog), or cognitive complexity (e.g. a human life vs a dog life).
If a single pig has to die for the benefit of one Bad Dog, then the universe is actually better off if you keep the pig alive and kill the dog instead.
(The death of the pig is, of course, "hidden" behind a complex mass production process, not killed directly "for" the dog. Perhaps the deaths are not influenced by market forces related to dog ownership, and the body parts used would otherwise be trashed. I'll cede these complex issues to the more informed. Though I am skeptical that dog ownership doesn't impose costs on the mass, designated caste of slaughter animals).
posted by dgaicun at 8:04 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, to his credit he rejects the help of Gaian pussweeds. But sharp instincts and common sense will still only take you so far. The fact is, these animals are volatile and highly unpredictable. Steve Irwin and Roy Horn were professionalized versions of Timothy Treadwell, but all this did was extend their luck.
Markwell seems to be a decent guy with a good conscience, but he is probably increasing the level of suffering in the universe by A) keeping dangerous animals alive who will most likely maim/kill him, each other, or other innocent people, B) prolonging the lives of suffering creatures, and C) misallocating limited financial and volunteer efforts away from human and animal causes with better pay-offs.
Also, I don't know how many lives of "lesser" animals it takes to feed one dog for life, but it's non-zero, and likely greater than one per dog.
The very act of keeping a carnivore alive for humane reasons is a kind of outrageous moral contradiction. A carnivore feeds on death. Is the life of one lion worth the life of 300 wildebeests? If you're keeping that lion alive, that's you're revealed belief. And prioritizing life based on position on the food chain has less moral logic to it than prioritizing life based on moral worthiness (e.g. a murderous dog vs a friendly dog), social usefulness (e.g. a parasitic stray dog vs a trained police dog), or cognitive complexity (e.g. a human life vs a dog life).
If a single pig has to die for the benefit of one Bad Dog, then the universe is actually better off if you keep the pig alive and kill the dog instead.
(The death of the pig is, of course, "hidden" behind a complex mass production process, not killed directly "for" the dog. Perhaps the deaths are not influenced by market forces related to dog ownership, and the body parts used would otherwise be trashed. I'll cede these complex issues to the more informed. Though I am skeptical that dog ownership doesn't impose costs on the mass, designated caste of slaughter animals).
posted by dgaicun at 8:04 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wow, this is something I needed to see today. This morning, my dog bit someone and I spent all day agonizing over what comes next.
He's a sweet dog. I rescued him from my ex's family, which had ignored him since the birth of their second child. It's a tale as old as time: the puppy becomes old news and then a non-priority when kids arrive. And then the behavioral problems start.
I adopted him when they just couldn't cope any more and with me, he learned that there was a happier way of life available. He stopped most of his bad behaviors and I leaned (from one minor bite) what buttons not to push. But while he and I learned to live happily together, he has still not learned how to live with others. He bit my father a year ago when he visited me in Philadelphia. And he bit a woman in my sister's bridal party this morning. Both bites were minimal - didn't even break the skin - but they were in very benign situations. I would have known how to handle the dog in those situations. But I'm not always with him. And I'm afraid that means I can't always protect him from his own behaviors.
I don't have any neat little moral to this story. I don't know what comes next for my dog. I am just heartened to see that death may not be the ONLY option.
posted by greekphilosophy at 8:18 PM on December 20, 2009
He's a sweet dog. I rescued him from my ex's family, which had ignored him since the birth of their second child. It's a tale as old as time: the puppy becomes old news and then a non-priority when kids arrive. And then the behavioral problems start.
I adopted him when they just couldn't cope any more and with me, he learned that there was a happier way of life available. He stopped most of his bad behaviors and I leaned (from one minor bite) what buttons not to push. But while he and I learned to live happily together, he has still not learned how to live with others. He bit my father a year ago when he visited me in Philadelphia. And he bit a woman in my sister's bridal party this morning. Both bites were minimal - didn't even break the skin - but they were in very benign situations. I would have known how to handle the dog in those situations. But I'm not always with him. And I'm afraid that means I can't always protect him from his own behaviors.
I don't have any neat little moral to this story. I don't know what comes next for my dog. I am just heartened to see that death may not be the ONLY option.
posted by greekphilosophy at 8:18 PM on December 20, 2009
greekphilosophy: I don't have any neat little moral to this story. I don't know what comes next for my dog. I am just heartened to see that death may not be the ONLY option.
The dog bit twice, and never drew blood? I know this isn't AskMe, but euthanasia is premature, in this case. If the severity of the bites increases, then the dog is a Threat, and should be put down, but if he is just overly assertive, tell people "be careful with my dog, he bites," and keep him away from children and on a leash, and so forth, and get on with life.
As for the link, add me to the list of people who love dogs, and feel like any dog who is a Threat should be put down humanely for the benefit of everyone involved. Spend these resources on all of the wonderful dongs out there who can actually be loved, loving companions.
posted by paisley henosis at 8:29 PM on December 20, 2009
The dog bit twice, and never drew blood? I know this isn't AskMe, but euthanasia is premature, in this case. If the severity of the bites increases, then the dog is a Threat, and should be put down, but if he is just overly assertive, tell people "be careful with my dog, he bites," and keep him away from children and on a leash, and so forth, and get on with life.
As for the link, add me to the list of people who love dogs, and feel like any dog who is a Threat should be put down humanely for the benefit of everyone involved. Spend these resources on all of the wonderful dongs out there who can actually be loved, loving companions.
posted by paisley henosis at 8:29 PM on December 20, 2009
Woops. Dogs, not dongs.
Dongs need love, too, though.
posted by paisley henosis at 8:30 PM on December 20, 2009
Dongs need love, too, though.
posted by paisley henosis at 8:30 PM on December 20, 2009
Thanks paisley henosis. I think the lawyer in me is screaming "LIABILITY!!" and this incident just seems like an escalation because it involves someone outside of the family. (Even though the level of aggression wasn't escalated.) But I think you're right that there are options other than euthanasia that have to be explored first - neutering chief among them.
This situation is destined for AskMe but not until I can get some of the dog bite sensationalism out of it so that it will generate some helpful information.
posted by greekphilosophy at 8:47 PM on December 20, 2009
This situation is destined for AskMe but not until I can get some of the dog bite sensationalism out of it so that it will generate some helpful information.
posted by greekphilosophy at 8:47 PM on December 20, 2009
Am I understanding correctly that most of them stay in cages? What the fuck is the point in that?
It's called crate training, it's perfectly normal (e.g. for show dogs), it is not illegal and it is not inhumane. Dogs think of their crate as a den, a place where they can be alone and safe. Think human teenager. They do not need to be constantly running free, especially if that means they get bored and start destroying the furniture or whatnot. Two good sessions of exercise a day are actually plenty, and if this is in the form of a walk with the owner, good socialization to boot.
I was just having to say the same thing to posters in a thread about our local humane society, a discussion that got derailed discussing a dog fostering woman who somebody apparently reported to the sheriff because of crating. As I understand it there were no charges.
posted by dhartung at 9:21 PM on December 20, 2009
It's called crate training, it's perfectly normal (e.g. for show dogs), it is not illegal and it is not inhumane. Dogs think of their crate as a den, a place where they can be alone and safe. Think human teenager. They do not need to be constantly running free, especially if that means they get bored and start destroying the furniture or whatnot. Two good sessions of exercise a day are actually plenty, and if this is in the form of a walk with the owner, good socialization to boot.
I was just having to say the same thing to posters in a thread about our local humane society, a discussion that got derailed discussing a dog fostering woman who somebody apparently reported to the sheriff because of crating. As I understand it there were no charges.
posted by dhartung at 9:21 PM on December 20, 2009
Also, I don't know how many lives of "lesser" animals it takes to feed one dog for life, but it's non-zero, and likely greater than one per dog.
[snip]
If a single pig has to die for the benefit of one Bad Dog, then the universe is actually better off if you keep the pig alive and kill the dog instead.
You have a good point there. Dogs aren't carnivores, though. They are omnivores, like humans. And like humans, they don't have to eat meat to survive and be healthy.
posted by Vulpyne at 8:10 AM on December 21, 2009
[snip]
If a single pig has to die for the benefit of one Bad Dog, then the universe is actually better off if you keep the pig alive and kill the dog instead.
You have a good point there. Dogs aren't carnivores, though. They are omnivores, like humans. And like humans, they don't have to eat meat to survive and be healthy.
posted by Vulpyne at 8:10 AM on December 21, 2009
And for just a few of the views different from Gladwell's, see this, this and this.
posted by bearwife at 2:04 PM on December 21, 2009
posted by bearwife at 2:04 PM on December 21, 2009
Good articles there, bearwife. It's time people realized that Mr. Milan's methods are not universally accepted by trainers and behavior experts.
posted by TochterAusElysium at 4:48 PM on December 21, 2009
posted by TochterAusElysium at 4:48 PM on December 21, 2009
« Older The Computer Graphics Revolution circa 1978 | The Nerds of Paradise Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by vito90 at 9:58 AM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]