Campaign starts to adopt dog that killed Alberta baby

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I said I was willing to adopt the dog.

245 replies, that's why I said don't recall.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

I'm sure the decisions to turn their dogs over were because of the original situation and not the end result.

Turned the dogs over to who?

My point is that once the dogs were turned over to the authorities they should be completely out of the owner's hands and their fate should be decided by animal control experts. It's the only way to ensure a rational and logical decision for their future.

If it was decided that the dog was capable of being re-adopted I don't see how the owner's input is at all relevant. I'm sure their decision to euthanize was based on the ideal of protecting future owners from the same thing happened and not out of malice, but their decision is clouded by emotion and rightfully so. That's why I think the decision should be out of their hands.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by pylon

Thanks slava, Hence why I want to re-quote this.

According to everything written in this post, these people did nothing wrong, and took every precaution. The dog escaped from it's cage, and got at the child. Also they took precautions before the child was brought home that 99.5% of the population wouldn't. A lot of people owe these folks an apology for calling them horrible parents, irresponsible, etc.

And judigng on the fact nobody actually witnessed what the dog did, and that nobody actually saw the dog take the child, the right decision was made.

Again cowperson brings rationality to the situtation.

Just to be clear, that's one version of what happened. Other published versions had a human in the room.

And that's a pretty detailed description of what happened in that room if no one was there.

However, the police seem satisfied as to the accidental nature of this so I will be too.

And again, I don't believe the dog needed to be put down. Since there was no order from authorities to do so, the assumption should be they did not feel the animal was a future danger and therefore could have been adopted out and lived a long life. However, I recognize the right of the owners to euthanize.

Interestingly, pets as property without rights versus granting them rights is a very hot debate in the rescue community.

And, as I said before, humans are animals. We'd only like to presume we're not . . . .

Cowperson

[puckluck]

Kill dog, 13 page thread. Government kills death row inmate, silence.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Kill dog, 13 page thread. Government kills death row inmate, silence.

Not in Canada. In Canada we feel that all convicted criminals can be rehabilitated.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Kill dog, 13 page thread. Government kills death row inmate, silence.

Well considering we live in a country where capital punishment is not mandated and the government does not kill death row inmates this is hardly surprising.

There is no surprise that this topic and subsequent thread has gardened so much traffic. There are two very distinct groups, the ones whose own love of dogs blinds their ability to be rational about the situation and punishment, and the those who are not overrun be their own experiences and emotions and are able to see the situation clearly for what it is.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by J pold

There are two very distinct groups, the ones whose own love of dogs blinds their ability to be rational about the situation and punishment, and the those who are not overrun be their own experiences and emotions and are able to see the situation clearly for what it is.

Setting aside my own preconceived notions and biases, I think J pold raises some good points about perspective.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by J pold

Well considering we live in a country where capital punishment is not mandated and the government does not kill death row inmates this is hardly surprising.

There is no surprise that this topic and subsequent thread has gardened so much traffic. There are two very distinct groups, the ones whose own love of dogs blinds their ability to be rational about the situation and punishment, and the those who are not overrun be their own experiences and emotions and are able to see the situation clearly for what it is.

What an ignorant and presumptuous post. Well done!

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by J pold

Well considering we live in a country where capital punishment is not mandated and the government does not kill death row inmates this is hardly surprising.

There is no surprise that this topic and subsequent thread has gardened so much traffic. There are two very distinct groups, the ones whose own love of dogs blinds their ability to be rational about the situation and punishment, and the those who are not overrun be their own experiences and emotions and are able to see the situation clearly for what it is.

Nice shot at those who disagree with you. Who says we're blind and aren't looking at it rationally?

I still haven't gotten any answers from the pro-kill crowd on why the death of the dog had to be done? Killing it just for the accidental case of dog doing an unintended boo-boo is not fair at all. Please answer, how is it fair since you disagree?

[JayP]

Originally Posted by J pold

There is no surprise that this topic and subsequent thread has gardened so much traffic. There are two very distinct groups, the ones whose own love of dogs blinds their ability to be rational about the situation and punishment, and the those who are not overrun be their own experiences and emotions and are able to see the situation clearly for what it is.

If the experts determined that the dog was fit to be re-homed (to the right people) and that this was an isolated incident then what benefit is there to killing the dog? All it is is trying to apply human justice to an animal that has no concept of it.

If this dog deserves to die then why aren't we ripping all female dogs who've had litters living with young children out of those homes? Those are just as much a threat as this one is in the future (and likely more so because if it was re-homed if would go somewhere where it wouldn't even see a baby again).

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by J pold

Well considering we live in a country where capital punishment is not mandated and the government does not kill death row inmates this is hardly surprising.

There is no surprise that this topic and subsequent thread has gardened so much traffic. There are two very distinct groups, the ones whose own love of dogs blinds their ability to be rational about the situation and punishment, and the those who are not overrun be their own experiences and emotions and are able to see the situation clearly for what it is.

I understand why this thread has garnered so much traffic, I just think it very sad we hear more about a dog being killed than a human being executed. I also wonder if the people who are against the killing of the dog are also against the death penalty.

Rodrigo Hernandez was just executed in Texas about a week ago..what was the point of that? Where was all the media coverage?

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by JayP

Turned the dogs over to who?

I meant put down.

[Lithium]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I understand why this thread has garnered so much traffic, I just think it very sad we hear more about a dog being killed than a human being executed. I also wonder if the people who are against the killing of the dog are also against the death penalty.

Rodrigo Hernandez was just executed in Texas about a week ago..what was the point of that? Where was all the media coverage?

Nobody cares about death row inmates.

[Olao32]

I don’t presume to understand the exact facts about the case in hand and the resulting consequences because I was not there. All I have to go on are news articles and the resulting authoritative inaction to euthanize the animal. Considering that, perhaps rather than the “string-em’-up” mentality that many have suggested in this thread, it may be worth a step-back approach and think about other contributing factors the authorities have that you do not which led them to their decision. If it was as clear cut as some people presume (i.e. animal maliciously attacks and kills the child), then I would have to agree with the decision to euthanize. However…

Originally Posted by J pold

There are two very distinct groups, the ones whose own love of dogs blinds their ability to be rational about the situation and punishment, and the those who are not overrun be their own experiences and emotions and are able to see the situation clearly for what it is.

That is an extremely ignorant statement. Essentially, because someone does not agree with your perspective, they are wrong. Moreover, you have tried to suggest that pet ownership trumps rational thought of others with a differing opinion regardless of their reasoning.

One could just as easily presume that those who decided euthanization was the only answer hate all dogs, and are letting their overlying feelings cloud their judgment…all of them, irrespective of supporting arguments or examples. But that assumes a great deal and is likely incorrect.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by J pold

There is no surprise that this topic and subsequent thread has gardened so much traffic. There are two very distinct groups, the ones whose own love of dogs blinds their ability to be rational about the situation and punishment, and the those who are not overrun be their own experiences and emotions and are able to see the situation clearly for what it is.

Dog experts who routinely order the execution of dogs determined this dog was not a future danger to humans and gave the family a choice.

I'm not sure how that qualifies as an irrational decision.

I'm in favour of euthanizing dogs that have attacked humans and have supported those decisions in the past. I'm just not seeing the "attack" aspect in this particular, isolated and unusual case and apparently the professionals evaluating this particular dog are in agreement.

The decision by the family to euthanize the dog appears to have been the emotional reaction and, from appearances, irrational given the advice of professionals.

They have that right as owners of this "property," but lets call it what it is.

Cowperson

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Olao32

That is an extremely ignorant statement. Essentially, because someone does not agree with your perspective, they are wrong. Moreover, you have tried to suggest that pet ownership trumps rational thought of others with a differing opinion regardless of their reasoning.

One could just as easily presume that those who decided euthanization was the only answer hate all dogs, and are letting their overlying feelings cloud their judgment…all of them, irrespective of supporting arguments or examples. But that assumes a great deal and is likely incorrect.

Please point out where I suggested that anyone was right or wrong. I’m not suggesting pet ownership trumps rational thought, and I’m suggesting that people’s emotions cloud their rational judgments, which is a basic function of human nature.

If anyone who is defending the dog would like to come forward and say that their feelings on dogs are neutral, and they do not have strong emotions associated with dogs and pet ownership than I’ll stand corrected. Is it a surprise to anyone that those people who remark that they prefer the company of dogs to people are the same ones who think that they parents are to blame and not the dog? The issue of the humanization of pets was brought up earlier in this thread and to me plays a more central role in this debate than we think. The reason to kill the dog is twofold, the only way to have a true guarantee that this incident will never happen again is to put the dog the down, but also the nature of the dogs being, it is an animal and therefore should be treated with a different moral standard.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Kill dog, 13 page thread. Government kills death row inmate, silence.

You're joking right? There are hundreds of organizations, some of them incredibly large, dedicated to the abolition of capital punishment. There have also been a number of threads on it here.

[Lithium]

Originally Posted by J pold

Please point out where I suggested that anyone was right or wrong. I’m not suggesting pet ownership trumps rational thought, and I’m suggesting that people’s emotions cloud their rational judgments, which is a basic function of human nature.

If anyone who is defending the dog would like to come forward and say that their feelings on dogs are neutral, and they do not have strong emotions associated with dogs and pet ownership than I’ll stand corrected. Is it a surprise to anyone that those people who remark that they prefer the company of dogs to people are the same ones who think that they parents are to blame and not the dog? The issue of the humanization of pets was brought up earlier in this thread and to me plays a more central role in this debate than we think. The reason to kill the dog is twofold, the only way to have a true guarantee that this incident will never happen again is to put the dog the down, but also the nature of the dogs being, it is an animal and therefore should be treated with a different moral standard.

Would you leave a 2 day old baby within reach of a dog?

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I understand why this thread has garnered so much traffic, I just think it very sad we hear more about a dog being killed than a human being executed. I also wonder if the people who are against the killing of the dog are also against the death penalty.

Rodrigo Hernandez was just executed in Texas about a week ago..what was the point of that? Where was all the media coverage?

He was a rapist and a killer. They kill you for that in Texas if your caught.

[V]

Originally Posted by J pold

If anyone who is defending the dog would like to come forward and say that their feelings on dogs are neutral, and they do not have strong emotions associated with dogs and pet ownership than I’ll stand corrected.

I can honestly say that I'm not in the dog camp. I've never had dogs, and I've been chased by German Shepards on my paper route as a child. So consider me more negative than neutral as I really, really don't like dogs. I'm scared of big dogs and I despise little yappy dogs.

Earlier in this thread I said that while this situation is incredibly difficult for the parents, this really was a preventable accident. Since some more information has come out, I really don't think that's all that true anymore. The dog appears to have been locked up sufficiently, and this was just a freak accident that no one could've possibly expected. Very sad.

At the same time, this is not a vicious attack by the dog. There does not appear to be a rational reason to believe that destroying this dog will remove any future threat. Euthanizing the dog is the parents decision, and I stand by their right to do it, but I really don't understand the argument that it had to be done. I agree with CP, the experts that are intimately involved with this specific situation have determined that there is no rational value in killing the dog. So the argument that this dog will kill again is not a valid argument.

So in my opinion we can really just look at the moral standard for dogs. It's been said in this thread that dogs are held to a different moral standard than humans, and that this means that dogs must be killed if they kill a human. I don't really see that as a valid argument either, because it doesn't really serve any purpose. What exactly does killing this dog accomplish? I guess if someone can explain that to me I might be in the "kill the dog" camp. For now I just don't see it.

So there you go. I am not even remotely a dog person, but I don't feel that this particular incident necessitates the euthanizing of this dog.