Why do we need to advocate for the humane treatment of dogs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter turbo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dogs
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the humane treatment of dogs, exploring the moral implications of animal abuse, cultural perspectives on dogs, and comparisons between human and animal suffering. Participants express varying views on the treatment of dogs, the ethics of dog fighting, and the societal values surrounding animal welfare.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that dogs are inherently friendly and eager to please humans, making their abuse particularly egregious.
  • Others highlight cultural differences in the perception of dogs, noting that in some cultures, dogs are primarily seen as security animals and may be trained to be aggressive.
  • There are claims that the treatment of dogs can reflect broader societal issues, including the treatment of women and children, suggesting a moral equivalence in the suffering caused by abuse.
  • Some participants express that intentional cruelty towards animals is a clear indicator of a person's moral failings.
  • Discussions include the historical context of dog fighting and the normalization of blood sports in various cultures.
  • One participant questions the fairness of penalties imposed on individuals like Michael Vick, arguing that the consequences he faced do not constitute favoritism.
  • There are assertions that violence against any living being, including insects, is unacceptable, emphasizing a broader ethical stance against harm.
  • Some participants challenge the idea that child molesters and animal abusers can be compared in terms of cruelty, suggesting that the motivations behind their actions differ significantly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the moral implications of animal versus human abuse, with multiple competing views remaining. The discussion reflects a range of beliefs about the value of animal life compared to human life and the cultural contexts that shape these views.

Contextual Notes

Participants express differing definitions of cruelty and its application to various forms of abuse, indicating a lack of agreement on moral frameworks. The discussion also highlights the influence of cultural norms on perceptions of animal treatment.

  • #31
What I can say is those kind of people have blind hearts.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
arildno said:
I am relieved little Duke has found a family that cherishes him, and gives him happiness and love.
Perhaps he will have lingering memories of "bad times", and thus be rather more clinging and eager to please than he otherwise might have been?
That might be the case, however we have had him since September of '09 and he still sticks to me like Velcro. He has had time to adjust to his new life (I think), but he still acts like he might lose me if he doesn't keep track of me at all times.
 
  • #33
arildno said:
So, no, people do NOT, as a rule, "turn evil" just because they have been atrociously treated themselves.

:eek:

Are you new here?

That's your idea and your words - nothing to do with what I said.
 
  • #34
turbo-1 said:
That might be the case, however we have had him since September of '09 and he still sticks to me like Velcro. He has had time to adjust to his new life (I think), but he still acts like he might lose me if he doesn't keep track of me at all times.
Couldn't that be because he is, and will remain, deeply traumatized by previous abuse and cannot take his present good fortune for granted? That, to him, you have made the only safe haven he's ever known, and does his utmost to stay in your presence?
 
  • #35
arildno said:
Couldn't that be because he is, and will remain, deeply traumatized by previous abuse and cannot take his present good fortune for granted? That, to him, you have made the only safe haven he's ever known, and does his utmost to stay in your presence?
I'm not a dog psychologist, but that is the most likely motivation for his clingy behavior.

A couple of days ago, I took him to the neighbor's house for a visit and Al (perhaps Duke's favorite person after me and my wife) took his leash so I could have my hands free to take a few pictures. He walked Duke around for a few minutes so that he could explore and pee. Duke was never farther than 30-40 feet from me at the very most and I was always in his sight. Still, when Al walked him back to me, Duke was jumping up down excitedly like we had been apart for hours.

Also, unlike most dogs I have known, he will not willingly jump into a vehicle to go for a ride. He will put his front paws on the seat when I tell him to, but that's it. I have to physically hoist his butt up and onto the seat. He doesn't mind riding in the truck or the SUV, and actually enjoys our trips to the landfill/transfer station/recycling facility, but he won't jump into the vehicle on his own. He has jumped into my SUV on his own twice. Once when my neighbor opened the opposite door and coaxed him in, and once when his dog Max jumped in the back seat and Duke wanted to join him. I still can't figure that one out.
 
  • #36
turbo-1 said:
Duke was jumping up down excitedly like we had been apart for hours.

I'll be honest, that's not really unusual behaviour for a dog. My cousin has two dogs which will do that even if they've been sat next to you for an hour. Just sounds a bit excitable.
 
  • #37
I believe that much psychology that is valid for abused children will be true for abused animals, too, due to our shared evolutionary origin.

If I recall correctly, (sadly, can't cite any references), some results of long term abused children are:
a lasting anxiety,
a stronger disposition to get startled by sudden noises etc.,
a need to know what happens behind their back.
And also a tendency to cling onto "good" atttachments/relationships, never daring to relax their hold.
 
  • #38
arildno said:
Couldn't that be because he is, and will remain, deeply traumatized by previous abuse and cannot take his present good fortune for granted? That, to him, you have made the only safe haven he's ever known, and does his utmost to stay in your presence?

That theory holds water, to a point. My parents have a dog that was adopted privately as a pup. He is super dog to everyone who knows him. Never been abused or neglected at all even before they got him. But he is soooooo clingy, 'lovey' and separation anxiety-like it is unbelievable. In other words, not all dogs that are clingy were abused.
 
  • #39
Averagesupernova said:
That theory holds water, to a point. My parents have a dog that was adopted privately as a pup. He is super dog to everyone who knows him. Never been abused or neglected at all even before they got him. But he is soooooo clingy, 'lovey' and separation anxiety-like it is unbelievable. In other words, not all dogs that are clingy were abused.
But that isn't really the point, is it?
If the frequency of the trait "clinginess" is significantly larger in the set of "abused dogs" than in the set of "non-abused dogs", then the probability that a clingy dog has been abused is larger than the probability that a dog in general has been abused.
 
  • #40
Well I've experienced a number of abused dogs and none of them were clingy to their owners. Their mentality was very much the same as when they were in the abusive home (we're talking a year or so after adoption).

They would cower if you got up from your chair and in one case, it would run off and hide if you flicked your shoes of whilst sat on a chair (not hard to guess how that one was abused).

From my point of view, I've not experienced a clingy dog so for me your point doesn't hold. However, I can't take that five dogs as representative. Without a good 'test group', I don't think we can draw conclusions.

But yes, if the 'clinginess' is higher with abused than non-abused than yes it stands that a clingy dog is more likely to have been abused. I'd still want to see the numbers though.
 
  • #41
arildno said:
But that isn't really the point, is it?
If the frequency of the trait "clinginess" is significantly larger in the set of "abused dogs" than in the set of "non-abused dogs", then the probability that a clingy dog has been abused is larger than the probability that a dog in general has been abused.
I KNOW Duke has been abused due to his behavior. He met a guy at a friend's place of business, and got friendly really quick. The guy breeds bull-dogs and got chummy with Duke right away. He went back into the shop while my friend and I were talking, and when he came back out, he had a handful of long welding-rods. Duke cowered and backed up until he was behind me, never taking his eyes of that guy. I had suspected that Duke had been beaten earlier. At that moment, I was certain of it.

There was no mistaking his reaction.
 
  • #42
turbo-1 said:
I KNOW Duke has been abused due to his behavior. He met a guy at a friend's place of business, and got friendly really quick. The guy breeds bull-dogs and got chummy with Duke right away. He went back into the shop while my friend and I were talking, and when he came back out, he had a handful of long welding-rods. Duke cowered and backed up until he was behind me, never taking his eyes of that guy. I had suspected that Duke had been beaten earlier. At that moment, I was certain of it.

There was no mistaking his reaction.

My cat cowers if you make a 'louder than usual noise' and will show signs of what anyone not in the know would consider serious abuse (I've never met such a nervous animal). The problem is, we've had him since a kitten (always been terrified, runt of the litter) and he gets better treatment from my mother than me.

On it's own, I wouldn't take what you've said as definitive proof. But if he consistently cowers when someone grabs a 'beating stick' style object, and not just random events (as with my cat), then yes.

I hate seeing animals react like that though. Always makes me wonder why.
 
  • #43
jarednjames said:
On it's own, I wouldn't take what you've said as definitive proof. But if he consistently cowers when someone grabs a 'beating stick' style object, and not just random events (as with my cat), then yes.

I hate seeing animals react like that though. Always makes me wonder why.
You'd have to know Duke. We have near neighbors with two English spaniels and when I walk Duke past their property their dogs flip out, barking up a storm. Duke never barks at them or pays them much attention at all, for that matter. It's a non-issue.

When he sees people outside though, he barks at them hoping they will come over and pay attention to him. He likes meeting people - he might bark, but his tail is wagging and his butt is wiggling, so people who know dogs come right over and start patting him.

His reaction to the guy with the "stick" (bundle of long welding-rods) was extreme IMO, especially since he had just spend a few minutes chumming up to the guy and getting ear-rubs. That's pretty definitive IMO. Duke has never cowered from a stranger or sought shelter behind me in the 15 months that he has lived with us.
 
  • #44
I won't try to tell you that your dog has or has not been abused Turbo-1. It is foolish for me who has never met you nor your dog to suggest that. But what I do know is that some dogs are naturally timid. My nephew has a border collie. As far as I know all collies are very timid and she is no different. He got her as a pup also and knew where she came from and there was certainly no abuse. Now I am used to talking to my parents dog and I will yell to him when he comes up to greet me. I can't say how or why that got started, but I will shout out his name with enthusiasm etc. etc. etc. and he comes to soak up whatever attention I can give to him. But, I've learned that doesn't work with collies. They by nature do NOT respond well to that abused or not. Just because a dog cowers when someones voice is raised doesn't mean that they have EVER associated that with anything. It is hardwired. My sister got on my parents dog with a broom when he was a pup when he got into things he wasn't supposed to. I know it wasn't harmful, painful or anything like that. Usually she just 'herded' him away from where he wasn't supposed to be. There certainly was no pain involved. But, it was just something he didn't like so it worked. To this day when he sees the broom coming he backs away. However, strangely enough he likes his back swept with the broom. I suppose he thinks any petting is better than none.
 
  • #45
Maybe I should have made the title "How can people bring themselves to abuse dogs?" Is there any justification for people to beat their dog? I couldn't bring myself to hurt my dog. He is such a clingy, loving friend...I have to watch myself so I don't spoil him too much. If he even thinks that I might disapprove of something that he has done, he acts ashamed. There is no need to shame him or discipline him for throwing up in the house, etc, though I wouldn't dream of dressing him down for that. Someone has already given him plenty of crap for that.
 
  • #46
Averagesupernova said:
I won't try to tell you that your dog has or has not been abused Turbo-1. It is foolish for me who has never met you nor your dog to suggest that. But what I do know is that some dogs are naturally timid. My nephew has a border collie. As far as I know all collies are very timid and she is no different. He got her as a pup also and knew where she came from and there was certainly no abuse. Now I am used to talking to my parents dog and I will yell to him when he comes up to greet me. I can't say how or why that got started, but I will shout out his name with enthusiasm etc. etc. etc. and he comes to soak up whatever attention I can give to him. But, I've learned that doesn't work with collies. They by nature do NOT respond well to that abused or not. Just because a dog cowers when someones voice is raised doesn't mean that they have EVER associated that with anything. It is hardwired. My sister got on my parents dog with a broom when he was a pup when he got into things he wasn't supposed to. I know it wasn't harmful, painful or anything like that. Usually she just 'herded' him away from where he wasn't supposed to be. There certainly was no pain involved. But, it was just something he didn't like so it worked. To this day when he sees the broom coming he backs away. However, strangely enough he likes his back swept with the broom. I suppose he thinks any petting is better than none.

So true, I've had quite a few border collies over the years, all it takes is slight differences in your tone of voice to reprimand them, I don't know if I would classify them as timid, just put them in a corral with some beef or mutton, but soft hearted they are for sure. With the latest one I accidently stepped on her foot and she wouldn't come near me for a week. The payoff is they are easy to train, and I don't have to look like a fool, having to yell to get her attention, most of the time I can use my inside voice.
 
  • #47
turbo-1 said:
Maybe I should have made the title "How can people bring themselves to abuse dogs?" Is there any justification for people to beat their dog? I couldn't bring myself to hurt my dog. He is such a clingy, loving friend...I have to watch myself so I don't spoil him too much. If he even thinks that I might disapprove of something that he has done, he acts ashamed. There is no need to shame him or discipline him for throwing up in the house, etc, though I wouldn't dream of dressing him down for that. Someone has already given him plenty of crap for that.

Beating no. The only time I see physically hitting them acceptable is during training, but even then it has to be a correctional 'slap' not a beating.

Some people don't show discipline to their animals and they can become truly wild.

You shouldn't punish a dog for being sick in the house and things like that.

My neighbour has two collies and since pups he trained them to obey various commands (sit / stop / walk / go to kitchen / outside etc). To do this, he would give the command and if the dog doesn't listen they get a slap with his walking stick. Nothing excessive, just enough for them to notice and not want it again. Now, he can just give the word and they're outside, sat at the curb ready to go for a walk. (Obviously, he rewarded them when they did things right.)
 
  • #48
What good are the late-night commercials claiming to "sponsor" an abused animal?
 
  • #49
Loren Booda said:
What good are the late-night commercials claiming to "sponsor" an abused animal?

Unless from a 'proper' charity, none at all.

RSPCA in Britain is the best so far as animals go. Other's take an excessive amount in 'admin costs' according to their T&C's.

Personally, I'd say the best way to support an abused animal is to adopt one. It's the only way you know where your money is going.
 
  • #50
Loren Booda said:
What good are the late-night commercials claiming to "sponsor" an abused animal?
I won't send money to them. My wife and I contribute generously to the local Humane Society shelter. We don't give food, bedding, etc. We give money, because the shelter's needs change constantly. Do they need disinfectant, detergent, food for dogs or cats, etc? We have no way of knowing for sure, so we just give money and trust that they will use it wisely.
 
  • #51
Loren Booda said:
What good are the late-night commercials claiming to "sponsor" an abused animal?
The ASPCA commercials? Yes, the ASPCA is good, although I have have a few local shelters I give to, I have worked with the ASPCA and they are wonderful and I plan to start donating to them.

Veterinarians donate their services to the ASPCA and they helped me with a capture, spay and neuter program for all of the feral cats when I lived at the pit of doom. ( I lived in the country surrounded by farms) They were excellent and really risked themselves with those feral cats. I just trapped them and brought them in, they wrangled with those wild cats, so careful not to hurt them, and then after they were fixed, I would pick them up, feed and observe them for a couple of days (in their cages) then release them.
 
  • #52
turbo-1 said:
I won't send money to them. My wife and I contribute generously to the local Humane Society shelter. We don't give food, bedding, etc. We give money, because the shelter's needs change constantly. Do they need disinfectant, detergent, food for dogs or cats, etc? We have no way of knowing for sure, so we just give money and trust that they will use it wisely.
BTW, this is how we ended up with Duke. My wife went to the shelter with a co-worker to donate money, and she convinced my wife to "audition" the dogs to see if we would take one home. My wife fell in love with Duke and came home and made it impossible for me to NOT meet her at the shelter the next day and meet him. Game over.
 
  • #53
In the past, when my wife saw bargains on food, cleaning supplies, etc, she would snap them up and one of us would visit the shelter and donate those. After getting a better understanding of the way their needs change, we have settled on just giving them money. We could show up with 100# of dog food, but what if they really needed laundry detergent and bleach? Now we just give money unless it's something out-of-the-ordinary. For instance, when my wife decided that Duke and Max (our neighbors' dog) deserved to have only home-made healthy treats, we rounded up all the commercial treats, dog biscuits, etc that we had and I dropped those off at the shelter along with a check.

If we got a killer deal on pet-food that was just too good to pass up, we'd still snap it up and donate that, but you don't get killer deals on bleach, disinfectant, detergent, etc, that the shelters need day after day. Sales, yes, but I hope that the Humane Society has some friends in the retail-sales market that will give them discounts for necessities.
 

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K