An article on CNN.com made me think of this. Apparently, a woman in a boat was struck by a “flying” stingray which caused her to lose her balance and hit her head and die. The article included a picture of the dead stingray. I’m not sure if the stingray was killed by the womans family, or if it died on it’s own.
It got me to thinking. If I was killed by a wild boar (or any other animal) because I was on his “turf”, I wouldn’t want that animal killed as punishment. The animal was only doing what was natural to him. And if I’m stupid enough to get close to a wild boar, then maybe I deserve to die.
Can a wild animal get a “taste” for human blood? Is that why it’s common for animals to be killed when they kill someone?
Some animals can get a taste for humans, but I don’t think that applies to the ray in this odd accident. As for killing the animal involved, I’d support doing so if the animal seemed to be targeting humans.
I’d guess that the ray was killed as evidence, rather than in revenge, though. Or that it suffocated because it was out of the water and no one wanted to touch it.
Seriously. If I were boating back to land with a dead body and a story about this ray jumping into the boat, I’d want the ray there to support the story.
Another way of looking at it would be, well, they were out fishing and it just jumped into the boat. . .
Animals, compared to humans, are not worth anything. I don’t mind having any animal that kills a person destroyed, even if it was the human’s own stupidity that led him into the situation. Another stupid person might make the same mistake later with the same animal, and even stupid people have more of a right to live than animals do, even innocent ones.
And I suppose if you wander into a bad part of town and get mugged and beaten by the local Crips/Bloods, you wouldn’t hold THAT against anyone either, because you were on their “turf,” right? After all, crime is what’s natural them, and it was your fault that you walked into their neighborhood.
Do you really expect a rational argument of such a ridiculous question? Or has it not occurred to you that killing an animal that is a threat to its species is a natural thing for HUMANS to do?
Ditto. It blows my mind that black bears are allowed to wander freely through back yards in New Jersey, and people are barred by law from doing anything about it; they’re supposed to call some official game warden who won’t show up until the bear is long gone. Meanwhile, this wild animal could be destroying anything it likes. It might even attack your children. But hey, it’s just “its nature” right?
Why are you comparing Crips and Bloods, who are capable of rational action and reflection, to wild animals who are acting on instinct? Calling that a faulty comparison is very generous.
To the OP: the stingray also died from the collision with the woman. It apparently did not attack her-- it was an accident. They sometimes jump out of the water, for various reasons. It didn’t strike her with its barbs, which are generally used for defense anyway.
I don’t think I can say one way or another as I support the killing of some animals for no reason other than their deliciousness. I suppose killing an animal because it killed a person is a far better reason than killing it because I want it in my belly.
Because either way, you could wind up dead, that’s why. Rationality is not a universal trait, nor is it any kind of safeguard. What if they decide it’s in their best interest to rob and kill you? Are you going to reason them out of it? It probably wouldn’t work any better than with a wild animal. What matters is that people have a right to protect themselves, no matter who–or what–attacks them. To do otherwise is contrary to human nature. The only way the actions the OP describes could make any sense is if he were suicidal, or utterly indifferent ot the lives of other people. One does not have to feel an urge for revenge against a wild animal to recognize that allowing it to attack and kill other human beings unfettered is irrational–on the part of the HUMANS involved. Animal nature is irrelevent; it’s about self-preservation.
Not only that, but the OP’s assumption of “turf” is nonsensical, applying as it does a notion of property that no creature but human beings adhere to, and only then when dealing with other humans. Where does humanity’s “turf” end, and a wild boar’s “turf” begin? Did humans drop in out of the sky, are are we a part of the natural world as well, and thus on our OWN “turf” wherever we go? A lot of naturalists try and act as if mankind were somehow an interloper, when we share 50% of our DNA with fruitflies, and 99% with chimpanzees. That wild boar in the example has no turf, and if he attacks he is messing with a predator who has much greater power to kill. Most animals have learned this, an thus avoid people. It’s called “evolution.”
This is a topic that comes up from time to time in the Hawaiian Islands whenever some poor soul is attacked by a shark, usually a reef shark. Years ago, they were very aggressive hunting sharks that attacked humans venturing into the sharks’ environment. While their intentions were to make Hawaiian waters safer for swimmers, divers, and snorkelers, they came to realize that it’s very damaging to the ecosystem. Screw with a delicate ecosystem and you end up with unintended results.
Generally, sharks don’t attack humans without a reason. They aren’t the manhunters that Hollywood traditionally portrayed them as. I think they’ve scaled back such an aggressive response to isolated shark incidents. Perhaps one of our Hawaiian dopers can expand upon this.
The reason is different, and reasons are relevant. Animals can’t think things through. If they feel their lives are threatened, some animals will attack out of sheer instinct. Humans, like the Crips and Bloods in your example, can act out of greed and malice. The courts take such motives into account when they prosecute and sentence people for crimes. If a person who killed acted for the same reasons an animal does, out of an instinct for self-defense, he would not be judged as harshly as a person who killed for malicious or self-aggrandizing reasons (or would perhaps not even punished at all) . Yet you would, if I understand your argument correctly, have the animal killed. That does not make any sense even based on your own reasoning.
Animals don’t kill out of self-interest in matters of self-defense. That’s anthropomorphism. They act out of instinct.
You’re not protecting anyone by killing an animal who, in the normal course of events would not go near a person, kills a person in self-defense. You are committing an act of either retaliation or overreaction. Killing the sting ray referred to in the OP would likely not have saved any future human life, and would be an absurd response IMO. The sting ray randomly jumped out of the water and hit a woman, killing her. Accidents happen, people and animals have run-ins. “The animal should automatically die to proect humans” stance doesn’t seem like a rational, sane, or useful response in a situation like this. If I am misinterpreting you, please correct me.
Usually, though, it’s not about defending humans against vicious killer animals. No one has suggested that an animal should be allowed to run loose who wantonly attacks people. If the animal can be rationally judged to be an ongoing risk to people, then I can see why it should be killed. Most times, though, that is not the case.
Example: my friend lives on the Jersey shore. A nurse shark was by a sand bar, minding its own business. If it had been left alone, it would not have approached people or harmed them. The man decided it would be a good idea to chase the shark into the shallows, then pick it up by its tail. It whipped around and bit him. Should the shark be killed? IMO, no, but the man deserved that bite for being a moron. THAT is called “evolution.”
Actually, the OP said something quite close to that:
At what point is an animal judged to be an “ongoing risk”? The example doesn’t mention any provocation, like your example of the nurse shark, so you can’t really compare them. Obviously if someone deliberately provokes a wild animal they do so at their own risk, and I have little sympathy for them. (I do believe animals have the right to live unharassed as much as is practical.) But just walking around outdoors, as the OP describes, is hardly “provocation.” An animal that considers the mere presence of humans as a reason to attack is a dangerous animal, and should be destroyed.
Actually, it seems like the rational reason for killing an animal that kills a human should be obvious:
Most wild animals are frightened by humans and human things. Cars, houses, etc. are often avoided by said animals. An animal who loses that fear is dangerous because of its instinctual reactions.
Why hunt down a bear that killed a person? Because bears who lose their fear of human beings are likely to chock humans down as a possible source of nourishment. As soon as the animals realize that humans are squishy and quite pathetic at defending ourselves, the food chain becomes reversed because the animal doesn’t know we have guns and numbers on our side.
Even for non-predatory wild animals a healthy fear of humans is healthy for us.
On the other hand, sharks, insects, stingrays, etc. are probably not making the same associations as some of these other animals. Killing them probably doesn’t do anything other than make people feel better.
I think I am diametrically opposed to everything you’ve said here. I think animals are move valuable than humans, I think that an animal who kills a human should not be destroyed, and I don’t think stupid people have more right to live than animals. I think animals have as much right to live as humans. Who died and gave us this planet? They’re on it, too, and have as much right to be here as we do.
I also don’t think you can compare Crips and Bloods to wild boars. That was my original objection to your post. We don’t automatically destroy people who seek other people out to kill, but we do seem to do that to animals who kill people with a hell of a lot more tangible provocation.
Great. So, it’s perfectly fine that we humans invade and encroach upon the natural environments of wild animals and then go around wiping them out because they’re in our way. “Too bad, so sad, Mountain Lion. You’re in the 'burbs now and we don’t take kindly to your kind.”
In situations like this, which is not really at all like the stingray incident, trap and relocate seems to be the best after-the-fact policy. Perhaps rethinking our propensity for urban sprawl might make a bigger difference in protecting ourselves and our furry friends.
As far as the stingray incident goes, it was a tragic accident, and like others have stated far more eloquently than I, killing the stingray makes absolutely no positive difference whatsoever for humanity. However, making a habit of hunting down animals that “get in our way” is going to have a negative impact on us in the long run.
Could you please possibly begin to explain how you could reach such an utterly horrific viewpoint? Animals are more valuable than humans? So a turtle that spends it’s existance eating, pooping, and making more turtles is better, somehow, than you or me? If given the choice between swerving your car to strike a squirrel or a child you’d swerve towards the child?
In the movie Grizzly Man, a man who is in a place where he was not supposed to be in Alaska at that time of year deliberately seeks close interaction with a bear. The bear is supposed to be hibernating but didn’t get enough nutrition to do so because it was old (if I’m remembering the story correctly). The bear killed and ate the man and his girlfriend. The bear was destroyed.
I had mixed feelings about this. The man provoked the bear. Bears around that time of year who still aren’t in hibernation are dangerous-- that is the very reason why was not supposed to be where he was. It was illegal but he did it anyway because he thought he had a mystical connection with bears. My gut reaction was, he really brought it on himself, so why should the bear be killed?
I realize some bears can get acclimated to people, and if they are violent, that can be dangerous. But… on a wildlife preserve where it is illegal for people to be? Come on. I’m sure some might disagree, and there would be outrage if the bear was spared, but not from me.
I read the accounts of that and apparently the bear was shot when it stalked and attacked the armed rescue party, who were investigating to find out what had happened to Treadwell. Allegedly it also went after the pilot who made the initial landing and realised something was wrong. I have no problem with someone killing a large aggressive animal that attacks them.
On the other hand if Treadwell had not taught it that humans were tasty defenceless snacks, the bear would probably not be dead. I think the blame for that is squarely at his feet.