If a wild animal kills someone, should that animal be killed??

[enipla]

[QUOTE=Telemark]
There are good reasons to destroy animals that get habitated to human contact. Bears are a classic example in the NorthEast; once they lose their fear of humans and start invading camping areas they will be relocated and if that doesn’t work, they’ll be destroyed.

But a random bear in the backcountry of Montana who will rarely encounter humans probably doesn’t warrant being killed if for example a human gets between a sow and her cub (which BTW is unlikely to result in death to a human even then). Hikers going into wild areas are aware of the risks; this is bear habitat and we are the intruders. If we can’t co-exist, it’s the humans who should back off for the benefit of the animals, not vice versa.

People moving into rural areas also need to understand that the animals were there first. You don’t get a free pass just because your human. Certainly, a mountain lion that stalks people is going to end up getting killed, but before that happens the people need to evaluate why they’re there, and what steps they can take to avoid conflict.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you. Sheess there’s some stupidity in this thread.

[Rubystreak]

[QUOTE=Lizard]
Of course, I never compared these things directly to each other; yet another straw man. I compared two situations, both lethal, to show how the OP’s logic made no sense.
[/quote]

Your comparison was pretty direct. Reread your post before you incorrectly accuse me of making a straw man argument. The OP’s logic makes sense because… animals are different from people. People can choose to kill; animals do it out of instinct. You cannot disagree that a bear who is protecting her cubs is less of a threat to humanity in general than a person who murders for money and power. Yet we’d kill the bear automatically without consideration. It seems like the reaction to the bear is excessive and unfair. YMMV.

You have correctly identified the difference between an animal and a person: A deadly human is still sometimes granted the right to live. A deadly animal is not. So? Why should anyone have a problem with that?

The animal is almost always killed and the human, at least in the US, usually isn’t. Why should anyone have a problem with that? I’ve already laid out my reasons. You don’t understand them. I am OK with that since I don’t really get your point of view either, so maybe agreeing to disagree is the best way to go with this discussion.

[Lizard]

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Your comparison was pretty direct. Reread your post before you incorrectly accuse me of making a straw man argument. The OP’s logic makes sense because… animals are different from people. People can choose to kill; animals do it out of instinct. You cannot disagree that a bear who is protecting her cubs is less of a threat to humanity in general than a person who murders for money and power. Yet we’d kill the bear automatically without consideration. It seems like the reaction to the bear is excessive and unfair. YMMV.

The animal is almost always killed and the human, at least in the US, usually isn’t. Why should anyone have a problem with that? I’ve already laid out my reasons. You don’t understand them. I am OK with that since I don’t really get your point of view either, so maybe agreeing to disagree is the best way to go with this discussion.
[/QUOTE]

We can agree to disagree. But you still do not seem to understand the comparison I’m making. The OP was about what actions to take AFTER he was attacked. We are presuming, in both his case and mine, that the attack is a given. Therefore, saying that it’s somehow “different” when people attack each other due to their ability to choose otherwise is irrelevent, because they haven’t chosen to do otherwise. The OP was wondering about what would be a valid action, and the rationale for it, AFTER an attack took place. An animal’s ability to reason has nothing to do with how dangerous it is. And acting like lethal danger is somehow an acceptable risk, and doing nothing to remove that risk for others, is contrary to any instinct of self-preservation. Depending on your location, it is also cause for a lawsuit (negligence) or a crime (reckless indifference).
As for killing the bear being excessive, I refer to other posters, who have stated an animal that learns humans are easy prey continues to prey on them. What’s the alternative to death? Animal prisons?

[Lizard]

[QUOTE=mhendo]
You really think that’s a valid analogy?

If your response was any indication, apparently not.
[/QUOTE]

Feel free to point out the brilliant arguments YOU have made in this thread. Oh wait . . . you have none.

[Rubystreak]

[QUOTE=Lizard]
But you still do not seem to understand the comparison I’m making. The OP was about what actions to take AFTER he was attacked. We are presuming, in both his case and mine, that the attack is a given. Therefore, saying that it’s somehow “different” when people attack each other due to their ability to choose otherwise is irrelevent, because they haven’t chosen to do otherwise.
[/quote]

Punishing an animal the way you’d punish a human is just ridiculous-- and we don’t do it that way anyway. If the circumstances of the attack indicate no viciousness or unprovoked aggression from the animal, I do not think it should be killed. Your comparison to Crips and Bloods is frankly ridiculous and meaningless; the ability to choose and the likelihood of a repeat offense make all the difference in what the consequence should be. It’s not that I don’t get your comparison, it’s that I think it makes no sense.

An animal’s ability to reason has nothing to do with how dangerous it is.

Yes, it does. A person who makes the decision to kill someone for personal gain is MUCH more dangerous than a wild animal who kills to protect itself or its offspring. The animal could reasonably live out its life and never kill another person; a human who is a member of an organized crime syndicate is much less likely to stop being a danger to others.

And acting like lethal danger is somehow an acceptable risk, and doing nothing to remove that risk for others, is contrary to any instinct of self-preservation. Depending on your location, it is also cause for a lawsuit (negligence) or a crime (reckless indifference).

Huh? You are going to charge a bear or a mountain lion with reckless indifference? Any large predator could be a lethal danger to humans if it is big enough and strong enough to kill a human. Should we eliminate all of those animals because they pose a risk to humans? Or should humans show discretion in where they choose to go, and accept the risks they take when the venture into places where dangerous animals live? And also accept that, sometimes humans get hurt when they take such risks?

As for killing the bear being excessive, I refer to other posters, who have stated an animal that learns humans are easy prey continues to prey on them. What’s the alternative to death? Animal prisons?

Each situation should be evaluated on its merits. As it stands now, the animal is automatically killed. I don’t think that’s right.

[tirial]

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Each situation should be evaluated on its merits. As it stands now, the animal is automatically killed. I don’t think that’s right.
[/QUOTE]
The park rangers already evaluate each situation on its merits. One problem is that if there are no survivors, how do you tell an attack that occurred from predation (and therefore a dangerous animal likely to hunt humans) from an attack that occurred for other reasons?

Bear protecting cubs - in his case the bear wasn’t shot because he lived to tell the tale. However if it had killed him, how would the wardens have been able to tell that he wasn’t attacked for predatory reasons? And regardless of the reason for the initial attack, after killing a person many animals then discover we are an easy food source.

[Lizard]

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Punishing an animal the way you’d punish a human is just ridiculous-- and we don’t do it that way anyway.
[/quote]

Actually, the death penalty for murder is the law of the land in quite a few places, though that’s moving off-topic quite a ways.

If the circumstances of the attack indicate no viciousness or unprovoked aggression from the animal, I do not think it should be killed. Your comparison to Crips and Bloods is frankly ridiculous and meaningless; the ability to choose and the likelihood of a repeat offense make all the difference in what the consequence should be. It’s not that I don’t get your comparison, it’s that I think it makes no sense.

Wouldn’t killing a person indicate a certain amount of viciousness? And as I’ve said earlier (and you ignored) the OP described a situation that entailed nothing more than just walking outside and being on some animal’s “turf,” a vague and impossible-to-define area that basically encompasses anywhere any animal could be or is likely to go. Therefore, in this situation, the aggression is by definition “unprovoked,” if it means a person could not have avoided it by any other means but staying indoors.

Yes, it does. A person who makes the decision to kill someone for personal gain is MUCH more dangerous than a wild animal who kills to protect itself or its offspring. The animal could reasonably live out its life and never kill another person; a human who is a member of an organized crime syndicate is much less likely to stop being a danger to others.

You’ve taken a giant leap into the hypothetical here that ignores the facts. As others have said, animals that are desperate enough to attack humans often keep on doing so. And how do you justify using the word “reasonably” with regards to the behavior of animals, when you’ve spent much of this thread arguing that people can make rational choices and animals cannot?

Huh? You are going to charge a bear or a mountain lion with reckless indifference?

No, a government agency or employee that knew an animal was attacking people, yet did not kill the animal, certainly could be. they don’t have the luxury of believing in bizarre hypotheticals like some people do.

Any large predator could be a lethal danger to humans if it is big enough and strong enough to kill a human. Should we eliminate all of those animals because they pose a risk to humans? Or should humans show discretion in where they choose to go, and accept the risks they take when the venture into places where dangerous animals live? And also accept that, sometimes humans get hurt when they take such risks?

I already answered this question when I said earlier I believe animals have a right to live unharassed, within reason.

Each situation should be evaluated on its merits. As it stands now, the animal is automatically killed. I don’t think that’s right.

Well, that’s the crux of the matter. I’m using logic, you’re using morality. That’s why your position on the issue loses in real life.

[Rubystreak]

[QUOTE=Lizard]
Actually, the death penalty for murder is the law of the land in quite a few places, though that’s moving off-topic quite a ways.
[/quote]

This is a really obtuse response. We don’t just posse up and kill the offender. There is a process in which the person’s motivations and circumstances are taken into account. It’s not all that easy to give someone the death penalty. If you insist on comparing animals to people, then animals are killed without due process. Death is automatic regardless of circumstances.

Wouldn’t killing a person indicate a certain amount of viciousness?

I think it takes a certain amount of fear/desperation. Much moreso than for some people, if we’re going to compare animals and people, which I don’t think we should be and which I’ve said over and over to no avail.

I’ve said earlier (and you ignored) the OP described a situation that entailed nothing more than just walking outside and being on some animal’s “turf,” a vague and impossible-to-define area that basically encompasses anywhere any animal could be or is likely to go. Therefore, in this situation, the aggression is by definition “unprovoked,” if it means a person could not have avoided it by any other means but staying indoors.

Sorry, that’s not what the OP said. The OP said the person was on the animal’s turf, not that the turf was right outside the person’s door and that the person could not reasonably avoid the situation. You have created a situation wherein you are totally right-- a person who is killed by animal whilse standing on his own doorstep is totally different from a person going out into a protected wildlife refuge, or out into the deep sea, or into the outback, or whatever. Thus, I have to say, your “hypothetical” is a bit absurd.

You’ve taken a giant leap into the hypothetical here that ignores the facts. As others have said, animals that are desperate enough to attack humans often keep on doing so.

I will need a cite on this. I just don’t think it’s true, except in rare situation and only with certain kinds of animals.

And how do you justify using the word “reasonably” with regards to the behavior of animals, when you’ve spent much of this thread arguing that people can make rational choices and animals cannot?

Oh, because it’s the PEOPLE I want to be reasonable, since it’s the PEOPLE who are capable of making a decision about whether or not to kill, not the animal.

I already answered this question when I said earlier I believe animals have a right to live unharassed, within reason.

And I’m saying, if YOU harass an animal and provoke it until it hurts or kills you, then YOU are the person who has behaved wrongly, not the animal.

Well, that’s the crux of the matter. I’m using logic, you’re using morality. That’s why your position on the issue loses in real life.

I don’t find your stance in this thread particularly logical, so sorry.

[tirial]

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
I will need a cite on this. I just don’t think it’s true, except in rare situation and only with certain kinds of animals.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve already given references for bears.

Look up Jim Corbett who made a study of man eating cats and killed several.

Also 1983 “The Hunters or the Hunted” “Leopard predation on Homo” “When a leopard takes to eating people it generally continues to do so, perhaps to the virtual exclusion of other prey sources” - supported by cases in the news, e.g. where a leopard ignored the family’s chickens to snatch and eat their four-year-old from their porch. (Google man-eating leopards and you will find a lot of articles in a lot of situations.)

The only thing that serial man eaters seem to have in common, regardless of species or situation, is that they have killed or eaten a human and discovered that humans are easy prey.

[Rubystreak]

[QUOTE=tirial]
Look up Jim Corbett who made a study of man eating cats and killed several.
[/quote]

Considering how many big cats there are and how many humans, I think the cats have shown remarkable restraint.

Also, Mr. Corbett is going after animals who have a proven pattern of predation on humans (in the hundreds of victims). That’s all I asked-- a reasonable fear that this animal will hurt people again. The sting ray in the OP or the shark in my example-- nope, not really an ongoing threat. The shark in my example was killed. I suspect Mr. Corbett would agree that this was wrong.

The stance I’m arguing with is that any wild animal that hurts or kills a person should automatically be killed.

[The_Controvert]

For a mind-blowingly different point of view, imagine you are walking down a dark alley and you are startled by a strange alien creature. Without thinking, you swing your arms at it, trying to get away. You unknowingly shatter its cortex lobe on the primary limb stalk, killing it instantly. You are whisked away to a spaceship and put on trial. The argument is that Gnorfl lives are valued more than Human lives, therefore you should be put to death. How would you feel about that?

[misterW]

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Animals, compared to humans, are not worth anything.
[/QUOTE]

How is it that you have arrived at this assessment of an organism’s inherent worth? I suppose this is true from your point of view, but thats rather subjective, isnt it?

[Cat_Whisperer]

I think he’s arguing from a monkeysphere perspective, that his family and friends are the most valuable things to him, therefore they are inherently valuable.

[tirial]

[QUOTE=The Controvert]
For a mind-blowingly different point of view, imagine you are walking down a dark alley and you are startled by a strange alien creature. Without thinking, you swing your arms at it, trying to get away. You unknowingly shatter its cortex lobe on the primary limb stalk, killing it instantly. You are whisked away to a spaceship and put on trial. The argument is that Gnorfl lives are valued more than Human lives, therefore you should be put to death. How would you feel about that?
[/QUOTE]

As someone whose response when startled is not to flail at something, I don’t see this occuring. Step one is normally to retreat if possible, and frighten the animal off without harming it if not.

1. In order to understand their argument communication is possible, and as a sentient witness I can indicate what occurred. An animal can’t.
2. Arrangements can be made by communication to ensure there are no further accidents, preserving more Gnorfl lives - we can’t do that with a man-eater.
3. The chances of the act being repeated are low as there aren’t very many Gnorfl on earth, so deliberate hunting and predation are not an option.
4. I didn’t eat the corpse. As indicated, if an animal e.g. a leopard kills someone because it is startled, and eats the corpse, it will continue to do so to the exception of its normal prey.

Sorry, nice strawman, but it doesn’t hold.

[newhome]

I see tigers and bears have been mentioned as critters capable of learning to attack humans as quick and easy snacks.
In the cases of such individuals, yes, hunt them down and kill them.
The idea that critters have no value above whatever we, the god-like species, choses to grant them is obscene on the face.
Just to stir things up - I knew Tatiana, the killer tiger at the SF Zoo. I liked her, and, since she was an ultra-rare Siberian, I favored letting her live, even though she had attacked (playfully?) a human (took off an arm).
She should have NEVER had open-air access to another human, even drunk morons - who knows what will come out of that story, but - her DNA coding was much more valuable than that of the humans she encountered…

[Mosier]

[QUOTE=misterW]
How is it that you have arrived at this assessment of an organism’s inherent worth? I suppose this is true from your point of view, but thats rather subjective, isnt it?
[/QUOTE]

Sure, it’s subjective. The whole idea of value is subjective. Nothing has inherent value, not even life itself. But, of course, it means something to us, subjectively.

You can’t win this argument by saying “your argument is subjective!” because all arguments here are subjective. If we can’t agree that humans are more important and more worthy of protection than animals, then that’s that. Nobody’s right, nobody’s wrong, but I’m not convinced that you actually believe animals are equally worthy of protection as humans.

[Argent_Towers]

It’s making me laugh out loud that there are “people” called Lizard and Crocodiles and Boulevards participating in this discussion.

[guizot]

People kill wild animals all the time for lessor reasons than vengeance–they kill them because they want to eat them, such as fish and deer. So if you question the person who killed the sting-ray that jumped onto the boat, they you might want to question the people who fish for marlin.

[Rubystreak]

[QUOTE=Mosier]
You can’t win this argument by saying “your argument is subjective!” because all arguments here are subjective. If we can’t agree that humans are more important and more worthy of protection than animals, then that’s that. Nobody’s right, nobody’s wrong, but I’m not convinced that you actually believe animals are equally worthy of protection as humans.
[/QUOTE]

However, in my example of the orangutan, and newhome’s example of the Siberian tiger, the animal in question is in danger of extinction. Therefore, objectively speaking, that animal’s genetic material and reproductive capacity are more valuable to the world’s diversity than is the human’s. Killing an animal whose species’ population is less than 330 individuals left in the wild, as in the case of the Siberian tiger, is a much more serious loss to posterity. Definitely so compared to the drunk idiot who got his arm ripped off for being in a place where he absolutely should not have been.

As for “equally worthy…” I’m not qualified who’s worthy to live or to die. I do wish that my children and grandchildren could grow up in a world with orangutans and tigers living in it wild, but that will not happen if no one values the animals’ lives over human privilege.

[misterW]

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Sure, it’s subjective. The whole idea of value is subjective. Nothing has inherent value, not even life itself. But, of course, it means something to us, subjectively.

You can’t win this argument by saying “your argument is subjective!” because all arguments here are subjective. If we can’t agree that humans are more important and more worthy of protection than animals, then that’s that. Nobody’s right, nobody’s wrong, but I’m not convinced that you actually believe animals are equally worthy of protection as humans.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t saying your argument was subjective. I was saying that the statement that you appeared to be basing your argument around was subjective. I was not sure that you viewed it as such.

But it seems that you do recognize it as subjective. In which case, (as you point out) what more is there to say? We all form are own individual beliefs as to what to value. I see each organism has having a unique beauty, and a world without the countless species that are disappearing every year seems a much poorer one to me – one that I feel ashamed to pass on to my children. That is solely from an aesthetic perspective; never mind the ecological consequences of a world filled to the brim with humans.

Perhaps the world would be a safer place if we made efforts to get rid of all animals with the potential to harm a human, but I certainly would not think it a better place. If your idea of an ideal world is one that is safe as possible for humans, and your viewpoint of other forms of life is that “animals, compared to humans, are not worth anything” then I guess the rest of your argument will flow accordingly… but that seems like an awfully boring place in which to live.