Miniature horses are cute, so the guy is in a world of shit. Cute isn’t much of a basis for law, but there you go.
Please let me know where I can observe these wild herds of miniature horses you seem to know so much about. A miniature horse looks like this.
TV & movies have people so conditioned to getting shot in the head & falling over dead dead dead with no knowledge or pain. It can happen but a lot of times it does not.
Body voids a lot of stuff if it is there ready to go.
Muscles move and bodies jump & buck.
Violent death is not pretty much of the time.
Making a pet suffer for an hour, knowing things are bad and gonna get worse vs a 12 gauge to the head is kind of a ‘no brainer’ ( on purpose ) for me.
Shoot a cat not fatally with a .22 ( a bad shot at a fast feral - just to make it the picture easier for you) and see if you can tell it is even hurt as it flees at top speed.
Responsibly ending an animals or pets life at the time it needs to be done for the critter and not the human is much more important than the method.
Even if the pet does not fear the ride or the vet or his office, waiting to do it until it is saving the pet the last 24 hours of suffering, the months suffering before you were ready is your coward & hypocrite time because you are unable to not do it. “NOT JUST YET, I’M NOT READY !!!”
Cats especially can & do hide their pain & weakness. If they are showing it, you are already way late in being a responsible & loving pet owner. They probably do not need putting down right that minute but as soon as it is known that it is a fatal condition any factor of your wishes in the equation takes down your claim to be a good pet owner by the minute, hour or day.
Much rather they go down 24 hours early than 24 hours too late. They can’t really tell me so I just do the best I can for them, not me.
I don’t disagree with you at all, GusNSpot but I’m not sure how it fits in with a mini – whose only problem was not coming when called and/or running from a halter – shot down in a residential neighborhood for BEING TOO NEAR A ROAD it wasn’t anywhere near.
In answer to the side question, regional laws are quite varied.
In answer to the main question, the guy was a dick. “My pet doesn’t immediately come when called” is not a good reason to kill it.
I’m not seeing your point. Yeah, minis aren’t frequently found in the wild. But there are wild horses. Are you arguing that wild horses, or wild animals in general, are mostly granted quick, painless deaths? What makes cute ponies more deserving of our consideration than, say, white tailed deer or skunks? People shoot those animals all the time without everyone getting all angsty. Hell, glue traps are legal! It’s OK to torture a mouse to death, but not shoot a horse?
My point is, when you have a human-cultivated genetic sport, talk of what would happen to it in the wild is a bit absurd. It can only be in the wild through human neglect, therefore any talk of “in the wild” is a completely meaningless comparison. Its like justifying illing a teacup poodle by braining it with a hammer because “in the wild, your teacup poodle would get kicked by a moose and die, and isn’t that worse?” Your teacup poodle would never be IN the wild, its irrelevant.
He had every right to shoot the horse - humanely and not in the direction of his neighbors. The law even says he had the right to shoot the horse humanely. He didn’t do it humanely, and he did do it in the direction of his neighbors.
The short answer to your other question is that by British and American legal tradition, we have more obligation to our domestic animals than animals in a state of nature.
I want to re emphasis that I think this guy is a dick and did the wrong thing. I think there is some merit to the idea of “you created this animal, thus you are responsible for never allowing it to suffer.” however, we are pretty inconsistent in what kinds of deaths are allowable for animals, and some of our rules actually cause the animal more suffering than a quick bullet to the head.
But the specific breed – or species – isn’t really relevant. It’s wrong to make any animal suffer needlessly. However, we can’t always prevent that, as, in nature, animals do suffer hellishly.
It can’t really be used as an excuse – a bad thing is not okay just because other bad things happen. But it is worth taking things in perspective. For every animal that gets any veterinary care at all, ten thousand others don’t.
If you think it’s folly to say, “Miniature horses would suffer in the wild,” then just broaden it slightly to “Wild horses suffer in the wild.”
(And I reserve a special circle of hell to people who dump house-pets out in the boonies, so they can return to nature and be free. All that does is provide a cheap, easy meal to the coyotes, and a lonely, terror-stricken, nasty end to the pet.)
When people know of or witness the death of a cute animal, they suffer. Thus, the death of a cute animal is objectively worse than the death of an unappealing animal, as the total suffering is greater.
Sounds to me like the guy was primarily being punished for being an ongoing dick to his neighbor. I’m sure if the horse actually was a potential danger, this case would have gone a different direction.
I think you should not be able to torture animals, but I see no reason why you shouldn’t be able to humanely put down an animal for whatever reason.
You can’t make a broad philosophical statement like that without a coherent moral system founded on a set of axioms. Perhaps suffering builds character. Perhaps the death of cute animals, who are widely kept as pets by young children, prepares us to endure the pain of death of humans in adulthood. And consequently, perhaps the death of cute animals, even though it causes more suffering, is ultimately better.
Exactly, that only demonstrates my point. These animals are so maladpted they owe their very lives to mankind and every last one of them would die miserably in nature. The relevant point is unchanged; this horse, which is itself an outlier relative to most horses in captivity, enjoyed one of the most pleasurable and painless existences in the animal kingdom. Outage over this instance is grossly shortsighted and naive.
Yeah, those are truly barbaric. I’ve set mousetraps. The kind that snaps and breaks the creature’s neck quickly. They aren’t as effective as glue traps. But they don’t keep me up at night knowing I am a monster, either.
No way, the more cute animals the better and no matter how many die, the pain of human death remains.
The benefits of cute animals, while alive, are self-evident.
But the suffering of cute animals is very effective in fund-raising for groups opposing animal cruelty. With more funds, they can have a better effect in reducing the overall suffering of animals.
Thus, the suffering of cute animals is a good thing…because it results in less suffering overall!
(I think I’m joking, but sometimes it’s hard to tell.)
You are correct with your question. I should have said it was a general comment to all the posters on the outside edges of their way being the only way or something.
If people donate to preventing the suffering of cute animals and the funds are diverted to save ugly animals, this is a clear misappropriation of funds and a scam. Donations will stop. Greater suffering will result.
It’s high time we stopped pretending all animals are equal. The presence of an adorable mini-horse has value that a garbage-eating alley rat does not.
It’s not OK, it’s actually illegal to torture a mouse to death (at least in most first world countries with actual animal cruelty laws). Plus glue traps are banned or regulated in a lot of countries, so they’re not necessarily lawful everywhere in the first place.
Animals exist to fill an ecological niche, something that has been severely disrupted by human beings.
Naturalistic fallacy. Just because nature is brutal and uncaring doesn’t mean it’s acceptable behaviour for a human.