Following a discussion on another threat I am wondering what criteria do you have before you say an action or practice is cruel, to me it is inflicting pain physical or mental for no advantage to the animal concerned.

why would pain physical or mental EVER give any advantage to ANY animal? maybe smacking a dog on the head to try to make it let go of another dog in a fight might be a normal reaction from most people but im not sure i understand why your asking?

>why would pain physical or mental EVER give any advantage to ANY animal?

Being spayed causes mental pain (being left at the vet, however nice they are, causes some animals distress) with physical pain when the anaesthetic wears off until the wound's properly healed. Surgical removal of a malignant tumour causes post-operative pain. And yet there are advantages to the animal ...

After a cow has an operation, vets leave the farmer several days or more depending on the severity of the operation, of pain killing injection

inflicting pain physical or mental for no advantage to the animal concerned.

Not made myself clear, to treat an animal for a medical condition or injury will cause pain and distress but that is in the interest of the animal concerned and is required by law - to do the same for the convenience of the owner or the protection of other animals may in some cases be cruel and I wondered where people drew the line.

Nova, your point about the profit motive is a good one and shouldn't be overlooked since it effectively excuses cruelty . Where animal breeds (e.g. the Belgian Blue mentioned in another thread) are developed to an extent that it can only benefit the farmer and the butcher, cruelty and greed are barely adequate descriptions of motivation.

Because humans largely insist on seeing most other species as commodities whose value is measured in terms of entertainment, companionship (the rare few) or food supply, cruelty is just not part of the equation. How could anyone argue that battery hen production is not cruel, or force feeding geese for foie gras? I was shocked the other week to read that abbatoirs do not routinely use CCTV in the kill rooms and have only been pressured to do so by supermarket chains who in turn were presented with unmistakeable evidence that animals were being tortured in their last moments. We are a very long way from civilisation, which to me would include respect for all species sharing this planet.

still dont understand the original question and jeangeanie, i presumed the op was talkng about deliberate cruelty, not having a dog spayed. i myself had to tend and nurture my bitch after being spayed as she whined all night and i had to give painkillers etc and lift her on/ off the bed etc.

It's just an example, in response to your question about how causing "pain, physical or mental" can be in an animal's best interest, and be to their advantage in the long term.

Being spayed causes mental pain (being left at the vet, however nice they are, causes some animals distress) with physical pain when the anaesthetic wears off until the wound's properly healed

My bitch was traumatised quite badly after a spay op, she was also distressed at attempring to wear the elizibethan collar so much so I kept it off, but the main recognised symptom of trauma was her eating pattern took almost 3 weeks to return to a normal healthy eating pattern including her normal enjoyment of her meal time. She was also on pain killers, normaly quite a hardy dog.

I find it difficult to understand what people find cruel and what infliction of pain or stress they find acceptable - for instance it is thought by some that to dock a dog is cruel but not cruel to dock sheep, where as others find that to do any sort of "forced" work like showing or obedience with a dog or having animals in capture as in farm animals unacceptable. I am not talking operations that are deemed necessary for the well-being of the dog in fact I did not really have operations in mind at all only as an example of our power of decision over our animals.

There seems to be a very wide range of thought from "we should not keep or interact with animals at all" to those who feel "we are the superior intelligence and can do what we like to further our ends"

I do not find many activities cruel as I feel most animals including us accept our lot, a moderate amount of discomfort verging on pain and indeed in the wild animals seem to have to accept fear and pain, hunger and thirst as part of living but I do wonder what others think.

Cruel is a difficult word IMO because I think and more so feel a lot of things are cruel, but I have to put things into perspective. So I think for me overall the word cruel should only be used with the word malice, if something is done maliciously to an animal or with no care for an animals welfare that's when we should really use the word cruel.

> where as others find that to do any sort of "forced" work like showing or obedience with a dog or having animals in capture as in farm animals unacceptable.

I think that depends entirely on how the activity is trained.  If it's all done positively, clicker trained etc then the dogs absolutely love doing it, it's in no way forced - especially with clicker training as it's all up to the dog, really.  Whereas if it's done more traditionally - and I have seen some horrendous methods for training competitive obedience - then the dog often doesn't enjoy it and it does become more forced and, in my mind, it slips into "cruel" territory.

Re. docking: grey area, I think.  I do think that docking 3 day old pups without anaesthetic is cruel - the breeders may say they feel no pain apart from a second but let's be honest, dogs are very stoical even as tiny pups, and we cannot feel what they feel so we can't say for sure.  But long-term I don't think docking is cruel per se - more unnecessary and, with the exception of some working dogs, out of date/irrelevant.

I think people probably find their own comfort levels about what constitutes cruelty.....so something I might find cruel and unneccessary might not even be on another persons radar...but one of the most reprehensible....barbaric...and vile trades to me is The Fur Trade both in Europe and Internationally. There is just no other motive bar mans greed and vanity.....to justify the continuation of an industry that causes such immense suffering....on such an immense scale.....

The video footage that came out of PETAs undercover investigation into chinese fur farms left me speechless with horror... and unable to sleep at night just through the sheer unimaginable pain torment and suffering these fellow creatures must endure for the sake of a fur coat....or even a fur trim on someones cap or item of clothing.

I am unable to watch the video again and I don't know if the footage has been toned down in anyway but the video I watched ended on a skinned raccoon dog.....who lifted his head and looked into the camera. In my head I was unable to make the distinction between looking into his innocent eyes and looking into the eyes of one of my own dogs. 

In my helplessness all I am able to do is add my voice to the email campaigns...send out a silent prayer to the Universe....and a Sincere Wish for life to be better for any animal that is suffering cruelty in human hands...

You can add your voice and pledge to go fur free here

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/chinese-fur-industry.aspx

Although logic suggests that it would be highly unlikely that any of my/our own dogs or puppies would end up in such a hellish place....it nevertheless is enough for me to endorse all puppies as....Not For Export.



 

I agree, it depends on how it's done.  Some people say agility is 'cruel' but if trained well and sympathetically the dogs have an absolute ball. Without such activities there would be more dogs pts (agility people tend to have more dogs than an average pet owner).  To me saying we shouldn't work 'in partnership' with our dogs is basically negating our very existence.  I'm a firm believer that humans and dogs developed together as a partnership rather than two separate beings.  Our brains only developed to the extent they did because we lost much of our sense of smell - not needed because our partner had a superior sense of smell to start with.  I laugh at the view that dogs crept into our camps and took from our well being - our success came because we had dogs, not that they came to benefit.  Now there is work we can do together, but much of modern partnership for most people comes from our hobbies - whether its agility, obedience, flyball etc we can still work with the partners who made us what we are today, doing what made them what they are today.  It's a fantastic thing being 'at one' with our dogs and they appreciate being at one with us.  It's a terrible thing when it's taken advantage of and dogs are mistreated.

There seems to be a very wide range of thought from "we should not keep or interact with animals at all" to those who feel "we are the superior intelligence and can do what we like to further our ends"

In my mind cruelty is expressed as a deviation from social norms (however defined), an arbitrary lack of recognition by one animal of any entitlement to choice which results in the humiliation, degradation, physical or mental harm or death of another.

What is interesting is that it seems to be unique to us, the thinking animal. William Golding where are you?

I guess it doesn't matter what we think but what the dogs (or any animal) thinks.

Adam

I guess it doesn't matter what we think but what the dogs (or any animal) thinks.

But Adam it DOES matter what we as humans think....

Its humans that have the greatest capacity for cruelty on the face of this Earth......

Well put, FreedomofSpirit--a dog doesn't rationalise cruelty, it just instinctively cowers, backs away or attacks in self preservation. Surely if a dog could 'think' its way through cruelty the beaten dog would get over its past far more quickly and settle to a happy, normal life, whereas lots will never be able to.

Understanding a thing is the first step to changing it or doing something about it, so I'd say it's essential we can agree on what cruelty is.

docking: grey area

I'm not so sure--if the dog has been bred to work and is likely to damage its tail doing so, docking with some form of local anaesthetic is a better option, but if it is purely for decorative purposes I can't see how it's justified. I have a docked and two 'tailed' springers and once I got over seeing tails sweep stuff off the table or beating my knees to a pulp I have to say I like my dogs with tails-but then they are bred for the show ring, whereas the oldest is through and through a working dog by nature and my biggest regret is that I don't have the wherewithal to help him do his job.

Carrington, those are reflections of our social norms--so we can throw a lobster live into boiling water (and I can tell you it can as a shock to me as a child to realise that they are not bright orange while alive!) but are horrified by other cultures eating a living animal like a snake, or a monkey...none of these actions are the result of malice, but they are all grotesque assumptions about the value of lives other than our own. I think that cruelty can exist in the absence of malice and that's what makes it all the more frightening and repulsive.

PETAs undercover investigation

Really, anyone beleving PETA is for the good of animals knows little about the real activities of PETA, their long term goal is to eliminate all animals from what they term as 'domestic captivity'. They are in some of the training organisations, they dogs behaviour gets beyond what the pet owner can cope, it ends up in rescue kiled on a road and the pet owner never has another dog again, PETA is well know for killing animals, dont be fooled with their sweet talk which is highly skilled with years of experience.

Use google theres loads more on PETA where this came from
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm

.

>I guess it doesn't matter what we think but what the dogs (or any animal) thinks.
>a dog doesn't rationalise cruelty, it just instinctively cowers, backs away or attacks in self preservation.

If the person thinks something's cruel, but the animal is perfectly happy with the action, is the 'cruelty' imaginary? If the 'victim' (for want of a better word) doesn't feel unhappy about the situation, is there in fact any cruelty happening?

> If the 'victim' (for want of a better word) doesn't feel unhappy about the situation, is there in fact any cruelty happening?

That's a tough one. If someone feeds their dog so much and it's grossly overweight and can no longer walk is it cruelty? The dog probably loved being fed all those treats, but I would still call this cruelty.

If someone enjoyed particularly rough S&M games that involved them being hurt is it cruelty if they are willing participants - I don't know.

Is it cruelty to punch a boxer in the ring - it's widely accepted that this is not cruelty.

So, do we all have to use our own moral compasses (and the law) to determine what we think is cruelty, rather than the victims response?

hi Dorf, I was intrigued to see how this group 'outing' PETA describe themselves:

"PETA Kills Animals" is a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the full range of choices that American consumers currently enjoy. In addition to malicious animal-rights activists, we stand up to the "food police," environmental scaremongers, neo-prohibitionists, meddling bureaucrats, and other self-anointed saints who claim to "know what's best" for you.

So...you think these guys are the ones to believe???? I feel sorry for you.

Jeangenie, good question, a variation on the theme of Schrodinger's Cat. How do we know that the animal is "perfectly happy?" Our brains fill in the missing information to draw a conclusion that fits our social norm. Take the he bloated pet that can barely walk to the front door: he might be happy to get its barrow-load of entirely unsuitable treats, but we "see" he must be in physical pain bearing that weight on joints and muscles that were never designed to support a dog built like a zeppelin. I daresay in Korea they might see it as the equivalent of our Christmas turkey and any suggestion of cruelty would leave them mystified and offended.

you think these guys are the ones to believe????

I beleive them but they have no influence with me, that was a straight forwards google search I did & they were the first I opened, my original source was a government source, & PETA is not one thing only the main parent type organisation & funds aligned organisations starting up untill they come into proffit, succesive governments are aware of the PETA connection and domestic terrorism which Blair did tighten up a little with an updated law to make difficult convictions eaiier

Carrington, those are reflections of our social norms--so we can throw a lobster live into boiling water (and I can tell you it can as a shock to me as a child to realise that they are not bright orange while alive!) but are horrified by other cultures eating a living animal like a snake, or a monkey...none of these actions are the result of malice, but they are all grotesque assumptions about the value of lives other than our own. I think that cruelty can exist in the absence of malice and that's what makes it all the more frightening and repulsive.

I don't disagree which is why I also said if something is done maliciously to an animal or with no care for an animals welfare that's when we should really use the word cruel. everything you have used there I also class as cruel, but should I?

For this is where we are the most hypocritical species on the planet, most of us no longer rear and hunt our own food, other people do it for us, we just pop into a supermarket, butchers, fishmongers and purchase our food, which enables us to think differently about our prey lets be honest that's what it is, as we are at the top of the food chain everything below it is our food, but we are able to empathise and love and care for our fellow species because we are civilised, so to speak.  But are we really?..........

I watch calves every year in my local farmers fields, I watch them grow, I think there is nothing more beautiful than watching them eat, sit in the sunshine and roam free without a care in the world, same as the lambs. I sometimes look at them sadly knowing that most will eventually be on their way to the abattoir, I often think how cruel this is that we are taking their lives and I honestly don't wish to think of what happens to them once there, I'd probably run out screaming, I just hope it is regulated properly for a quick and as painless a death as possible, because it is madness to assume that their lives are as valued as ours, because they are not, they are our food.

We are cruel every day because we kill millions of animals to eat, we can do our best to make sure an animal does not suffer too much, but we kill them all the same, we rear them to kill them, so every one of us who eats meat, fish, poultry, we are all cruel, but isn't every species?

This is why we have to put things into perspective and remember who and what we really are, animals at the top of the food chain.

That doesn't take away from other animal cruelties though.

> animals at the top of the food chain

Well almost at the top, certainly in Scotland we are the Midges prey :-)

my god that link was horrific-you dont realise what goes on!

ROFLMAO!

Hi Carrington, I think we share exactly the same view bar one--we have choices about our place in the food chain and our responsibilities to the animals that we choose to eat. I do eat meat and in the past I've skinned and gutted plenty of rabbit (the 'field chicken' of my children's youth) because I don't believe I should allow myself a life of easy options--I have to admit I haven't been able to kill and  eat my cockerels, though, so the hypocrisy is just as evident in me.

Well almost at the top, certainly in Scotland we are the Midges prey :-)

:-D :-D :-D Dare say they will be here loooooooooong after us too.

I watch calves every year in my local farmers fields, I watch them grow, I think there is nothing more beautiful than watching them eat, sit in the sunshine and roam free without a care in the world, same as the lambs.

And therein lies the difference...animals will always be raised for food but the animals you describe there have at least had access to fresh air sunshine and been able to exhibit natural behaviour. I gave up eating meat a long time ago but still eat fish and eggs...my kids all eat meat....and my dogs are raw fed...so I've always got the ethical dilemma you mention...

I know farmers who raise their cattle in the above way...and much is invested into their animals welfare....compared to the animals raised in tiny stalls...that never see the light of day and can't even turn round...etc

The fact that there has been a U-Turn on the proposed "super-dairy" just shows how important it is to add your voice/signature to campaigns that you feel strongly about....

I just hope it is regulated properly for a quick and as painless a death as possible

And as consumers we are entitled to be certain that this is the case...when evidence gets presented that animals are being tortured in their last moments....or that they are being skinned alive...hung up....and subjected to unneccessary suffering...then we do need legislation that puts CCTV cameras into all slaughter houses....we are entitled to know that animals produced for food did in fact have a humane end....so we can be certain of what we're buying...

we are all cruel, but isn't every species? I don't feel cruelty even figures in other species...there is just the natural order of things

That doesn't take away from other animal cruelties though.

No it doesn't...

I don't feel cruelty even figures in other species...there is just the natural order of things

This is why I end up saying we have to put things into perspective, but, personally I think a lot of animal killings are cruel species on species, one of my sons loves the animal channel and just recently he was watching a programme where a mother whale and her calf were being hunted by a group of killer whales, it took about 6 hours where the killer whales continually dunked the calf over and over to weaken it hours and hours of torture IMO, the mother was incapable of helping eventually they took a bite and the calf so weak had to give up and they had their kill. To me that was a terribly cruel and long death.

I also think some lion, hyena etc deaths are sickening the animals aren't always quite dead before they start ripping into the underbelly. Even my cat doesn't immediately kill, many birds they are stuck in his mouth or played with with a broken wing etc, crying for ages before he actually kills them.

When any animal is hunted and killed it is in fear, often pain and that isn't just from man, animals are eaten alive by their predators, so yes, I think cruelty comes from all animals, it's just we accept it because we all have to eat.

But, were all singing from the same page, we don't want animals to suffer, and man causes more than any other species a lot of abhorrent suffering which turns most of our stomaches, and I know most of us give to charities to help that and sign petitions.

But cruelty depending on how we view it, is everywhere.

i saw those killer whales too and the sad bit for me was when they killed the calf, all they ate was its lower jaw and then they all swam off.
as far as lions/cats etc go, im sure they dont realise they are causing suffering, im sure they dont associate a squeal with a broken wing and torture becase they dont think as we do and dont prolong suffering on purpose. im sure they dont undertand what they are doing

We are cruel every day because we kill millions of animals to eat, we can do our best to make sure an animal does not suffer too much, but we kill them all the same, we rear them to kill them, so every one of us who eats meat, fish, poultry, we are all cruel, but isn't every species?

I don't personally consider it cruel to eat animals that are bred for food - I do however think that all such animals should be kept in a humane and natural environment, not factory farmed, and should be killed in a quick and humane way.

If we didn't eat animals such as cows, lambs etc then they would quickly disappear from our landscape - they are kept for a reason and there wouldn't be very many people who could afford to keep large herds of animals just because they like them. Without the end profit from rearing them for the table they just wouldn't be around in any great numbers any more. It is the manner in which they are reared and killed that denotes for me whether the practice is one of cruelty or not.

>
> If we didn't eat animals such as cows, lambs etc then they would quickly disappear from our landscape - they are kept for a reason and there wouldn't be very many people who could afford to keep large herds of animals just because they like them. Without the end profit from rearing them for the table they just wouldn't be around in any great numbers any more. It is the manner in which they are reared and killed that denotes for me whether the practice is one of cruelty or not.

Hear Hear...good post