« Really, New York Times? Really?! | Main | A Proposal For Reaping Good From Evil »

Monday, October 12, 2015

Animal Control for the Confused and Uninitiated

It's common sense... but it bears stating:  If a wild dog attacks you, you shouldn't try to bite the animal back ... you shoot it, or use whatever means you have at your disposal to neutralize the threat.  Then you call the authorities - the dog catcher, for instance - to take over.

By the same token, if you live in an organized society, you shouldn't respond to reports of wild/stray dog sightings by going out on a hunting expedition.  It isn't your job to go trying to catch or kill dangerous animals!  

That's why we choose to live in an organized society.  We have police and dog catchers and veterinarians whose job it is to keep our streets safe.  

And aside from an extreme example, such as if you (or someone near you) are being attacked, these official figures are the only ones who have the authority to kill or capture a dangerous animal.

We are all aware that there have been a rash of attacks by dangerous animals lately.  But I would remind my friends and neighbors that this should not make them feel they have the right or authority to go out hunting wild dogs.  The government agencies we have established and funded, and to which we have granted a monopoly on force, are the only ones who should be out on patrol.  

You don't seek revenge when it comes to animals.  You identify the problem and let the authorities deal with it.

Freelance dog-catchers are, in my opinion, on the same level as the animals they hunt, and are more than likely to hurt or kill a human being with their misguided zeal than actually bag a dangerous animal.   

I hope it is clear that I haven't been discussing dogs.

Posted by David Bogner on October 12, 2015 | Permalink

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"I hope it is clear that I haven't been discussing dogs."

Yup, picked that up first sentence, then thought I had it wrong through the middle there, but picked it back up again at the end.

At any rate, I agree on all counts.

Posted by: Jethro | Oct 12, 2015 6:27:05 PM

I would remind my friends and neighbors that this should not make them feel they have the right or authority to go out hunting wild dogs. The government agencies we have established and funded, and to which we have granted a monopoly on force, are the only ones who should be out on patrol.

We come from different worlds.

I grew up on a ranch. When I was young, we had problems with wolves. The 'government agencies' had higher priorities than saving our cattle. So we banded together with our neighbors and hunted the wolves.

Some hunted with greyhounds. We all hunted with guns. I tracked and shot wolves myself.

I know you are making an analogy. Just wanted you to know that deference to 'government agencies' is not always desirable or even possible.

Posted by: antares | Oct 13, 2015 4:28:03 AM

Antares' comment is right on point. Citizens grant the government a monopoly on force with the expectation that appropriate use will be made of it. If the dogcatcher is not around, and feral mongrels rove in packs unchecked, what is to be done?

Posted by: Rich | Oct 19, 2015 6:18:55 AM

[[applause...applause]]

Posted by: SaraK | Oct 22, 2015 3:23:38 PM

Post a comment