Dogs Don't Bite People. People Bite People.

|11.11.05 @ 3:12PM|#

"Dog Attacks Anti-Dangerous Dog Bill Author"

Ok, that made me laugh too.

|11.11.05 @ 3:13PM|#

A more libertarian solution to the dog menace: give every cyclist, jogger, and walker a large caliber handgun. Make it clear that there is no bag limit on dogs running loose.

Then again, maybe I've just been chased by too many dogs owned by troglodytes to moronic to corral their fucking animals.

MP|11.11.05 @ 3:21PM|#

then they must be under control and the owners must be responsible

Why does Mr. Statist Extraordinaire not mention the consequences suffered by the dog owners in the case he brings up? It seems that we are already fully equiped to make dog owners responsible for the damages incurred. If they got off scot free, then there's your problem.

|11.11.05 @ 3:26PM|#

MP,
I do not think the point is to make dog owners responsible for the damage incurred. The goal is to make the dog owners responsible enough to avoid incurring damage.

|11.11.05 @ 3:27PM|#

Technically, aren't animals (at least domesticated animals) considered property.

As such, I'm obviously responsible for a big dog in the same way I need to be responsible for owning a gun that "could" be dangerous.

However, the idea of a state run organization which could confiscate and destroy my irresplaceable (since each animal is unique) pet if I didn't follow the rules leaves the libertarian in me very nervous. Like a cop pulling me over for being out of inspection on my car, then towing my car to the junkyard for crushing afterwards as a penalty.

|11.11.05 @ 3:27PM|#

I really didn't have any problem with this article. It's outrageous to me that dog owners aren't held fully responsible for the actions of their dogs.
Furthermore,If your dog is savaging a child, I should have the right to shoot the dog and then shoot you.
I'm only partially kidding.

|11.11.05 @ 3:29PM|#

Here is my take on this problem as a person who has been in fights with a few dogs.

You can own a dog and you can own a handgun. If your dog hurts someone, you are just as responsible as if you had hurt them with your gun.

I get angry at people who have no control of their dogs, or are entertained when their dogs are vicios. I can handle myself agains most dogs, (against all of them when I am packing) but some people don't do so well.

|11.11.05 @ 3:30PM|#

Actually, libertarians do not "give" anything for free... except an unending stream of opinion. If I might suggest an alternative, allow a property owner to shoot and kill any trespassing dog without penalty. There may be some difficulty of allowing the unregulated shooting of dogs on public property. I have a rather vivid vision of "Spot" escaping his leash in the local park only to die in a hail of gunfire.

MP|11.11.05 @ 3:30PM|#

The goal is to make the dog owners responsible enough to avoid incurring damage.

sigh...The quest for perfection, trying to right every wrong, is the greatest failure in statist thinking.

|11.11.05 @ 3:33PM|#

OK Greg beat me to my point.

I am kind of with mk on the partially kidding remark about shooting the owner if his dog attacks your kid.

Peter K.|11.11.05 @ 3:33PM|#

Greg, guns don't shoot people,but dogs do bite people.

Number 6 has the correct, libertarian solution. Your fuckin dog starts barking ferociously at me, I'm putting one right between the eyes.

|11.11.05 @ 3:34PM|#

I'd like to add to my proposal: no bag limit on people who use 'protect kids' and 'law' in the same sentence. That column was one of the most poorly reasoned piles of steaming excrement I have run across recently. Essays written by simple-minded children for "There ought to be a law" contests show more clear thinking. Pat Buchanan is full demagogic overdrive is less willing to substitute emotinalism for thought. The rantings of the average moonbat conspiracy theorist blogger show more common sense.
Fuck him and his dogs. And fuck his editor for allowing that drivel into print.

|11.11.05 @ 3:34PM|#

"There is no 2nd amendment for dogs"

Riiight. And we all know that unless the right is enumerated in the constitution, we don't have it. Heh.

I'm all for holding dog owners responsible for the damage their dog causes. But when we try to stop the crime before it starts, we've just screwed the pooch, so to speak.

|11.11.05 @ 3:35PM|#

I have a rather vivid vision of "Spot" escaping his leash in the local park only to die in a hail of gunfire.

Is it wrong to find that image humorous? Does it mean that I am not a dog lover?

you know who|11.11.05 @ 3:37PM|#

"I don't think dogs have any rights that humans need respect."

I am a cat person, but this is ridiculous. Eating dogs, at least in context of modern US, is wrong, both legally and morally. Torturing dogs just for fun is wrong, both morally and legally. These are some of dog's rights, whether legally recognized or not. You really oughtta explain this bad quote.

|11.11.05 @ 3:37PM|#

Dogs should be banned entirely. There's no way to own a dog without violating the rights of others and committing crimes against public property.

Public defecation is illegal for humans (for good reason) and it should be illegal for dogs, too. Also, if dog owners have to pick up shit, they should have to sop up urine.

I can't take a piss on the sidewalk without getting arrested (or at least dirty looks), and the same rule should apply to dogs.

I already give them dirty looks when they piss on my precious street. But I want them in the dock.

|11.11.05 @ 3:38PM|#

"allow a property owner to shoot and kill any trespassing dog without penalty"

Your wish is my command. Poof, already done. At least in my state it's already the law.

|11.11.05 @ 3:41PM|#

There. I've had my rant and feel better. Despite the galactic assininity of the columnist, it is true that dog owners who can't be bothered to control and train their animal pose a real third party danger.
On a related note-I'm actually in the middle of covering a minor story about a cop who got bitten while trying to catch a loose Husky. The officer ended up with a chewed up and probably broken arm. The dog ended up taking a 9mm round through both shoulders. I got to the scene right after it happened, and can testify that it is possible for a large dog to take a 9mm round and still be up and mobile.

Ed|11.11.05 @ 3:41PM|#

So many dogs, so many hungry people, not nearly enough Vietnamese chefs.

KipEsquire|11.11.05 @ 3:44PM|#

Not to be accused of advocating a police state, but my (extensive) experience with unleashed dogs in NYC is that they are found where -- surprise -- there is never any police or animal control presence.

Leash laws are not oppressive, and are certainly less oppressive than some of the alternatives being suggested here.

So my radical idea is -- gasp -- getting some police out there to enforce the laws we already have.

Do I lose my libertarian credentials?

|11.11.05 @ 3:45PM|#

"For the record, I hate dogs. So I'm with Kass in denying dogs constitutional rights and in fact I don't think dogs have any rights that humans need respect. And that includes the Disney character Goofy too, whatever the hell he (she?) is."

Congratulations Mr. Gillespie !

You've actually admitted something that most libertarians are afraid to admit. Namely that libertarian thought supports allowing animals to be tortured & abused with no legal consequences at all for the torturer/abuser.

I admire your gumption, if not your belief.

Terry

|11.11.05 @ 3:49PM|#

So the mind of Nick Gillespie suddenly encompasses the entirety of libertarian thought? Huh. Weird.

|11.11.05 @ 3:49PM|#

Re: Terry's comment�WTF?
I've heard all the "If we legalize gay marriage, people will end up having sex with dogs" argument. The "Philosophies that are guided by the idea of maximizing individual liberty lead to torturing dogs" argument is a new one.

|11.11.05 @ 3:50PM|#

#6,

As they pointed out in Freakonomics (I think), if we really wanted to "protect the children" we would outlaw swimming pools prior to spending any attention on dogs or guns.

Still, like I have said here before and suffered the consequences, it is perfectly legitimate to protect the children. They are vulnerable and they are more important than dogs (or swimming pools for that matter).

|11.11.05 @ 3:54PM|#

Eating dogs, at least in context of modern US, is wrong

What? Why? Pigs are smarter than dogs, why is ok to eat a pig and not a dog?

I think that it is morally wront to eat veal. But not dogs. I mean, I won't eat either, but I'd sell dogmeat to someone who wanted to eat it if I could make money.

|11.11.05 @ 3:56PM|#

Do I lose my libertarian credentials?

Give up your decoder ring, and go join Terry in his communist meetings.

|11.11.05 @ 3:56PM|#

For the record, I hate dogs.

A few days ago I joked that I was going to run for office on a pro-puppy platform, on the grounds that nobody could possibly object to a cute little puppy.

I guess I was wrong.

|11.11.05 @ 3:57PM|#

MK- As you pointed out, truly 'protecting the children' would require a nanny state beyond the wettest dreams of Ralph Nader. I'm just sick and tired of hearing that mantra from every statist out there. It' supposed to end thought and discussion (What, DO YOU WANT THE CHILDREN TO DIE?). It's an intentional end run around reason. It's demagoguery. And I'm even more sick of it than I am of Sept. 11, terrorists, or 'why do you hate America' rhetoric.

|11.11.05 @ 3:57PM|#

I get the feeling that noone on this thread will be invited to dogsit anytime soon.

taktix|11.11.05 @ 3:57PM|#

Where did all this dog-hate come from?

Few points from a dog lov... err, dog-friendly individual:

1. It is irresponsible to have a dog in a city. Despite all human drawbacks, it's bad for the dog too.

2. Who "gives us" the right to shoot a dog on our property. Don't we have that right already? I thought this was a Libertarian board, not Cat Fancy.

3. A kid can injure themselves just as easily with a dog as with a gun. It sets a horrible precedent if the owner is not responsible.

Besides, when the proverbial revolution comes, won't we need attack dogs just as much as guns?

|11.11.05 @ 4:05PM|#

Still, like I have said here before and suffered the consequences, it is perfectly legitimate to protect the children.

Goddamit, now you give up your decoder ring and go join Terry and Kip at the communist takeover workshop.

Were losing people today! I hope you married libertarians are breeding.

|11.11.05 @ 4:06PM|#

"I'm with Kass in denying dogs constitutional rights and in fact I don't think dogs have any rights that humans need respect"

bleh, well i like dogs and i am also with kass in denying dogs constitutional rights...do i get a prize for bing a better libertarian then nick?

:)

Radley Balko|11.11.05 @ 4:07PM|#

Kip,

Yes, your advocacy of leash laws ought to cost you your libertarian credentials. As should your drunk driving statism, and your continuing (and bizarre) attempts to link the two.

Any dog trainer (as well as dog owner) will tell you that leashes actually make dogs more territorial and, consequently, more aggressive. Like most government solutions, leash laws exacerbate the very problem they're passed to solve.

Not that there was ever much of a problem in the first place. Over the last twenty years, dog bites have accounted for on average 12 annual deaths in this country, and about 3,000 annual injuries requiring hospitalization. Considering that there are 50+ million dogs in this country, those numbers are incredibly miniscule.

Nevertheless, the CDC declared dog attacks to be an "epidemic" in America.

Like most public health scares, this is a solution in search of a problem.

BTW, even within that tiny fraction of dog-induced injuries, 80 to 90 percent are incurred by either the dog's owner or his immediate family.

Meaning the threat posed to the public by aggressive dogs is pratically nonexistent.

|11.11.05 @ 4:07PM|#

Alright taktix, full disclosure time:

I was once a cat breeder and a member of the Cat Fancier's Association.
Call me a fifth columnist if you like. Let those without sin throw the first doggy bone.

|11.11.05 @ 4:11PM|#

I thought all libertarians already had attack cats.
"Kill, pussycat! Or curl up and take a nap - you know, whichever you prefer."

dhex|11.11.05 @ 4:11PM|#

dogs are cool and all, but as my soon to be vet sister often says, some people buy pets because the pets are unable to tell them what an abusive sack of shit loser they are.

or something to that effect. she's far more articulate than i am.

|11.11.05 @ 4:11PM|#

"Re: Terry's comment�WTF?
I've heard all the "If we legalize gay marriage, people will end up having sex with dogs" argument. The "Philosophies that are guided by the idea of maximizing individual liberty lead to torturing dogs" argument is a new one."

Mr. Gillespie was arguing that animals shouldn't have *any* rights.

That to me means that he is arguing that there should be *no* legal constraints at all on how people treat their property, even if that property happens to be an animal.

Terry

|11.11.05 @ 4:13PM|#

I'd like to say, in my defense, that although I am a cat breeding communist, I have never advocated leash laws for drunk drivers like Radley claims Kip has.

Can I have my decoder ring back now? I want to fit in this Saturday at the get-together.

MP|11.11.05 @ 4:15PM|#

libertarian thought supports allowing animals to be tortured & abused

Libertarian principles do not specifically address Natural Rights of animals. Nick's philisophical leanings are his own. There is room for both Penn & Teller and PETA under the libertarian umbrella.

M1EK|11.11.05 @ 4:16PM|#

Radley Balko, if anybody deserves to get their ass bit by a loose dog, by damn it's you.

|11.11.05 @ 4:17PM|#

"in fact I don't think dogs have any rights that humans need respect"

As a small farm owner, I own lot's of animals. Some are beloved, some will soon be food. All are my property. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, or my animal's nose(s). My animal's "right" to exercise it's fangs ends at your nose (or ankle, or property). Pretty simple shit, really.

Am I wrong, or is this the most troll like thing Nick has blogged lately?

|11.11.05 @ 4:17PM|#

Dogs are so over-supplied that there's a global industry devoted to mass-murdering them. Their property value is zero. Will any law ever reflect that worthlessness? No.

People's pathological attachment to the micro-slavemastery they have with their pets is unshakeable. They call it "love," for fuck's sake-and attribute it to the animals! Good Lord.

A gun that roams the streets shooting random people it decides are its hierarchical inferiors wouldn't be legal, would it? Does it matter if you pretend it "loves" you while it isn't killing random babies?

But law is not the problem. As long as there are dog "lovers," we can never be free. It proves that it's just not in us. At all.

|11.11.05 @ 4:17PM|#

I'd think that the ideal libertarian pet would be a ferret.

|11.11.05 @ 4:18PM|#

You can take my pug when you pry her from my cold dead hands.

Radley Balko|11.11.05 @ 4:22PM|#

Kip,

Yes, your advocacy of leash laws ought to cost you your libertarian credentials. As should your drunk driving statism, and your continuing (and bizarre) attempts to link the two.

Any dog trainer (as well as dog owner) will tell you that leashes actually make dogs more territorial and, consequently, more aggressive. Like most government solutions, leash laws exacerbate the very problem they're passed to solve.

Not that there's ever been much of a problem in the first place. Over the last twenty years, dog bites have accounted an average of 12 annual deaths in this country, and about 3,000 annual injuries requiring hospitalization. Considering that there are 50+ million dogs in this country, those numbers are incredibly miniscule.

Nevertheless, the CDC has declared dog attacks to be an "epidemic" in America. And like just about every other public health scare perpetuated by the CDC, the fuss over dog bites is a solution in search of a problem.

BTW, even within that tiny fraction of dog-induced injuries, 80 to 90 percent are incurred by either the dog's owner or his immediate family. Meaning the threat posed to the public by aggressive dogs is pratically nonexistent.

Of course, reality won't stop drama queen columnists from seizing on the 3-4 cases of maulings per year and penning lines like, "You can't reason with a vicious dog as it opens its jaws to ruin a child."

That said, I'm fine with making dog-owners criminally culpable for the actions of their pets. The scum who breed dogs to fight won't get an ounce of sympathy from me.

But let's distinguish between malicious attacks and the little boy who taunts Fido by waving a cookie in front of him, then gets his finger scraped with a tooth when the dog snatches it out of his hands. Also can't tell you how many times I've seen a kid tease a dog, then scream he's been bitten when the dog lets the kid know he doesn't appreciate getting jabbed in the eye with a stick.

|11.11.05 @ 4:23PM|#

hahaha,
No leash laws for drunk drivers huh? And you love cats. I think I read somewhere that Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, and some other statist a-hole all hated cats, so maybe statism runs very weak in you my son.

So I guess you can have a temporary decoder ring for the get together.

The only reason you are still on probation is that Clinton had a cat. So apparently owning a cat is not totally exonerating.

|11.11.05 @ 4:23PM|#

Have you ever smelled a ferret? Cute critters, but yowch...

|11.11.05 @ 4:23PM|#

THoreau,

The most libertarian pets I ever owned were sugargliders. They only awake at night and subsist entirely on a diet of sugary stuff. Although, you do need to occasionally feed them some protein or they will resort to cannibalism. When you poke their cages they make a sound like an electric pencil sharpener. They are completely illegal to own in many places for some reason.

tomWright|11.11.05 @ 4:24PM|#

"There is no 2nd amendment for dogs"

Actually this is a true statement. The 2nd amendment covers people not dogs.
Even if it did cover dogs, without opposable thumbs, it would be difficult for them to take advantage of it.

Of course, that is what makes this entire discussion possible.

If dogs WERE able to take advantage of the 2nd amendment, we would be discussing whether they would prefer the Beretta Tomcat, Bobcat, Cheetah or the Bushmaster M-17 Bullpup.

Sandy|11.11.05 @ 4:24PM|#

I'm trying to think of any of the arguments for shooting dogs and why dogs can't be allowed in the city that doesn't apply double to children.

A five year old dog is more dangerous in biting than a five-year-old child, but carries fewer diseases. And dogs don't wipe their nose and smear human germs on a public doorknob.

I'd even trade shooting irresponsible dog owners for being able to shoot irresponsible parents.

|11.11.05 @ 4:25PM|#

This reminds me of a science fiction short story I read many years ago, called "The Cohen Dog Exclusion Act." The main character, Cohen, got sick of stepping in dog crap all the time, so he became a political activist and got a law passed that banned all dogs from the city of New York, I think.

And that was the whole plot. It was one of the "New Wave" stories from the 1970s. Possibly it was suppose to be a dystopian parable about handgun-banning laws or something, and I was too young to pick up on it.

I didn't even enjoye the story -- I usually prefer SF stories about exotic worlds and spaceships shooting at each other, especially when I was younger -- but for some reason this story stuck in my head 20 years later anyway. Maybe it's because it was the first story I ever read that repeatedly and aggressively had the word "crap" in it.

|11.11.05 @ 4:26PM|#

kwais,

Are you going to the DC gathering this weekend?

Radley Balko|11.11.05 @ 4:27PM|#

Crap.

Sorry for the double post.

Go with the second one.

Windypundit|11.11.05 @ 4:27PM|#

Some of you must not have actually read Kass's column if you think he was calling for dog owners to be held responsible for their dogs' damage.

He's wants to charge a $1000 annual licensing fee for dogs over 15 pounds and have them tested by state-licensed obedience trainers twice a year.

He wants to charge dog breeders a $3000 annual licensing fee.

And if you have an unlicensed dog, he wants to kill it. Not a dangerous dog, not a dog that's ever actually hurt anyone, just an unlicensed dog.

And talk about unintended consequences, can you imagine the chaos in Chicago as 50,000 poor families decide to let their dogs run wild because they can't afford the licening fees and don't want the government to kill their dogs?

|11.11.05 @ 4:29PM|#

I just looked up "sugar glider" on Google.

Gosh, he's a cute little bugger.

Except for that giant maggot in his mouth.

|11.11.05 @ 4:31PM|#

Smacky,
I thought I was going to be. I was supposed to fly out of DC on Sunday, that would entail me flying into DC on Saturday, and might have enabled me to attend the get together. It seems that my travels have been pushed back to Tuesday, so it seems unlikely that I will be in DC on Saturday.

I'll try though.

|11.11.05 @ 4:32PM|#

In continuation of NoStar's comment... all dogs should be pugs. They can't really get their mouths around children to maul them, so they're ok.

|11.11.05 @ 4:33PM|#

Smacky,

Yeah, they like those. Better than the cannibalism.

I used to watch those things peel grapes with their little paws and teeth. Fascinating. They can jump really far. Once I took one out of it's cage and it jumped on the back of one of my Himalayan cats. Rode the poor distressed thing around the house like a cowboy for a full minute, completely hysterical.

|11.11.05 @ 4:38PM|#

The most libertarian pets I ever owned were sugargliders. They only awake at night and subsist entirely on a diet of sugary stuff.

Hmm. Do they also program computers and maintain networks?

Actually, a friend of mine used to have a sugarglider. I think the one in your pic is a baby, smacky.

It was kind of fun to close up a room and let it run/leap/glide around the room. Although I couldn't help flinching a bit everytime this rodent-like marsupial jumped on my and used me as a springboard for its next leap. I'm not used to being jumped on my rodent-like creatures.

|11.11.05 @ 4:43PM|#

OK, the two pets I want now, when I grow up is a sugarglider, and a bobcat.

tomWright|11.11.05 @ 4:45PM|#

smacky, that is a mealworm. They are dry to the touch and eat grains and stuff. Pet shops sell them as per food.

tomWright|11.11.05 @ 4:45PM|#

smacky, that is a mealworm. They are dry to the touch and eat grains and stuff. Pet shops sell them as per food.

|11.11.05 @ 4:47PM|#

kwais-

Bobcat? Never thought of it. I think cougars are beautiful, and I've often thought that if I were rich I'd buy a huge property and build a giant pen and keep one in there. But that would be a lot to manage. Maybe a bobcat would be easier.

|11.11.05 @ 4:59PM|#

Dr T,
Cougars are nice. Kwais's 1st law of owning pets is; never own a pet that you couldn't take in a fight if you really had to. (read above post by Radley Balko stating that 80 to90% of dog attacks are on the owners or owners family)

There is a guy in Reno who has a cougar at his house, he had it declawed, and defanged. Not because the cat would attack him, but because often times the cat doesn't realize how dangerous it is. The cat is really cool, it effortlessly jumps to the second floor and is a lovely creature.

However I am morally opposed to declawing and more so to defanging.

Bobcats are big enough to stand up to any dog, and big enough to be very cool. And could probably scratch you up if you crossed it the wrong way (which shouldn't happen if you raise it right) but not big enough to pose a serios threat.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.11.05 @ 4:59PM|#

Dogs are delicious, I don't know why Gillespie hates them so much.

MP, wrong. Penn & Teller: SI! PETA: Nada, there is no room in the libertarian tent.

Years ago I was making a point to my girlfriend's daughter about rights and reality. I illustrated it thusly:

I really hate that other people's dogs will crap in your front yard but the only way you'll put a stop to it is to put up a fence. It isn't right that you have to do that but if you don't want dog shit in the petunias that's what it takes.

BTW, I like dogs and cats. I've had great dogs and decent dogs. Right now I have one of each.

Best cat I ever had saved my boy from SIDS. Long story for another day but suffice it to say I'm eternally grateful.

|11.11.05 @ 5:05PM|#

You know, a cougar on the loose would be an awesome plot for Reno 911!

The Wine Commonsewer|11.11.05 @ 5:06PM|#

Kwais, When my boy was small we were hiking way down the hill past Darth Vadar Rock when out walks a bobcat. He looks at us and we look at him and my boy says that's a really big kitty, daddy. He was wary but not aggressive and sort of carefully wandered away. Very unusual to see bobcats in the middle of the day.

Bobcats are hard on small dogs and chickens but they're not likely to attack anything the size of a grown up. Cougars on the other hand.....

MP|11.11.05 @ 5:09PM|#

TWC,

PETA believes in many things I don't, and their actions usually make me nauseas. But those beliefs include the belief that a pet owner does not have an absolute right to do whatever they want to their pets, including the hypotheticals given by Terry. Even their Vegan beliefs are not in conflict with basic Libertarian tenents. Libertarianism does not address the tough issues of the Natural Rights afforded to animals (if any), or even the tougher issues of Natural Rights afforded to the mentally challenged.

|11.11.05 @ 5:18PM|#

Radley Balko, if anybody deserves to get their ass bit by a loose dog, by damn it's you.

I would love to hear this explanation.

|11.11.05 @ 5:23PM|#

"Or socialize your dog. Most responsible dog owners do this. They walk their dogs outside elementary schools as pups and later as older dogs. The owners carry bits of hot dog in a bag, so kids can pet and feed animals, to establish children as a positive in the dog's mind."

Am I the only one that finds this idea disturbing?

|11.11.05 @ 5:27PM|#

Besides mealworms, some people also feed "pinkies" to their sugar gliders -- hairless baby mice. Not alive! They sell frozen pinkies for people to thaw out and feed to pet snakes and some carnivorous lizards.

Speaking of sugar gliders and bobcats and cougars... until a few tens of thousands of years ago, sugar gliders (which are marsupials) used to have a nongliding, leopard-sized relative in Australia, the thylacoleo ("pouched lion").

It was carnivorous, but its ancestors (possibly plant or fruit eaters) had previously lost their canine teeth. So as a carnivore it developed its incisors (the front-most teeth) into big sharp cutting wedges instead. In life it probably looked something like a cougar with the head of a killer gopher.

Oh, and on its semi-opposable "thumbs" it also had big hooked claws kind of like the sickle-clawed inner toes of velociraptors (which you'll remember if you ever saw Jurassic Park). It apparently was a good tree-climber and had a lifestyle something like a leopard or cougar. Or bobcat. It probably preyed on kangaroos. Or wombats (varieties of which used to get as big as a buffalo). Oh, and it had a pouch like a kangaroo (or sugar glider).

The point of all this being: A thylacoleo would have made an awesome bitchin' pet. With some qualities of a cougar/bobcat and a sugar glider all rolled into one.

|11.11.05 @ 5:27PM|#

Besides mealworms, some people also feed "pinkies" to their sugar gliders -- hairless baby mice. Not alive! They sell frozen pinkies for people to thaw out and feed to pet snakes and some carnivorous lizards.

Speaking of sugar gliders and bobcats and cougars... until a few tens of thousands of years ago, sugar gliders (which are marsupials) used to have a nongliding, leopard-sized relative in Australia, the thylacoleo ("pouched lion").

It was carnivorous, but its ancestors (possibly plant or fruit eaters) had previously lost their canine teeth. So as a carnivore it developed its incisors (the front-most teeth) into big sharp cutting wedges instead. In life it probably looked something like a cougar with the head of a killer gopher.

Oh, and on its semi-opposable "thumbs" it also had big hooked claws kind of like the sickle-clawed inner toes of velociraptors (which you'll remember if you ever saw Jurassic Park). It apparently was a good tree-climber and had a lifestyle something like a leopard or cougar. Or bobcat. It probably preyed on kangaroos. Or wombats (varieties of which used to get as big as a buffalo). Oh, and it had a pouch like a kangaroo (or sugar glider).

The point of all this being: A thylacoleo would have made an awesome bitchin' pet. With some qualities of a cougar/bobcat and a sugar glider all rolled into one.

|11.11.05 @ 5:27PM|#

Besides mealworms, some people also feed "pinkies" to their sugar gliders -- hairless baby mice. Not alive! They sell frozen pinkies for people to thaw out and feed to pet snakes and some carnivorous lizards.

Speaking of sugar gliders and bobcats and cougars... until a few tens of thousands of years ago, sugar gliders (which are marsupials) used to have a nongliding, leopard-sized relative in Australia, the thylacoleo ("pouched lion").

It was carnivorous, but its ancestors (possibly plant or fruit eaters) had previously lost their canine teeth. So as a carnivore it developed its incisors (the front-most teeth) into big sharp cutting wedges instead. In life it probably looked something like a cougar with the head of a killer gopher.

Oh, and on its semi-opposable "thumbs" it also had big hooked claws kind of like the sickle-clawed inner toes of velociraptors (which you'll remember if you ever saw Jurassic Park). It apparently was a good tree-climber and had a lifestyle something like a leopard or cougar. Or bobcat. It probably preyed on kangaroos. Or wombats (varieties of which used to get as big as a buffalo). Oh, and it had a pouch like a kangaroo (or sugar glider).

The point of all this being: A thylacoleo would have made an awesome bitchin' pet. With some qualities of a cougar/bobcat and a sugar glider all rolled into one.

|11.11.05 @ 5:30PM|#

until a few tens of thousands of years ago, sugar gliders (which are marsupials) used to have a nongliding, leopard-sized relative in Australia, the thylacoleo ("pouched lion").

Nonsense, Stevo. The world was only created 5,000 years ago.

|11.11.05 @ 5:40PM|#

Up yours, Patass. :)

OK, before I get off the thylacoleo kick, the most believable life reconstruction I can find is here: www.paleocraft.com/Thylacoleo.html

Close-up of the freaky head here. Besides the rodentlike stabbing front teeth, check out the giant axe-like molars.

|11.11.05 @ 5:43PM|#

Pigs are smarter than dogs, why is ok to eat a pig and not a dog?

I don't dig on swine, man. Pig's a filthy animal. Dogs are dirty, but a dog has personality and personality goes a long way.

|11.11.05 @ 5:44PM|#

I'm surprised at how long this got...

Canis domesticus has lived in symbiosis with Homo sapiens from time immemorial. Relationships with dogs are far more bi-directional than with any other "pet" we might take on, and have elements of socialization as well as of property. Dogs exist in a human-dog social realm where much is unpredictable, and if you're conceptually terrified of profoundly illogical pack animals being a part of society, then you're a pretty good candidate for deontological libertarianism.

In the real world, *we* are pack animals who do best when we try to adjust our routines, relationships and large-scale political structures to develop the least devastating consequences from this basic fact. Relationships with dogs have a great deal to contribute to our appreciation of who we are and how we work.

When it comes to dogs causing harm to people, I simply don't see things in black-and-white terms. Neither with respect to the appropriate consequences for the dog, nor with respect to liability of the owner. There are certainly dogs which have been bred/trained to be very dangerous. The people who cause this are therefore also very dangerous, and perhaps likely to respond to consequences for other people only when threatened by major punishment for themselves. This, however, is a far cry from the ordinary dog-owner who has mostly good intentions toward the dog and toward other people, and whose dog's behavior is not fully predictable in the range of circumstances it might encounter. Draconian, context-free punishments for dogs or owners are not a reasonable part of civil society. There are plenty of cases, for example, where a person behaves aggressively toward a neighboring dog (rushing straight at it, maybe swinging a broom), gets a defensive nip, and then has the dog put down because that person is an asshole as well as an idiot. As libertarians, we should be quick to recognize where the giant apparatus of the state is largely undesirable, where common sense and low-level socialization are appropriate and have the best long-term consequences. Behavior toward, and reaction to the behavior of, ordinary dogs, is a case in point.

If I go into a bar and tell a stranger that his mother is a slut, I expect to get punched in the face, at the very least. If I behave in a way that "corners" an ordinary, frightened dog, I expect that I may be bitten. I will teach my children the same perspective on behavior, but I hope they could figure it out just fine on their own. Standing firm on your "right" not to be "aggressed" upon first in such situations may taste sweet to the ideological tongue, but it's really a load of crap. Dogs don't understand legalistic reasoning, so they can't think: "This jerk really deserves it, but he could still sue me if I hurt him, so I won't." But the ordinary dog is nevertheless a creature genetically programmed and socialized alongside humans, and will respond more-or-less proportionally. If you get mauled by a vicious dog, and someone is clearly responsible for creating that danger, I'm all for punishment of the human and elimination of the dog. But, by the same token, I'm not going to shed any tears over humans who exacerbate conflicts with dogs or blow the dogs' mild responses out of proportion.

|11.11.05 @ 5:45PM|#

Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?

|11.11.05 @ 5:46PM|#

Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charmin' motherfuckin' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?

|11.11.05 @ 5:47PM|#

If I go into a bar and tell a stranger that his mother is a slut, I expect to get punched in the face,

Silly person, invoking common sense...

|11.11.05 @ 5:47PM|#

I live in suburban New England where EVERYONE has a large dog, if not three, because, you know, it's part of the LL Bean lifestyle. I like dogs but do not own one myself, but my encounters with various canines have been such that I think I should share them as several posters (especially Mr. Balko) seem to lack practical experience with the matter:

First, while leashes DO make dogs more aggressive WITH OTHER DOGS, they also make them (obviously) easier to control, especially around children. The problem with large dogs is that they can be dangerous (like defanged cougars) even when they don't mean to be. One example: on the beach one day, I witnessed a large dog playfully knock down two toddlers and maul one of them -- not with its teeth, but with its nails. It then bounded off, happy as can be, because it thought it was all a game. I was too distant to be much use, but I did stop the owner (standing directly in her path) who was walking along the waterline. I told her that she needed to go speak to the childrens' mother. Why? she asked. Well, your dog just knocked them down and scratched the hell out of one of them. Oh no no no, she said, she wouldn't do a thing like that. She's a good dog! But by that time the mother did come over and speak with her -- and frankly she was too polite for my taste and the matter was left unresolved.

I've also been lunged at while jogging on the beach; one time I hauled back with a closed fist and clocked the beast. The owner said to me in passing, He's just playing. Yes, but having 50 lbs. of wet dog launch itself toward your chest at top speed, while playful, can be irritating at best. I could also recount endless stories of my own children getting knocked over by over-exuberant four-footers.

The problem is that there is often a gulf between an owner's perception of his dog and the dog's actual behavior. It's as much human nature as it is canine nature. Too many people lack either the self-discipline or the wherewithal to assume the alpha role with their pet. Dogs who attack people are alphas and they need to be disabused of that notion.

So my point is: don't give me this crap that leashing dogs makes the problem worse. The day I'm allowed to pick up that dog who attacked that kid and break its spine over my knee WITHOUT being prosecuted for animal cruelty is the day I'll take a stand against leash laws. But that's not going to happen, so I support leash laws -- or at least year-round animal bans from certain areas like the beach.

As for the crapping on your property issue, I agree that it unfairly puts the onus on the homeowner. I also had problems with a large number of uncontrolled dogs allowed to roam the neighborhood at whim, crapping on my lawn and menacing my kids. But there are ways of dealing with that, and the fun is in the subtlety.

Finally I should add that the Kass article is an idiotic rant; and that there are many responsible dog owners in the world.

|11.11.05 @ 5:48PM|#

Bobcats are cool, but iffy as pets. Apparently, they tend to turn tempermental about about 1 year old. An angry bobcat can and will fuck you up.
I had a housecat/bobcat cross kitten for a while. At about 10 weeks old, I saw her take on a Rottweiler. The dog lost. The rot had size, but the kitten had claws, accuracy, and ruthlessness. The dog barked, and the cat went up in the air and hit that dogs nose with all four sets of claws before coming back down.
PixieBobs (the breed name for house/bob cat crosses) are a good alternative to full-blooded bobs.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.11.05 @ 5:58PM|#

Pigs are not filthy, they just have sensitive skin, which is why they roll around in the mud. Put them in a concrete pen with protection from the sun and voila!

Besides, no matter how much you marinate dog, there ain't no comparison to a pork roast done slowly for hours over mesquite.

|11.11.05 @ 6:03PM|#

Good points # 6.

I see Bobcats and cougars the same way I see wolves. Yes they are like their domesticated brethren to some degree, but there is that matter of several thousand years of evolving in a completely different direction that you will have to deal with. Hitting them on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper will probably not cut it.

I once saw some footage from a research facility where they were attempting to domesticate wolves. It was comedy gold with quotes like "Yes, some of the volunteers have been mauled, but we feel we are making real progress".

The Wine Commonsewer|11.11.05 @ 6:10PM|#

MP, PETA is a vile organization but I have no quarrel with individual vegans, vegetarians, or anyone else so long as they don't try to inflict their vision of a better America on me. I go so far as to ensure that those who don't eat meat will have adequate food to eat at every party I have here at the casa. That is common courtesy born of respect for other people and is no different than having soft drinks for the non-drinkers.

Culturally, we have evolved our menu in the west to exclude dog. That is no doubt a result of the eons of time spent with man's best friend. That isn't to say you can't eat dog just that you better have a decent pinot noir to go with it.

Aside from that dog isn't terribly practical for meals, but then again I suppose rabbit isn't either. Now there is another paradox. Perfectly okay to eat rabbits perfectly okay to name them Fluffy and keep them in a cage for your little girl to pet.

Me? I hate the fargin things. They are voracious eaters and nondiscrimantory. Like deer, they will destroy every last green living thing in your yard or on your property except that they don't like anything native to their habitat.

|11.11.05 @ 6:12PM|#

First they came for the smokers,
and I didn't care

Then they came for the fat people,
and I didn't care

Then they came for dog lovers,
and I was psyched because I hate to step in dog*#(%!

|11.11.05 @ 6:13PM|#

On the other hand, mk, some Russian scientists had a very easy time domesticating foxes (in an effort to make them easier to handle in fur farms). Within a few generations, they had a breed of foxes that reacted well to human beings...but developed color patterns on their fur that made them undesirable for slaughter. I think someone still breeds them for sale as pets, but I'm not sure.

|11.11.05 @ 6:16PM|#

I like dogs but do not own one myself, but my encounters with various canines have been such that I think I should share them as several posters (especially Mr. Balko) seem to lack practical experience with the matter:

In his defense, he does own dogs.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.11.05 @ 6:36PM|#

Mandy, points well taken.

but having 50 lbs. of wet dog launch itself toward your chest at top speed, while playful, can be irritating at best

Use the Wine Commonsewer knee technique, it's quick and easy, very satisfying, very effective, and doesn't hurt you. As the charging best comes close, turn slightly sideways to the right while quickly raising your left knee in a sort-of cross body motion that puts your thigh across your privates. You end up sort of kneeing the offending animal in the chest as he jumps but it is an indirect oblique contact that very effectively pushes the animal down and away. It doesn't really hurt the dog but it gets his attention and right now. It works on your own dogs too. This sounds complicated but it really is an easy and natural non-aggressive movement.

In So Cal dogs are generally not allowed on the beach except in very specific places under very specific rules and you are expected to clean up after your dog. Plastic bags are provided by volunteer organizations.

|11.11.05 @ 6:43PM|#

Besides, no matter how much you marinate dog, there ain't no comparison to a pork roast done slowly for hours over mesquite.

I take it you haven't been to Korea?

The Wine Commonsewer|11.11.05 @ 6:53PM|#

So I finally tear myself away from this thread to do some actual work and one of my clients sends me a link to this video about why people own dogs. Downright spooky I tell ya.

There's one scene that Mandy's gonna love.

It's almost 3 mb, not for dial up.

Kwais, not been to Korea but I once bought these little burritos from a woman on the beach in baja......

The Wine Commonsewer|11.11.05 @ 6:54PM|#

Kwais, I take it you haven't been to Carolina. Touche!

The Wine Commonsewer|11.11.05 @ 6:59PM|#

Kwais, I take it you haven't been to Carolina. Touche!

|11.11.05 @ 7:00PM|#

I dunno TWC.

Pigs sure seem filthy to me. ...and I didn't think it was just their skin; I thought it was what they ate. ...and what they do where they eat.

...and that would have to be a fantabulous pinot noir!

Ron Hardin|11.11.05 @ 7:00PM|#

You'll all enjoy the 600 links to daily life of my Doberman pics way down at the very bottom of http://home.att.net/~rhhardin/index.html (since July, when I got a camera).

The benefits of dogs are overlooked. Plato had them guarding the Just City, because people couldn't be counted on. They know who fits in the neighborhood and who does not ; friends from enemies.

That was back when they roamed around rather than being tied up away from people.

Vicki Hearne's _Adam's Task : Calling Animals by Name_ is a great collection of essays on (mostly) owning dogs. She's sort of the Ayn Rand of dog ownership.

Dog as Citizen was the idea of the great trainer Wm. Koehler of the 50s. He was pretty much shouted down by the left by the 70s. His training book was banned in Arizona in the early 60s, so well did it work.

|11.11.05 @ 7:04PM|#

In his defense, he does own dogs.

Yes, but does he own children?

|11.11.05 @ 7:14PM|#

I am not dog person. I am cat person.

The bobcat and the cougar -- I sink you malign and misunderstand zese magnificent creatures. You must respect zem, yes. Zey are very powerful annymulz. But as long as you do not provoke zem, you vill find zey are quite -- AIEEEE! AAUUUGH! AUUUUGH! AIEEE!AUUUUUUUUUUGH! AIEEEEEEEE!

|11.11.05 @ 7:27PM|#

Eric,
I think I saw the same show. I remember a scientist saying that the result of the russian fox experiment informed the debate about how dogs first came to split off from wolves and become domesticated. It was easily the simplest and most plausible explanation I've heard yet.

M1EK|11.11.05 @ 7:50PM|#

In case anybody was wondering, Amanda got it 1000000% correct.

And I own a dog.

|11.11.05 @ 8:53PM|#

I also agree with Amanda. I grew up in a lawless small town full of vicious dogs that chased harmless girls. I was frequently threatened without a single wave of a cookie.

When I went to college in a big city, I found that the dogs were more likely to be on leashes or trained to stay on their own property. I had almost completely cured my phobia until one day when I was walking through a nice part of town and two Samoyeds leaped out of their car and ran onto the street. I was calm (I was over my fear of dogs by then), crossed my arms, and
stood still. One of the dogs bit my knee, I cursed, and it bit me again. The best part was the owner, who walked up to the dog and said in a very soft, sweet voice, "Bad dog. Now why'd you do that?"

I took him to small claims court and got $1500. But I limped for a month and the places where the dog bit me hurt for several months. I really think if a dog is a repeat biter (certainly anywhere but the owner's property), the owner should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

|11.11.05 @ 8:59PM|#

MK and Eric,

I saw that show too. They should run that show in every classroom right before they teach intelligent design.

...and then they should say that evolution is only a theory.

|11.11.05 @ 9:00PM|#

During my urban days, before we sold our souls to the devil by moving into a single-family dwelling in the suburbs with a front-loading garage and fenced back yard with non-native plants, we'd routinely get into confrontations with non-leash-law abiding dog owners. Our dog loves people, but hates other dogs. She's aggressive. She was always on a leash when outside, and we always went to a park with clearly-posted signs stating that leashes are the law.

And rarely did a week pass without me finding myself entangled in a snarling mass of canine fury while the other dog's useless, pathetic owner yelled, ineffectually, from a 1/2 mile away, "fifi, oh stop that, come here fifi!!!"
100% of the time the obviously false phrase "But he/she usually minds so well" would enter the ensuing...discussion. I really learned to hate dog owners during that period.

Leash laws don't work when only some people obey them.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.11.05 @ 9:02PM|#

Friend of mine lives in semi-rural N Carolina and the problem with feral dogs is so severe that there is a bounty on wild dogs. Apparently it's the one dog/good dog, two dogs/bad dogs rule. They run in packs and are very aggressive. He claims to have been treed more than once while out in the woods.

|11.11.05 @ 9:11PM|#

I grew up in the suburbs of Maryland, right on the edge of what used to be farmland.

Our place came with a huge backyard--it had an eight foot fence all the way around it. There were at least two dogs that could jump our fence, and everybody else's fence in the neighborhood.

One was a Pointer named Sarge. He'd jump to get his front paws over the top of the fence and use his hinds to push himself over. There was no stoppin' him. I tell ya, that dog was an argument against evolution. I saw him get hit by the bus at least three times, and when he fell asleep under your car, he wouldn't even bother to get up when you started it.

...keepin' him in the house was like tryin' to keep a hound dog out of the trash can. Those dogs are good at what they do, and they have nothin' to do all day but sit around and think up new ways to get to do it.

If my dog bites you, I should be held responsible--strict liability all the way. If you don't like my dog in your yard every once in a while--why don't you move back to the city?

|11.11.05 @ 10:04PM|#

This issue is really not very hard. People should keep control of their dogs and keep them on their own property. If you trespass on my property and my dog rips your throat out, too fucking bad, stay the hell out of my property. If the same thing happens to your 8 year old brat in my yard, same thing goes, too fucking bad, control your kids. If my dog gets out and bites someone, then that is my fault and I should be responsible for any damage the dog does. I don't agree with shooting dogs on site that happen stray from their yards, but certainly people have a right to defend themselves. Bottomline is that its not fair to the dog or to the people around you to let a dog roam off of your property.

|11.11.05 @ 11:17PM|#

damn man, I didnt read all the comments on this one, once reason's posts get more than 30 comments its too much to read them all (and whats going on anyway? lately every post here is getting at least 40 comments!!! good for you reason guys and all) but I got the impression that a lot of people hate dogs, but want to own cougars and bobcats? wtf? and damn, arent libertarians just a bunch of curmudgeons!! Old angry dudes all pissed off and shit!!!! ahahaha, I consider myself a lib and all, but maybe the cranky shit should be toned down if libertarianism is ever gonna get big, but let's be honest, a lot of libs don't want it to get big, you indie rockers, you!!!! AHAHAHAHA, REAS-ON!!!!!!

|11.11.05 @ 11:22PM|#

I heard that Gillespie hates dogs because one time a dog pissed on his leather jacket, now it didn't really piss, it was just leaving its scent, but still, he was pissed.

|11.11.05 @ 11:44PM|#

OK, speaking of bobcats... we were speaking of them weren't we? I have a friend who is what they call a "drug intervention counselor" What that means in practice is a very scary biker tweaker guy who carries a gun (but doesn't really need it) who deals with drug offenders on probation that they don't really want to lock up, yet.

He has a friend who works for UofA in the wildlife dept. and they shot a bobcat with a tranquilizer dart and put it in a small suitcase. Well, they left this suitcase by the side of I-17 between Phoenix and Tucson and drove out a ways to smoke dope and see what happened. It didn't take long before someone stopped to pick up the suitcase. 1/4 mile down the road the car's brakes locked up and the car went off the road. The occupants flew out the doors. Imagine their surprise when they opened the case and the cat came flying out.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.12.05 @ 12:00AM|#

Bob, that IS funny.

|11.12.05 @ 12:17AM|#

If you could hear him tell the story you'd have tears running down your face. He's not a bullshiter either. He's probably the hardest man I've ever met and he told me that if he'd known what Viet Nam was going to be like he'd have worn a dress to the recruitment office.

Cheers.

|11.12.05 @ 1:10AM|#

Dogs are individuals. I'm not saying they should be afforded the same rights as humans, not even close. But i love my dog very much. Let's say somebody broke into my house and killed her to shut her up while they robbed me(this isn't something i worry about, i'm just giving a what if) That person would only be guilty of property damage, besides breaking and entering, for killing my best friend. I'm not neccesarily saying they should be guilty of murder, but come on.

fyodor|11.12.05 @ 1:36AM|#

If you don't like my dog in your yard every once in a while--why don't you move back to the city?

When I complained to my neighbor about her barking dog waking me up, she told me to move to the country!

Garth|11.12.05 @ 9:10AM|#

Personally I love dogs and have two myself. Bad dogs come from bad owners. A dog properly raised and treated is usually very well behaved.

The same cannot be said of children. Children should be excluded from the public sphere entirely and regulated to "raising camps" where they will have less opportunity to disrupt the existence of others.

I am, of course, "kidding".

|11.12.05 @ 9:59AM|#

Children should be excluded from the public sphere entirely and regulated to "raising camps" where they will have less opportunity to disrupt the existence of others.

Hmm, I could go for that...

|11.12.05 @ 12:28PM|#

On the property issue; also just to add. If you break into someones house and you get eaten by the dog, then you had it coming. If you are visiting, or are invited in and get bitten by the dog, again it is assault with a deadly weapon.

|11.12.05 @ 1:46PM|#

you indie rockers, you!!!!

I have often described Reason as "The Pitchfork of political sites".

|11.12.05 @ 1:54PM|#

When I complained to my neighbor about her barking dog waking me up, she told me to move to the country!

I see non-biting dog incidents as a classic Adam Smith, a cinder from your neighbor's chimney falls onto your shirt while you're on your own property kind of question. ...Whom should be held responsible for the cleaning bill?

I don't think there's a clear libertarian answer to that question.

Viking Moose|11.12.05 @ 2:06PM|#

Hey Solitud :)

Servus nach der Piefkei

yer one to talk living in the land where people will take their dogs to the restaurant, while leaving their kids :) you've seen it firsthand (and how the kids are turning out, too)

"is this the camper off into which they were beating?"

|11.12.05 @ 2:33PM|#

Keep dogs off lawns with this sign: "Pet owners, beware! Lawn treated with dihydrogen monoxide."

|11.12.05 @ 3:04PM|#

Nick Gillespie:

"in fact I don't think dogs have any rights that humans need respect"

MP:

"PETA believes in many things I don't, and their actions usually make me nauseas. But those beliefs include the belief that a pet owner does not have an absolute right to do whatever they want to their pets, including the hypotheticals given by Terry. Even their Vegan beliefs are not in conflict with basic Libertarian tenents. Libertarianism does not address the tough issues of the Natural Rights afforded to animals (if any), or even the tougher issues of Natural Rights afforded to the mentally challenged."

Thank you MP

Considering the fact that the vast majority of U.S. citizens support animal welfare laws, you would think that even amoung libertarians Mr. Gillespie's position would be considered controversial.

Yet (after 119 posts) the only person to disagree with Mr. Gillespie has been MP. There has been one post in support of Mr. Gillespie's position (by an animal lover no less). And everyone else has completely ignored the subject. Perhaps because it is such a nasty issure, with no feel-good libertarian solution.

Terry

|11.12.05 @ 3:09PM|#

I'm a biting-dog magnet. If there's one within a mile, it will find me and bite me. I've been chased down and bit while running in Kensigton Park, walking around Lake Calhoun, hiking in the Pacific Northwest, riding my bike down country roads. The vicious beasts should be euthanized. As should the owners of the constantly yapping pomeranians across the street from me.

|11.12.05 @ 3:21PM|#

Phil:

"So the mind of Nick Gillespie suddenly encompasses the entirety of libertarian thought? Huh. Weird."

Well Mr. Gillespie is the editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, the largest Libertarian Magazine in the U.S. Plus I've only come across libertarian writers making the case for repealing animal welfare laws. Plus, judging from these posts, it seems that a lot of libertarians don't have a problem with repealing animal welfare laws.

Terry

|11.12.05 @ 3:42PM|#

Interestingly, Terry, that's not actually an answer to my question, however you may wish it so. Let me make it easier through the magic of syllogism:

1. I, Phil, am a libertarian.
2. I, Phil, disagree with Nick Gillespie on this matter.
3. Therefore, Nick Gillespie [does/does not] represent the entirety of libertarian thought.

Circle one. I don't grade on a curve, either.

|11.12.05 @ 4:12PM|#

Phil

I didn't say that Mr. Gillespie represents the entirety of libertarian thought, just the views of a substantial number of libertarians.

It's great that you don't agree with him on this position. And also great that you've actually come out and disagreed with him.

Ronald Bailey also disagrees with Mr. Gillespie, I'm hoping he won't lose his job.

Terry

|11.12.05 @ 4:41PM|#

Viking Moose,

It is said Germans treat their dogs better than their children. I have seen Germans turn their heads in embarrassment when someone was smacking his or her child in public, but display open outrage and interfere when someone hit his or her dog.

Interestingly, a hotel (in Bavaria, I think) opened at the beginning of last month which does not accept children under the age of 12. There was a lot of noise made about how horrible that was, but I am sure most of the loud ones wrote down the telephone number in secret.

And for those in the market for a member of the opposite sex, dogs are an even greater babe magnet in Germany than in the US.

|11.12.05 @ 5:00PM|#

As a side note to the above, the comic strip "Non Sequitur" recently featured a man renting dogs to bachelors in a park. A similar service actually started this past summer in Munich.

|11.12.05 @ 6:03PM|#

"Ronald Bailey also disagrees with Mr. Gillespie, I'm hoping he won't lose his job."

Are you kidding with this shit? Yeah, Gillespie clearly runs Reason with an iron fist. I heard that the required dress code for everyone there is an open-necked shirt and leather jacket. And he also makes everyone get plastic surgery to look more like him.

|11.12.05 @ 9:58PM|#

J

"Are you kidding with this shit? Yeah, Gillespie clearly runs Reason with an iron fist. I heard that the required dress code for everyone there is an open-necked shirt and leather jacket. And he also makes everyone get plastic surgery to look more like him."

Hey, I'm glad to hear he is so laissez-faire!

Perhaps he could allow an article to be published in Reason supporting animals welfare laws (from a libertarian point of view, of course).

Phil seemed to be arguing that most or at least some libertarians would support legal protections for animals against abuse.

Reason printed in article in support of having an FDA (to the horror of libertarian purists i'm sure). Why not print an article in support of animal welfare laws? This is something that would be very much supported by pharmaceuticals.
Since the public knows that only necessary experiments are done on animals and that efforts are made to minimize the animals' suffering, the public can support animal testing with a clear conscience.

Terry

|11.13.05 @ 12:09AM|#

I think Terry's right in that libertarians, generally speaking, have very little to say that's appealing to animal rights people.

In a more libertarian society, genetically modified animals would taste even more delicious? ...No, animal rights people aren't gonna dig that. In a more libertarian society, people would be forced to spay or neuter their pets? ...I don't think so.

|11.13.05 @ 3:42AM|#

Nick Gillespie,

...why the US State Department warns...

If you travel the Third World enough one of the more constant themes you happen upon are packs of wild dogs which show a penchant for attacking humans. There are some easy ways to combat this problem. For example, when I lived in Mexico (outside the tourist zones mostly) I always carried a small bag of medium-sized rocks in my book bag. I'd paste the bastards if they came after me or whoever was my date.

You'll find that the same practice works well in other locales be they in Africa or Latin America.

|11.13.05 @ 3:45AM|#

Oh, and I have nothing against dogs in general.

|11.13.05 @ 12:52PM|#

Well so far...

- Against legal protections for animals from torture:
Nick Gillespie
joshua corning

- For legal protections for animals from torture:
MP
Phil

Mmmm so a 50/50 split out of only 4 answers.
I guess everyone else is afraid to take a position.

Terry

|11.13.05 @ 4:04PM|#

Add one more FOR "For legal protections for animals from torture."

If someone shot my dog simply for being on their property, I'd be sorely tempted to return the favor.

And since I don't trust people who don't like dogs, I'll skip Gillespie's articles in the future.

Mr. F.

PS - rights don't come from pieces of paper.

|11.13.05 @ 4:28PM|#

Terry,

I am against the torturing of animals.

Besides mealworms, some people also feed "pinkies" to their sugar gliders -- hairless baby mice.

Pinkies!!! I want a pinkie!!

Not alive! They sell frozen pinkies for people to thaw out and feed to pet snakes and some carnivorous lizards.

On second thought, maybe I don't want a pinkie. Well, I think they'd be a good pet idea if they weren't dead or frozen (or dead and dethawed, for that matter). But a living pinkie might be cute.

Ok, so here is a list of my desired pets, since we're all making wish lists:

- a dog
- a sugarglider (only if he didn't require that I feed him bugs)
- a pinkie
- a FOX!!! Holy crap, a trained fox would be an awesome pet.

I used to own a chinchilla...the softest fur you ever felt. But he would always squirm and climb up my back to my neck when I'd try to hold him, and that was no fun. Plus, if he got loose it was impossible to catch him....it was like chasing a squirrel. I found it very hard to enjoy him since he didn't seem to like to be held. Also, whenever I had to clean his cage, I'd close him up in the bathroom to run around, whereby he would shit in every place possible before I returned him to his cage. I eventually gave him to a friend who had a female chinchilla and who promised to go half with me on the profits we'd make selling the babies. I never saw a dime. That bastage!

|11.13.05 @ 4:31PM|#

Terry,

Depends on the legal regime in question for me.

|11.13.05 @ 5:34PM|#

Smacky,
lose the dog in that wish list, and I'd love to come visit.

|11.13.05 @ 5:38PM|#

F le Mur,
Why is your dog on someone esles property? Do you have some uwritten right to have your dog crap on someone elses property?

I probably wouldn't shoot a dog for crapping on my property. But if your dog ever bit me or a friend of mine, and it came on my property it would get shot. If you want to start a gunfight with me over that, welcome to the fray.

|11.13.05 @ 5:42PM|#

Terry I dought that Mr Gillespie is for animal torture. I even doubt that he is against laws against animal abuse.

But dogs do not have human rights. And they are not protedted under the constitution. I believe a city may indeed have an ordinance against dog ownership,(unless city employees, including cops need them) but should not have one against gun ownership.

If a dog bites a human, the dog gets put down and does not get a trial, where the human owner that should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon does get a trial.

|11.13.05 @ 5:43PM|#

Also, if it is within your cultural norms to eat dogs, there is nothing wrong with it. (as long as they are killed humanely)

Hakluyt|11.13.05 @ 8:17PM|#

kwais,

Thank you for channeling Montaigne. :)

|11.13.05 @ 8:29PM|#

Terry,

I'm against the torturing of animals - hell, I'm even against the torturing of terrorists...

|11.13.05 @ 8:42PM|#

I didn't see the TV show about the Russian fox experiment, but I think I read about it in Smithsonian" magazine or some other science mag.

BTW, "The Russian Fox Experiment" would make a great name for an all-girl band.

Or an event on the Howard Stern show.

|11.13.05 @ 8:59PM|#

smacky --

Just FYI, pinkies are very young mice, just a few days old, not even weaned yet. So you'd have to feed one milk through an eyedropper however often baby mice get hungry, which is probably pretty often. And milking a mouse to get the milk is probably pretty difficult also. Then, after a few days of this, they grow hair and stop being pinkies.

They are kind of cute, though, in a semi-embryonic, rodentine kind of way. Here are some kinda cute photos:

www.jenmarie.itgo.com/photo.html

By the way, by providing this link, I have saved you from having to image-search for pinkies on your own, which could lead to some potentially disturbing images. It appears that most people view pinkies as pet food items, not pets.

|11.13.05 @ 10:03PM|#

Hak,
I googled Montagne, and he seems to be a rennaissance essay writer. In what way did I channel him?

Or did you just trick me into learing something about someone form the renaissance?

Hakluyt|11.13.05 @ 10:10PM|#

kwais,

Part of Montaigne's schtick was to honor cultural diversity (up to a point) in the way that you are.

|11.14.05 @ 4:17AM|#

More votes....

- Against legal protections for animals from torture:
Nick Gillespie
joshua corning

- For legal protections for animals from torture:
Ronald Bailey
MP
Phil
Mr. F. Le Mur
smacky
Solitudinarian

So 2 against legal protections, and 5 for legal protections. It's a relief that there has been no wave of support for Mr. Gillespie's position.

Terry

|11.14.05 @ 4:20AM|#

Sorry Correction

More votes....

- Against legal protections for animals from torture:
Nick Gillespie
joshua corning

- For legal protections for animals from torture:
Ronald Bailey
MP
Phil
Mr. F. Le Mur
smacky
Solitudinarian

So 2 against legal protections, and 6 for legal protections. It's a relief that there has been no wave of support for Mr. Gillespie's position.

Terry

|11.14.05 @ 4:33AM|#

kwais:

"Terry I dought that Mr Gillespie is for animal torture. I even doubt that he is against laws against animal abuse."

While, I agree with you that Mr. Gillespie is most probably not for animal torture, he does very much seem to be against laws protecting animals from abuse.

For one thing there is the below quote
(Mr. Gillespie's words exactly).

"...in fact I don't think dogs have any rights that humans need respect."

And for another thing there are no articles in Reason (correct me if I'm wrong) supporting animal welfare laws of any kind. Considering the large number of animal rights articles published in Reason that does seem very odd.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not quite understanding. Does that mean that you support laws against animal abuse ??

Terry

|11.14.05 @ 11:13AM|#

Stevo,

Ugh...I don't want a pinkie anymore. Those are the "cute" pictures? I thought they'd look more like regular mice, but shaved. I don't want feces (baby mice) as pets. Cross it off my list.

|11.14.05 @ 2:34PM|#

(Me hastily cancels order for 100 baby pinkies being shipped to smacky as a surprise belated birthday present.)

Reason.com