Yesterday I was walking in the woods, and became aware of a snake a few seconds after it had caught a frog. It had ahold of the frog's right foot, and at first I thought there was a good chance that the frog would get away. I figured that the snake would have to release the frog to get a better grip, and that the frog, which was kicking fairly wildly at that point, would get away. The frog had a smear of blood just behind its left eye, so it may be that it had already gotten away from the snake once.
My initial thought was "oh, poor thing", and a desire to free the frog. I didn't though, for a number of reasons. For one thing, what about the snake? It has to eat too. Secondly, I figured that there was a good chance that the frog would die of shock or infection from its wounds anyway, so it might as well go to feed the snake. Third, I wasn't sure how to do it without risking getting bitten. I thought about pithing the frog to put it out of its misery, but I didn't really have anything long and sharp enough that I would have been confident that I wouldn't have increased the frog's suffering, so I just let the drama play out. The snake kind of flowed up the frog's right leg. It's lower jaw was moving in such a way that it appeared to be pumping something into the frog with it. The snake wasn't one that I recognized as being poisonous, and it didn't have venom pits beneath its eyes (and I thought that they injected poison with their upper teeth, anyway). A couple of times it lost ground as the frog struggled, and the leg, when it slid from the snakes' mouth, was somewhat flaccid, with a dull grey brown that contrasted sharply with the rest of the frog's green coloration.
I expected the snake to have some trouble once it got up to the point where the leg joined the body--"how was it going to get that thing down at that angle?", I thought, but it waited patiently, and eventually the frog seemed to cooperate,putting its left foot right next to its right leg and holding it there until the snake had both legs securely in its mouth. Then the snake just kind of flowed up over the rest of the frog. For a little while it looked as though the snake had a big head and little arms, but eventually the snake got its mouth around the arms, and shortly thereafter the whole frog went down. Earlier the frog had seemed pretty panicked, but I think it was in shock by the time both of its legs were in the snake.
During the eating of the frog the snake was relatively docile toward me. He tried to crawl away from me kind of half heartedly, but didn't really resist much when I pulled him back. He was still fairly docile immediately after he got the frog down--he just sat there, occasionally opening his mouth kind of like he was burping. If I had to guess, I'd say that opening his mouth like that was probably done to aid the muscle contractions pushing the snake down--it seemed to coincide with them.
Once the frog was about a third of the way down the snake's body, the snake became much more active, checking me out with his tongue and then hurrying away. I kept pace with him for about 10 more minutes, and then went back to my walk.
My wife, when I told her about it, agreed that letting the drama play out was the only thing to do, but said that she wouldn't have stayed to watch. I personally found the whole thing fascinating. I felt sorry for the frog, but given the opportunity, I was pretty excited to get to watch a snake in the wild feed that way. It was cool--until the snake got the frog down, I was no more than a foot away from it. After its mouth was free I backed up a bit, but I was still only about 2 feet from it (although poised to jump back if it became at all aggressive toward me).
What would you guys have done?
[ October 21, 2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by The Wiggin (Member # 5020) on :
I think it would be pretty cool to watch that in the wild. AN I think my raction would have been simular but I can't say for sure since I've never been in that postion. To bad you didn't get pictures that would have been cool.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
A little lemon butter with garlic salt.
msquared
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, I wish I'd had a camera.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Run like hell while it was still occupied with the elephant, probably.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I saw the same thing this summer, except that the snake slithered into the underbrush shortly after I spotted it with the frog in its mouth, so I didn't get as much drama as you did. I would definitely have let the snake keep the frog—heck, it worked hard for that meal; in fact, that's what I did. The slightly freaky thing was listening to the frog scream. I'm not even joking. It was eerie. I can't describe it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, this frog was screaming too, for a little while.
I take it your snake caught the frog by the foot too? I had assumed that that was a fluke, and that they generally ate all of their prey head first.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I would have watched. I don't think the thought of robbing the snake of its meal would have even crossed my mind..
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Frankly, Noemon, I'd call you over. It's not a facetious answer. Posted by Gosu (Member # 5783) on :
If I didn't know better I would think you were psychoanalyzing us. Oh wait, I don't know better.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I would have had the exact same thoughts and then acted exactly as you did, Noemen.
What a cool post.
Posted by Gosu (Member # 5783) on :
Yea it was a good post. I'm surprised how active this forum is.
Posted by wieczorek (Member # 5565) on :
I'm not sure that I would've watched unless it was a snake-eating-mouse, which my teacher believes might truly exist (in a not-so serious way).
While feeding our class snake last week, this topic came up. Everyone snickered when the mouse walked to the snake, clearly not anticipating its encroaching death. About thirty minutes later, my teacher gave the snake a second mouse. When the snake approached this mouse, it batted at the snake and tried biting it. Nevertheless, he became Poe's dessert. My teacher later mentioned that feeder mice and mice used in labs are bred specifically "to be docile and trusting, but mice in the wild might actually try to fight for their lives". If this is true, I find it to be somewhat sinister, breeding living things to die.
Truly though, Noemon, I find your encounter interesting and infrequent.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
Kama, Yay for Le Petit Prince! As soon as I read your post I knew that's what the link was going to be. Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Maybe found a city there in order to fulfill a prophecy.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
How fascinating! Some of what you observed was the snake actually unhinging and rehinging its jaw in order to swallow the frog (that "burping" motion you mentioned). No wonder it was so docile!
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I'd pretty much do the same thing I would if I came across a frog eating a snake.
Let it be and go about ma bidness.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
My cat Mouse once ate a chipmunk from the back end forward and it also screamed. <shudders> Nature red in tooth and claw. This post reinforces my desire to work out a way to become a vegetarian.
Yes, it's fascinating, but in a horrible way. I do appreciate how innocent the predator is in such situations. It's not that they are cruel or cold hearted. Just that they don't see prey as being something that has feelings, something with which to identify. But murderers are the same. They have the same innocent evil. Nazi guards in death camps. The same. Workers in slaughterhouses. Makes me stop and wonder what evil do I do and think nothing about it, exactly zero?
Gives me the screaming meemies.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I don't think that the causing of the pain is evil in and of itself. And I wouldn't raise murderers to the level of animals. I doubt they're performing mating rituals or can find no other food.
When animals begin killing for fun and burying the bodies in the desert, then I'll think them evil.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Noemon, oh cool! I think I would have done the same thing. I'd have loved to see that.
ak, people have free will. Animals act on instinct. The examples you gave are NOT analogous. In fact, none the people you listed was even acting solely for survival.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Neither was Mouse, of course. She hunted for fun.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Perhaps. But still by instinct, not true choice.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I would also have thought, "Poor frog." And I would have watched. How often, in our daily lives, do we get to see the natural world in operation without a television set as the medium of our observations?
I remember one time there was a small dead bird next to my driveway. I didn't remove it, I just let it lay there and kept track of its natural process of deomposition - which went fairly slowly, as it was winter. (Also, the cold helped to keep it from getting too ripe-smelling.) At first, I thought this was a morbid thing to do. But, again, I realized that it was a wonderful way to see how nature really works.
Thanks for a beautiful, wonderfully observed post.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I never feel such a huge divide between the choices people end up making and the things animals do. People start out as children, acting blindly out of fear or habit or reaction, and most of what they do as adults seems not much more carefully thought out or examined. Certainly much heedless causing of pain goes on in our species as in others. Of the people one knows, what percentage of them examines anew every commonplace of their society and decides independently the rights and wrongs thereof? Almost none, in my experience.
[ October 21, 2003, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sadly, that's all too true. The difference is, animals cannot choose to think things through.
People can. And the very abdication of that prerogative is a choice.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It's odd you bring this up, because in Bill Peet's autobiography he talks about how once when he was a kid catching frogs in a creek, a snake (a cottonmouth I believe) darted out of it's hole, grabbed a frog, and retreated. Bill and his friend grabbed ahold of the hind legs of the frog and pulled until it was released, but by the time they got it free the frog was already dead, and they had only deprived the snake of a meal.
Just thought it would be an interesting second hand anecdote.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Gotta say-- I'd free the frog.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
How would you have done it? Just grabbed and pulled?
Fugu, what is the title of Bill Peet's autobiography? I've loved Peet's books ever since I was old enough to have an opinion (especially Wump World), and would love to read his autoboigraphy.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
CT --
Jenny -- It was also interesting watching the snake's jaw while it was going up the frog's leg--it would advance first one side, and then the other. I'm not sure how it was able to free its teeth to do that, frankly.
Once it got the frog all the way down, I was shocked by how tiny its head turned out to be.
Also, I noticed, in the lower jaw, a raised pit that looked almost like a socket, about where you'd expect a prominent fang to be.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Nah-- I'd whack the snake with a branch 'til it let go.
I'm not a big fan of snakes.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Really? Why not?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
See, it's funny, just yesterday my cat and dog were scrounging around in our basement and i heard some high-pitched squeaking and went to investigate. They were both gleefully chasing a baby mouse around the floor, and my dog would occassionally pick it up in her mouth, walk around for a little, and then put it back down and chase it again. The cat kind of swatted at it every now and again. Finally, my dog picked it up and started to bring it upstairs. I freaked, because a) i had just seen her kill a mouse and b) dead mouse in house = not good. So i slammed the door closed and wouldn't open it until she dropped it. She finally did and i let her upstairs and the mouse was just lying there on the top step.
I closed the door with the cat still downstairs and a few minutes later i heard the squeaking again. Open the door, what do i see but the mouse on a lower step, cowering in a corner as my cat played with it, batting it with her paws and then occassionally biting down on it, and then releasing it. Well, i couldn't deal with that. I pushed the cat away and coaxed the dazed but seemingy unharmed mouse onto a dustpan and carried it outside and set it free in our wood pile.
If it had occurred in the wild, or if the mouse had been obviously injured, I probably would have let it play out. But my cat and dog are well-fed, domestic, spoiled little things and I didn't like that they were "playing" around with this mouse. Neither of them looked like they had any intention of eating it, just biting it and playing with it until it died. That shouldn't disturb me, but it does and I wanted to stop it. Is that a rare thing for people to do?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
About 10 years ago, my dog (a fantastic white german shepherd who I miss terribly) caught a wild turkey. He had it by the neck, but hadn't yet done it any real damage (hadn't shaken it to break its neck, and hadn't drawn blood), so I made him give it to me. The bird was in shock, so it didn't try to get away from me or anything. I carried it out into the woods and set it in a safe spot--kind of a briar patch--where predators would be unlikely to get it before it had a chance to collect its wits and head out. I checked on it a few days later, though, and discovered that it had died, presumably of shock. I felt really bad for that bird. I should have just let my dog kill it quickly.
So I guess what I'm saying, Leonide, is that my reaction wasn't all that different to yours with the mouse.
[ October 22, 2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's the whole Adam and Eve thing.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Bill Peet: An Autobiography
I actually had to search for it, as I don't have the book here. It's a great book, and filled with illustrations (of course).
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
This actually happened when Ron, the boys and I went on a walk around the lake where we were camping. As we walked on the boardwalk to the fishing dock, we saw a huge frog. Only we noticed that one of it's legs was actually a rather short, fat snake. We think it was a copperhead. Anyways, both the frog and the snake were moitionless. It was overcast, and they were essentially the same color as the mudbank they were on.
We pointed them out to the boys. Since they didn't move at ALL, we started spitting on the snake to see if it was alive. It finally moved and must have lost its grip on the frog, because the frog jumped away and dove into the lake. The snake went after it.
We weren't trying to 'save' the frog, we just wanted to see them move a little. It was a bit on the chilly side, so they were sluggish. Anyways, it's always cool to see nature at work.
I DID interfere when my over-fed kitty, Aloysius, went after a huge chipmunk. It was easily the size of a rat, and was standing up on it's hind paws batting at her.I had a guest who, as she sat by the huge windows in my kitchen, was horrified by the display. So I trudged out and made Aloysius let it go. It ran up a tree, and she shot up after it, bounding out of my arms and coming back down with it in her jaws.
So I got her to drop it and brougt her in until it got away into another yard. It wasn't bleeding or anything. Everything seemed to be moving. *shrug*
I might have stopped her even if I hadn't had company. I rescued a snake from the kitties once. I like snakes. They are so sleek and shiny.
I let the kitties have the voles and the occasional bird (they are fantastic tree-climbers). Honestly, I've never seen them in the act of killing a bird. But I prolly wouldn't let them eat anything cuter than they are. They eat well, they just like the hunt.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
My dogs, in the past, have been very enthusiastic about chasing things, but rarely caught anything. My cats, on the other hand, brought in mice, squirrels, rats, snakes, birds--you name it, if it was smaller than they were, they brought it in.
One dog, the german shepherd I mentioned above, was actually a very good hunter He had to be--he'd lived on his own in the country for almost a year before I adopted him. I think that he subsisted on cats, rabbits, squirrels, and the occasional chicken. He was very fast, and could run down rabbits, and was able to psych squirrels out, barking them out of their trees and then killing them when they got to the ground. I always distracted him when I saw him at it, and helped his prey escape, because like others have said, he didn't need the prey for food.
One interesting thing about him--he was very bright, and I could mark an animal as protected by picking it up and holding it while he sniffed at it. I protected all of the cats I came across this way.
Anyway, with both the dog and the cats, it doesn't bother me terribly when they bring in something they've killed, but if I have the opportunity to prevent the killing, I will without a second though. They just don't need the meat.
Oh, one other thing about the snake. After it had gotten the frog down, and before it started checking me out with its tongue, it rubbed its mouth and the sides of its head on the ground repeatedly. If its scales hadn't been relatively glossy, I'd have thought it was trying to get its skin to start peeling; it was that kind of a motion.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
When Avatar used to bring me live chipmunks, I thanked him profusely (a LIVE chipmunk is just about the nicest present a cat can give you) but I didn't eat them. I just pretended to and turned around and let them go in a spot where Avatar couldn't see them running away. Poor things were usually petrified with fear and took a bit of coaxing to get them to run. I'm sure this is because running away is a stupid thing to do when a big predator is watching you. Freezing until the predator loses interest and goes away is much smarter.
What's bad is that possums have that same freeze fear reaction to oncoming cars. In this case it's not terribly smart.
I once found a mouse in a paper mill that was stuck to this extremely sticky paper the mill was using to kill mice with. It seemed so cruel. Dying of thirst like that. I unstuck it and put it outside in my warm toboggan under a tree. It was so hard to get it unstuck without hurting it. I think I hurt its little paw fingers getting them loose. It squealed as I freed them, though I did my very best to be gentle. The stuff was quite sticky. I don't think the mouse had much of a chance out there in the cold, with an injured paw, even inside a warm donated toboggan, but if I were in trouble and some huge being came along and wanted to help me, I would not count it as much help if they only decided to kill me to put me out of my misery. I think I would prefer they left me alone instead. I think I would appreciate any help that gave me any sort of a chance at all. Even a small one. Life has an awful lot of struggling and suffering associated with it. Yet there is dignity in that struggle. To kindly kill me is not what I call being any help.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Since they didn't move at ALL, we started spitting on the snake to see if it was alive.
O_O
I hope I never have a fainting spell around you.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Storm
Anne Kate, with those sticky traps, if you hold the trap at an angle and pour vegetable oil over its surface, it works its way under the mouse and frees it. In the past we've had mouse infestations that we've had to get rid of using a catch and release program using sticky traps and oil. I still hate to do it, because being stuck down obviously terrifies the mice, but it's better than traditional traps, and they're too wiley to fall for the kinder live traps I've tried.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Noemon, I'm glad to know that in case it comes up again. Of course I had nothing of the sort available to me at this paper mill. I was having to do this subtly. I sort of disappeared for a while and then showed up later not mentioning what I'd done. Of course the paper mill is just purging itself of vermin, from their point of view, and would look askance at someone who sided with the vermin. And the mill was my customer.
I hate it that it was wintertime. This mouse definitely seemed a little indoor creature. Poor little thing.
I wonder what on earth it thought. I can't get over the feeling that we are sort of like gods to the other creatures, and that we ought to act like proper gods. That we ought to be universally benevolent and that we ought to love each of them for themselves. After all, isn't that how we want God to treat us?
Perhaps we've only been infesting His planet now for all these billions of years, and He's trying to establish a humane catch and release program.
Drive By was hit by a car as a kitten, of course, and was a feral cat before that. Then I adopted her and after a purgatory of being sick and having to have health care, she landed in this nice place. I wonder if she believes in cat heaven now, where the temperature is always controlled and there's soft beds to sleep on and all the food you want is available all the time? In a way her life here in soft suburbia is a happy afterlife to the life she must have led as a kitten. In a way our life here in soft suburbia is idyllic too. In a way, this is heaven. We must have been extremely virtuous in our past lives to be here now.
[ October 23, 2003, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
Tom and I had mice in our garage and it pained him to have to kill them so we got a nice little plastic box with a one way swinging door. Every morning I would check the little box and the same mouse would be sitting there looking terrified. I would release him out into the back yard away from the garage in hopes that he would find someplace else to live, but he kept coming back. I told Tom that if I found him five times, I would put the real trap out, so the fifth morning Tom went out to the box, put it in the car and drove out to a local prairie restoration park and released the little mouse. *giggle*
Don't get me wrong, I like mice, but they need to stay outdoors where they belong.
My previous work also included sampling streams with automatic water samplers. We built nice little huts that the mice loved and mostly I let them be until they would start to chew on my wires. Silly mice. The worst hut had twelve mice in it and I was getting ready to put out some poison because it was getting so bad. I opened up the hut to find three mice and a nice big fat snake who had feasted well. After much courage, some deep breathing, and a little persuasion I got the snake to exit the back of the hut and not out towards me by wiggling the sampler slowly, but I remember thinking it was funny that the remaining mice went scurrying over the snake to get out of the door. Here was this snake eating all their family and they didn't even know he was a predator.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, you have to be careful to let the mice go free far away from your house (and other people's houses). They'll tend to come right back home if they can figure out how to get there.
I have really mixed feelings about mice. On the one hand, they're beings, and I respect that. I don't bear them any ill will, and would prefer to just let them live. On the other hand, left to their own devices they'll chew your wiring and crap all over all of your food that they don't actually eat, and can carry disease, so you can't really let them run wild in your house.
I have yet to find a live (non-sticky) trap that consistently works on them. Some mice will generally fall for them, but enough don't that in my experience you just end up with smarter mice in your house, which is of dubvious value.
I haven't had to resort to a conventional trap in years. I really hate them. If they could be guranteed to instantly kill the mouse that would be one thing--still not something I'd be happy with, of course, but sometimes that's necessary, unfortunately--but it isn't all that unusual for them to just maim and pin the mouse, and I try to keep my torture of beings to a minimum.
That abhorrance of torture is also why I absolutely refuse to ever use poison to take care of mice. I've come across the bodies of mice that died of poisoning, and from the position of their bodies it's been fairly clear that all of them died in intense pain. I don't like poisoning bugs either, but this summer I had to resort to it with an ant infestation. I still feel bad about that.
Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
Noemon,
I agree. The poison is terrible. Just the only thing that worked out in the field. Its a neurotoxin. The poor little mice twitch and die a terrible death. I would not suggest it for home use at all.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
We got some mice in our first house (in the basement) the first winter we were there. We used the catch and release traps. They worked okay.
Then we found out we had a big blacksnake in our basement walls and in the crawlspace under the part of the house where the basement wasn't. But we had a ZERO mouse problem.
We finally caught the snake and released it in a large wooded preserve. The mice came back. Then we got another snake, following the food supply.
Luckily, the people who bought our house considered the blacksnake skin they spotted in the crawlspace a good sign.
SS-- it was 7 feet below the boardwalk, and we weren't going down the mud bank to poke it, so spitting seemed like the next best thing. If you ever faint around me, I promise I'll use icewater. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I wouldn't mind if a blacksnake or two colonized our house. My wife is squicked out by the idea for some reason though.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I love snakes.
One thing you have to remember about "rescuing" prey is that the animals may already have damage to their internal organs and inevitably will die. You are also depriving their predators of a hard-won meal. The predators' bodies are not capable of digesting vegetarian meals, so they MUST kill to live. A predator's life is full of difficulties - to hunt, capture, and consume prey takes lots of energy. To take the food away after the predator has worked so hard is just as cruel as letting your pet see you fix its dinner and then not allowing it to eat for several days. Many predators live by feast or famine. They starve for a while, and each meal is crucial to their survival.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I know that. I always felt very sorry for the wolf children who didn't get a meal in the story of the clever little red hen who substituted a rock in the bag and sewed it back up in my Gateway to Storyland. I loved the cats and dogs and wolves and foxes in all those stories. Predators are given a bad rap. Especially since humans ARE predators.
Yet how can one not side with the weak against the strong? How is missing a single meal comparable to losing one's life? I understand that life is unfair and harsh. I must do what I can to ameliorate that feature of life when I get the opportunity. I must try to make it fairer and less harsh in every way I can. Some people call this futility but I call it what I'm here to do.
[ October 25, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
::bump::
Nothing new to add, but I really enjoyed this thread, and it was getting too close to its expiration date for my taste
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
Anne Kate believes in killing plants but not animals.
quote:While feeding our class snake last week
It took me a minute to realize that the class was not eating snake, it posessed a snake which it was feeding.
I definitely would have watched the snake eat the frog from a respectful distance. If a humongous giant were watching me eat, I think it might ruin my digestion.
Something really horrible happened with a glue trap at the house my husband grew up at. The mouse almost escaped, leaving a piece of itself stuck to the paper. But it bled to death.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I would have done the same thing. I had a pet snake. A boa, about 6 feet long. His name was Spot. Very friendly and liked to cuddle. We would feed him in a separate cage, so that he would get used to being moved to it to feed and not learn to snap at us when we went into his living cage to pick him up. Watching him feed on rats was very interesting... a bit more gruesome than a frog...kinda scary the first few times. Watching our cute snake becomeing this killing machine... wow.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
Telp, I have a boa as well (still a baby, about 2 feet long). I absolutely hate feeding her, because I also keep rats and mice as pets. Someone mentioned earlier about "snake-eating-mice" - you'd be surprised at the damage a mouse or rat can inflict on a snake. My snake was attacked and bitten by her prey several times, so now I feed her "stunned" mice that can't hurt her (which sounds awful, but once you've seen a snake kill and eat a live mouse, feeding a stunned one seems much more humane.) At the pet store where I work, someone dumped a 7-foot boa on our doorstep, tied up in a pillowcase. She is covered in horrible scars and bite marks - someone was dumping live rats in her cage. The poor thing won't let anyone come near her without striking (and who could blame her??)
Snakes are my favorite animal, and if I found one in the wild that was eating, I probably wouldn't watch, since I have to see it weekly already, but I would respectfully leave him alone. Snakes do NOT like being watched while they eat, because they are completely defenseless from predators. Stressing them out during and after eating can lead them to regurgitate their food.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
If a snake is non-poisonous and represents no real danger to my children, then it's welcome to live on my property. My kids have been taught to leave wild animals alone, whether it seems hurt or what they are never to pick it up, but come get us.
My mom's cat kills moles constantly. There's one outside on the porch nearly every day. I try to get them up and throw their carcasses far away so the puppies don't eat them. I don't want them to get sick.
It does seem cruel that well-fed pet cats kill. They don't need the food, they don't even eat the things they kill. They just kill for the sport. But, they're instinctive carnivores, and they don't really KNOW that their next meal is coming from me, so I can't really blame them too much.
Had I come across the scenario in Noemon's first post, I would have walked away. I wouldn't have interfered, because I would figure I'd do as much harm as good to the frog trying to save it and risk getting myself bitten as well. Plus, the snake's gotta eat. I wouldn't have particularly enjoyed watching it, I don't think but maybe so.
Great thread. I'm glad you saved it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd have eaten the snake.
That'll teach it a lesson.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I have a camera phone that I always carry, so I'd take lots of pictures. I'd print them out, bind them into a book, and have the kids write a paper.
Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
I would have watched, I’m fascinated by animals’ behaviour in the wild. Feeding is one of the most interesting and important aspects of that. Whether it was an insect emerging from a pupa, a predator catching its prey or a bird displaying to attract a mate I would be interested.
On TV we see the spectacular animals, for example lions hunting, but less spectacular animals are just as interesting. When you see a cheater chasing a gazelle on a wildlife program, which do you cheer for?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'd have watched without even thinking of saving the frog.
On a side note, it doesn't seem to strange to me that it was eating the frog from behind. If the snake isn't a constrictor (i.e. kills it prey by squeezing it to death), it probably doesn't have the luxury of eating head-first prey. Most of the prey it's gonna catch will be fleeing, so the tail end is what it will grasp, then, by the time the prey is actually beyond the point of escape the snake is probably too committed to change ends unless the grip is especially awkward. (Just my theory, not being a herpetologist or anything. )
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
Hmmm....this raises the question of what one would do when coming across a snake eating an elephant?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Once at the parents' house we saw a hawk that had attacked and downed a bluejay. This was at the birdfeeder in the backyard, about 10 feet away from the window. We watched as the hawk plucked feathers out of the bluejay, which was cawwing loudly. The interesting thing is that other bluejays would divebomb the hawk during this process, not exactly attacking it, but swooping past quickly as if trying to make it flinch away.
Mom wanted to go down and scare the hawk away, but Dad and I said "Hawk's gotta eat too." The bluejay did actually get away after about 5 minutes or so. It seemed to have lost a lot of feathers by then, so I'm not sure how well it did longer term.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Hmmm....this raises the question of what one would do when coming across a snake eating an elephant?
I'm still going to go with "run like hell while it was still occupied with the elephant".
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
...from The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
I would have watched the snake eat, from a distance. I find this stuff interesting.
About two months a go, a litter of kittens my parent's cat had were just big enough to hunt, and they did. They caught a small bird. By the time I found them playing with the bird, they were well into hurting it, so I let it play out. If I had found the kittens earlier, I would tried to let the bird go.
The kittens were dragging the bird all over the yard. I was following the kittens in their movement when my 4-year old sister came to watch. She reached in to free the bird, but I held her back because I was afraid the kittens might hurt her, or the bird might be diseased. I convinced her to not touch the kittens or the bird, but she continued to watch. I didn't have a problem with that. I think it's good that she was interested.
I figured that the killing wasn't worth watching any more because it was getting dark, and I couldn't see the ground so I wanted to leave. My sister stayed to watch, so I couldn't leave her there because she might try to free the bird again. She seemed concerned for the bird, which she should have been because it means she feels empathy, but I told her that cats do this kind of thing because they are animals that hunt naturally, and it wasn't wrong for cats to do this. She understood what was happening at that point, and became fascinated with the process.
It was very dark outside at this point, and Mom wanted her inside. I tried to get her inside, but she kept going outside to watch. I think she still felt bad for the bird, but she knew there was nothing she could or should do. She just wanted to see nature happen.
The next day, I found the bird half-eaten by the swingset. Apparently the kittens had their fill.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: The next day, I found the bird half-eaten by the swingset.
I'd be careful of letting any children around that swingset. Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I didn't realize that this was an old thread bumped at first... I was going to post a comment about how all the nominally freaky animal stuff seems to follow Noemon (or he's following the nominally freaky animal stuff, perhaps...)
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
(it took a second or two for my brain to figure it out, KarlEd -- but I finally did!)
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
It is a docile old swingset that is only three years younger than me. It is 18. It has never harmed a child unless that child repeatedly provoked it, like a dog, and that has happened very rarely. I'm sure it felt bad after having harmed a child because it had only acted on instict (i.e., tipping to one side when someone swings too high). It is probably the most trustworthy swingset I have ever know. It always makes sure the kids don't into the street. I would trust it with my wallet.
I doubt it ate the bird, as KarlEd suggested. I think it was probably the demonic rocking horse that sits near the swingset.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Yep, I would probably watch too. <-----wonders what snake tastes like. Probably like chicken....
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I was about to come here and say the same thing I said almost two years ago...
quote:I would have watched. I don't think the thought of robbing the snake of its meal would have even crossed my mind..
Except less intelligently. I was just going to say, "Watch." ...I wonder what that says about me?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It's been a while since we've had a thread purge, but I'm bumping this just to be on the safe side.
I'm delighted to find that this thread is still around, by the way. As I was driving to work this morning I was thinking about the original incident, but on reading my initial post and my subsequent "additional detail" posts I realized just how much of the experience I'd forgotten.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Heh, this is my first time reading this.
In response to the original question, I'd probably look away, and then a few minutes later tell the wide-mouth frog joke.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
WARNING: This is an actual video.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
My wife owns a ball python, and she feeds it a mouse about every 3-4 weeks. I grew up watching documentaries and I always remember National Geographic ones where they would say, "We all wanted to save the fawn from freezing to death, but we must never interefere with the course of nature." Initially I was shocked and it hurt me, but that turned into admiration for thinking rationally rather then letting emotion guide their work.
I saw the cruelty in nature, and realized that it was balance, and no creature was given greater preference over another.
The snake has every right to eat, as the frog does. Frogs eat bugs, why dont we stop them from doing that? Because we sympathize with frogs, but we often find bugs hard to humanize and sympathize with. If there was a plant that could make noises, I think we would have a much harder time eating it.
We had a Black Lab named Pepper, when I lived in Malaysia and she was the best dog I have ever seen. She could swim and play fetch without ANY training whatsoever (she was a laborador retreiver, go figure) she barked at the cats that would try to go through our garbage just outside our yard and the cats learned to ignore her.
One day I went out into the yard and found a cat dead, and completely disemboweled. I was so glad I had watched my documentaries because I handled the sight quite well. I carefully removed the cat's body from our yard. The next week I found another cat similarly mutilated. I read up on it and it was my opinion Pepper had a bloodlust since tasting cat blood. She was not any more agressive towards us at all, but her annoyance at cats had turned to rage. I startled a cat once and as the cat tried to get away from me it mistakenly jumped into the yard where Pepper was waiting with teeth bare. The cat was dead in seconds. Pepper never ate the cats, just killed them in a very vicious way.
Should we have punished our dog for acting on its instincts? She never once harmed a human being, and she clearly thought the cats needed to be killed, she was not eating them.
To this day I am not sure if I had a greater responsibility to protect the stray cats that ventured into our yard.
I am glad you left the snake alone Noemon, though I am very suprised it chose to eat the frog from the legs up rather than head first. Snakes usually prefer to eat head first as it is much easier than feet first. The fact the frogs leg turned brown suggest the sname was using a "hemotoxin" rather than a "neurotoxin" but I could be wrong.
Be careful with snakes, there is no sure fire way to identify venomous and non venomous. There are some characteristics that MANY venomous snakes share, but there is nothing universal.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
sorry for double posting. That video makes me sad becaues the people obviously antagonized the snake so much that it vomited its food so that it could be mobile again and get away. The stupid thing is the snake most likely will not reeat (if thats a word) the hippo but will most likely leave and kill something else, possibly a person this time.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
sorry for double posting. That video makes me sad becaues the people obviously antagonized the snake so much that it vomited its food so that it could be mobile again and get away. The stupid thing is the snake most likely will not reeat (if thats a word) the hippo but will most likely leave and kill something else, possibly a person this time.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but there could have ben any number of reasons those people were trying to get the snake to regurgitate. If this took place in a zoo, for example. They would have to move the snake back to it's area and dispose of the Hippo's body before people arrived to look at them. That could have been traumatizing for little kids.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Does it look like they are in a zoo?
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
I'm not saying it is definetly a zoo. But we can't possibly prove that it isn't. I was just using it as an example anyway.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I would have watched. I don't think that I would even consider saving the frog. It's nature. It's the food chain. It's the circle of life. Whatever you want to call it. Everything lives by killing something else. The snake isn't doing anything wrong.
*edit* You know, I feel silly. I only just realized how old this thread is. And here I thought it was a new discussion!
[ August 30, 2006, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: neo-dragon ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
People who say "it's life" would you try to save a human from a predator? If so, how is that different? Humans are a species whose population is out of control, they're damaging the ecosystems they inhabit, by every good game management policy, we should be trying to limit their population. Would you try to rescue a human child from a mountain lion?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
See, I saw this subject line, and all I could think of was:
"If you give a snake a frog... ... he's probably going to want a rat to wash it down."
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
What if you teach a snake to frog though? What then?
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
You'll run out of blankets?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: People who say "it's life" would you try to save a human from a predator? If so, how is that different? Humans are a species whose population is out of control, they're damaging the ecosystems they inhabit, by every good game management policy, we should be trying to limit their population. Would you try to rescue a human child from a mountain lion?
Many people do not consider the life of an animal equal to the life of a human being Tatiana. You would have to address that belief first.
If you could save the life of just one woman, who was the least important of all human beings (not a bad person mind you, just unimportant in the grand scheme of things) but at the cost of every single animal species that human being could handle losing. What would you choose?
I think that largely determines whether you would save a human being from being eaten by say a starving mountain lion.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: People who say "it's life" would you try to save a human from a predator? If so, how is that different? Humans are a species whose population is out of control, they're damaging the ecosystems they inhabit, by every good game management policy, we should be trying to limit their population. Would you try to rescue a human child from a mountain lion?
<shrug> People are people. Animals are animals. It amazes me how many people are losing that distinction nowadays.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
I definitely would have pitied the frog, but left nature to take its course. My husband and I have a couple of pet snakes (corns), and we love them dearly. We hope to breed snakes some day, too, but only if we can be sure we could find them really great homes first.
Putting the frog out of its misery might have been more merciful for the frog, but the snake may have then left it without eating it. Many wild snakes will not eat prey that isn't obviously alive up until it's mostly swallowed, and many wild snakes, especially youngsters (which this one sounded like) have to go a month or more with no meal.
I'm not sure what kind of snake you encountered, but it sounds like it may have been a garter snake or a similar species. We have few poisonous snakes in the USA that aren't easily recognizable. (I'm assuming you're from the USA because of the way you spell - color rather than colour. If you're not, I apologize!) The motion of the jaws on the frog's leg that you described may have been pumping venom, or it may have been normal snake-jaw action. Many kinds of snake use this funny "walking jaw" move to edge forward on their prey without letting go. It's especially useful when the prey is still struggling - and then once it's died or calmed down, they use the "flowing" motion you described.
Or, it could have been a rear-fanged snake like a whipsnake or a catsnake. They do have a very mild venom that comes from small fangs in the back area of the upper jaw. I only know of Asian rear-fanged snakes, but there certainly could be some in North America!
The fact that the snake didn't try to coil around the prey leads me to believe it was a garter of some kind. Most other common snakes would have coiled up and constricted their prey.
The fact that it ate the frog legs-first makes me think it was still a baby. It's unusual for wild snakes to do that. Most will wait until their prey is subdued, then let go of it and swallow it head-first.
Somebody mentioned the fighting mice - it's true that rodents can fight very hard against snakes, and a lot of snakes in the wild and as pets lose their lives due to bites, scratches, etc. It's not a bad idea to feed pre-killed prey to captive snakes to prevent this. Even lab mice can get some fight in them and your pet snake will be toast. We feed our guys frozen, thawed rodents that have been humanely killed (by somebody else. I love rodents, too, and I wouldn't want to do the deed myself!)
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote: It does seem cruel that well-fed pet cats kill. They don't need the food, they don't even eat the things they kill. They just kill for the sport. But, they're instinctive carnivores, and they don't really KNOW that their next meal is coming from me, so I can't really blame them too much.
Plus, it's probably good for their mental health to act out their natural role. It stinks for the poor innocent prey critters that are then left without being eaten, but at least it does help keep their populations down. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
The snake's having been young makes more sense than anything I've been able to think of to explain the fact that it ate the frog legs first.
I'm relatively sure that it wasn't poisonous; this took place in the woods in Yellow Springs, Ohio, and there are only three species of venomous snake native to the region--the copperhead and two varieties of rattler. I'm familiar enough with all three of those to be able to recognize them when I come across them in the wild, and this snake wasn't any of them. Given that, I'd say that the jaw motions that I observed were some form of the "walking jaw" thing you're describing.
I didn't know that most snakes were given to constricting their prey, by the way; that's really interesting!
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
That was UNBELIEVABLY DISGUSTING.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:
I didn't know that most snakes were given to constricting their prey, by the way; that's really interesting! [/QB]
Well, most snakes in North America, anyhow! We have more colubrids here (constrictors) than venomous snakes.
Although, my corn snakes are constrictors, and they never constrict. Maybe it's all about personal snakely preference.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Here's a site that lists all the snake species of Ohio, btw...if you still remember what he looked like, maybe you can identify him!
Mystery snake revealed after two years...? Heehee.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: People who say "it's life" would you try to save a human from a predator? If so, how is that different? Humans are a species whose population is out of control, they're damaging the ecosystems they inhabit, by every good game management policy, we should be trying to limit their population. Would you try to rescue a human child from a mountain lion?
Of course I would try to save a human life. Why? Because I value a human life more than any animal. That's part of nature too, looking out for your own kind. Do I really need to justify that?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
So it's different because it's your own species?
I have this thing about animals, I always have since I can remember, that I see them as individuals, as people. It's not that I don't see people as people. I do. It's just that I see animals as people too.
Humans are animals. Is it just sentiment that causes us to value each other's lives more highly than we do the lives of other species? Some of my favorite people are cats. All cats are people to me, and my cats are my children. I think people who feel there is any sort of difference in kind (rather than degree) between humans and our kindred animals are mistaken.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Fair enough, but if you had to choose between saving the life of a random human child and a random kitten, you would save the human, right?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: Here's a site that lists all the snake species of Ohio, btw...if you still remember what he looked like, maybe you can identify him!
Mystery snake revealed after two years...? Heehee.
Thanks Libbie, what a great resource! I'm browsing through that (now bookmarked) site, and will let you know what I come up with.
By the way, I can't remember whether I posted in your welcome thread or not, but I'm awfully glad that you've decided to become a member here.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Looks like it was probably a very young black rat snake.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
Pretty sweet huh?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
neo-dragon, that's a false dichotomy, I believe. All such situations admit of solutions that go beyond "choose A or B".
I would save the kitten (being uniquely suited to that, due to my understanding of cat behavior and instincts) and send someone else simultaneously to save the child.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Keep in mind that the animals generally have no warm, fuzzy feelings toward you. Animals aren't people. Given the opportunity, they will eat you, eat your food, invade your territory, spoil your water, and pass on any number of diseases. Nature is all about survival.
I think if I saw the snake eating the frog, I'd bite the snake. Let him see how he likes it!
Edit: Tatiana, I hope you never get a job as a babysitter. It worries me that anyone would save the life of an animal before a person, unless it were a particularly special case (i.e. the person is trying to kill you).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tatiana I am not bothered by your way of viewing things, but I am interested in understanding it.
Do you hold all animals on equal footing? Or all sentient entities? I understand that you said you feel you are more capable of saving a kitten as opposed to a human being, and that you would delegate the responsibility to somebody else in regards to the human baby.
Do you feel its wrong to hold ones own species survival as more important than another species?
Are their species you classify as more important than others? If a cat will starve to death if it does not eat a mouse, do you consider the cat or the mouse your primary responsibility?
I'd just like some clarification, I'd rather not just attack your beliefs because they are so far removed from my own.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: neo-dragon, that's a false dichotomy, I believe. All such situations admit of solutions that go beyond "choose A or B".
I would save the kitten (being uniquely suited to that, due to my understanding of cat behavior and instincts) and send someone else simultaneously to save the child.
That's a cop-out answer and I think you know that it's not answering the question that I'm really asking. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where you have equal ability to save either and the one that you don't save will surely die. Say, they're both trapped in a burning building and you have exactly enough time to grab one and escape before the ceiling collapses. Or a psycho with a gun forces you to choose or something.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
The question is a cop-out question. All such questions are totally false. There are always better solutions in the real world than "either-or".
For instance, if you're stuck on a lifeboat with 20 people and no food and no chance of being rescued, do you kill the weakest and eat them to stay alive? Or all starve together? That's another example of a false dichotomy. I would find a way to catch fish, and keep us all alive.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Black Blade, I hold animals to be people, and I try to act morally toward them. I try to treat them as I would want to be treated by a large creature of another species who had me in its power.
Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
Suppose there is a burning plane with, oh, say, 50 people on it. You have your chance to grab a random person or one of the terrified animals that is out of its carrier before the plane burns up. They are both right there by the window. Who do you reach for first?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
The people are the responsiblity of the flight crew. They are better trained and better able to help the people. I would probably kill someone while trying to help them, and I doubt I could really pick them up.
However, the animals are clearly my first responsibility, because most likely nobody else will be helping them. I want you to understand that every creature on earth is my personal responsibility. This includes the ones who are humans, too. It will be my job to save everyone on board. If I am smart enough I will succeed. Perhaps I will have forseen the possibility of fire, and made sure a huge tanker truck with that breathable type of fire extinguisher is very close. Then it will extinguish all the flames and all the people on board will be saved.
Today I spent half an hour writing a letter to bring to the attention of someone who is in a position to do something about it a possible oversight I see in our pandemic planning at the Nuclear Plant sites. The most intelligent way to save people is to forsee the dangers that they will be exposed to, and fix them before they kill anyone.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
We're talking hypothetical, not real life. You're just dancing around the issue of if you would sacrifice an animal life to save a human, or vice versa, which is somewhat disappointing since I've enjoyed the open and honest responses that have been provided in this thread. Of course you'll always look for a way to make it a win/win scenario, but if you want to talk about reality you should realize that that's not always possible, and it does sometimes come down to which sacrifice are we more willing to make. So I'm asking, which sacrifice would you be more willing to make?
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: For instance, if you're stuck on a lifeboat with 20 people and no food and no chance of being rescued, do you kill the weakest and eat them to stay alive? Or all starve together? That's another example of a false dichotomy. I would find a way to catch fish, and keep us all alive.
Actually, that's something of an answer right there, since that means you value human life over that of a fish at least. But how do cute furry animals rank?
[ September 01, 2006, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: neo-dragon ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
It's not just their cuteness that matters, but the level of internal life they have. I would like to be able to live without killing anything at all ever, but I haven't worked out how yet.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
How are you able to judge the internal life of an animal? Why is a cat equal value to a person. Obviously they don't have anywhere near the same "internal life."
I'm curious why you feel that animals are your first responsibility.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I judge the internal life of an animal the same way I do that of a human, by watching their behavior over time. It's certainly true that the better I know a given species, the more I see their individual personalities, and the more I notice the mental connections they make.
For instance, cats are extremely smart about anything they care about. They will learn from one occurence anything about some tasty food or something they fear or something they love. They seem a lot less aware than humans, in many cases, mainly because we care about different things.
They are exceedingly playful, but in a cat way and not a "monkey" way, as humans are playful. That is, our playfulness overlaps some but not entirely. They have a keen sense of their own dignity, but are very benevolent in overlooking the fact that we act in such an undignified manner so often. They have no sense of humor whatsoever, but again, they're very patient with ours, politely ignoring our unseemly behavior when we laugh or cut up.
Most cats treat their humans very well. Occasionally you get some who don't understand that affection is a better trainer than claw-pricks, and those you have to train in the proper techniques of training you.
Like the Little Prince's fox said, "You are responsible for everything you tame". My cats and I take good care of each other.
The more I know cats, the more internal life I see that they actually have. This is true for birds, chipmunks, squirrels, possums, racoons, and dogs as well. That's why I believe the "ramen, varelse, framling" distinction is one that we make in our own brains, primarily. That is, it changes more with OUR changing experience of other creatures including humans, than it does from the differences inherent in the species themselves.
It's interesting to me that humans typically don't eat their companion species. We don't eat cats, dogs, or horses here in the west because we keep close association with them, and so we tend to see them more as people. I believe if we associated closely on a personal level with pigs, cows, and chickens, that we would feel the same way about them, that they are simply not food animals.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
There's the story of an anglo father selling his daughter's Shetland Pony to a Tongan father, for the Tongan son's birthday. The Tongan father then promptly bashed the pony over the head and threw its corpse in the bed of his pickup, to be barbequed for his son's birthday party feast. To the utter horror of the anglo family.
Why was this seen as horrible? Examine that situation closely and tell me what conclusions you draw from it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Animals, apart from the very intelligent like apes and whales, simply don't have a lot of complex thought processes going on. Cats do what they do, but I think it's a stretch to say that they overlook our undignified acts. Dignity and humor are things we might attribute to a cat. Cats don't tell each other jokes.
Be that as it may, I am still trying to analyze why it bothers me so much that anyone would save a cat or other animal over a person. I don't know if it's survival instinct, morality, common sense, or something else within me that is telling me that it's absolutely wrong. I'll have to think about it a little more, but I'm still kind of horrified.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Mighty Cow, upon what do you base your assurance about what is going on in a cat's subjective experience? Are you a cat, perhaps?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm horrified too, because you are so sure based on no evidence that animals don't have much in the way of subjective experiences. That idea leads to the idea that it's perfectly okay for us to take no thought of their fear, pain, suffering, etc. and to treat them as industrial machinery. This idea is, in my view, perhaps the most evil mistake that our species routinely makes, and will lead (due to environmental degradation and the rape of the earth) to our extinction if it's not corrected. Our lives depend on our symbiotic species. If we don't treat them well, it will definitely have a direct effect on our own well-being. (I mention that fact to get you to give it some more thought. If not for moral reasons then for self-interest, we have to learn better.) Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Mighty Cow, upon what do you base your assurance about what is going on in a cat's subjective experience? Are you a cat, perhaps?
Conversely, one could ask how you know that you aren't anthropomorphizing feline behaviour? After all, you're not a cat either, no matter how much time you spend observing them.
Funny trivia: Did you know that if you were to drop dead for any reason your cats would simply eat you like you're any old piece of meat? Dogs, at least, won't eat their master until they're near starvation. I actually like cats more than dogs, but I enjoy telling that fact to cat owners. Many refuse to believe it. I learned about it in a forensics class.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I agree with MightyCow. Animals don't have the same higher level brain functions that we do. That does NOT mean that I think it's okay for them to be made to suffer wantonly though. They do feel pain and fear, and no creature should be subjected to such feelings without good reason. I'm not certain what Tatiana means when she refers to "internal life", but I don't see how any rational person can assign it the same value in a cat and a human.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
It doesn't bother me if my cats would eat my body, if they rightly conclude that I no longer need it. Particularly if they are hungry and need food.
neo-dragon, you're making exactly the point I intended to make, that it's not possible to know with absolute certainty what the internal life of another creature is like. I do think that by close association and sympathetic observation, we come to know them as closely as it's possible to know them. As for "anthromorphizing", I've only heard that said by people who aren't animal people. We have no need to *make* them humanlike. They ARE humanlike, just as we're catlike, because we are both mammals and are close cousins. (Perhaps about 60 million years ago, our common ancestors lived on earth. That's not very long in paleontological terms, or geologic terms. We are alike because we are kin. There's no need for any psychological games to *make* it seem true to us. It seems true because it *is* true.) Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I love dogs, and I think most animals are pretty cool. I seriously considered becoming a vet for a while in college. It's not that I don't appreciate or care for animals. I've lived with them, studied them, and eaten them most of my life.
I simply regard the life of a person over the life of an animal. If given the choice, in a life or death situation, I would save a person over an animal. If one of my pets and a person I didn't know were drowning at opposite ends of a lake, and I had only one boat, I would go after the person, as much as it would pain me to lose my pet.
Posted by Karmen (Member # 9666) on :
We had this horrible infestation of mice at my house; we hold the record with Treminix for the worst case they've ever dealt with. We had about five hundred mice in our basement before we realized it. We never went down there, so when we started cleaning it out the mice freaked and invaded the upstairs. When the guy came to investigate a mouse had just ran up my sister and was on her head. The guy walks in and asks what the problem is and she's spinning in circles screaming "get it off me!". Was hilarious.
While logically I know that we needed to quickly dispense of the mice cause our pets kept playing with them, I was trying desperatly to convince my parents to do so in a humane way. They appeared to aquience, buying several catch and release traps that I personally emptied a mile from the house. But I knew their dirty secret; I found the traps laid with rodenticide. They never found the tortured looking mice in the crawl space. Gives me nightmares.
Silly adults, I was doing a good job of saving the mice, I got at least 20 away from the cats and dogs and another 30 from the traps. If they were patient they wouldn't have commited mousicide.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Mighty Cow, for me it would be a complicated equation that I can't know ahead of time. I value the lives of my family members (my cats) very highly. I would try to save everyone, but given a split second to choose, I would probably save my own children (my cats) first, then go back for the people who are someone else's responsibility. My children are clearly mine, probably the most important responsibility I have here on Earth. If I fail in that, how can I ask for a husband and human children of my own to look after?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Karmen, I'm so sorry about the mice. It is painful to me too. You're not crazy, or alone, in these feelings.
I've had people try to bully me into killing animals who are sick. I've had people tell me that I'm insane for spending thousands to try to heal a wounded kitten. According to their logic, I should kill the wounded kitten and get a healthy one from the pound. They do not view kittens as individual beings with their own personalities and internal lives. They think kittens are fungible, like suitcases or half-gallons of milk. Toss one out and get a fresh one. That seems sick to me and twisted and horrible. Yet I do not try to force them to conduct their activities according to my views. I just reserve the right to so conduct my own, and know that it's not crazy at all, that it's (on the contrary) the only sane and true way to treat our fellow beings.
I only use persuasion. Mainly, I validate fellow animal people who feel just as I do, but who have been brainwashed by others into thinking it's silly sentiment, and that they are anthropomorphizing. I think we animal people should join together and articulate our views.
I'm convinced that the ones who would tell us we are crazy are the same sort of people who argued in the end of the 19th century that women are not sentient beings with thier own mental processes like men, and should under no circumstances get the vote. They're also the ones who, in the middle of the 19th century, thought abolitionists were silly idealists with no real concept of how life works. I remember reading, too, from the 18th century and before, that Native Americans don't feel pain as Europeans do, which is why they are so brave and stoical when burned at the stake. Not to worry about that being inhumane, in other words, because they can't feel as we do, and don't have any real internal life the way a civilized European has.
Science teaches me that my nervous system, limbic system, and pain circuits work exactly the way those of other mammals work. Science teaches me that those other creatures are my close kin. I am in a position of power over them, at the moment. So I try to treat them as I would want to be treated by a species that had power over me. That's all. It's pretty simple.
[ September 02, 2006, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Also, one of the people in my life who has tried many times to persuade me to kill my animals, and who feels no compunction about killing his for his convenience, is also a Peter. That is, he is abusive to the humans into whom he comes in close contact, as well. (I understand Peter has been rehabilitated a lot in the Shadow series, so think Peter from the original Ender's Game, here.) That's another reason I fail to be persuaded by their logic, I suppose. I would *not* want to be one of his animals, nor one of his children.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Mighty Cow, for me it would be a complicated equation that I can't know ahead of time. I value the lives of my family members (my cats) very highly. I would try to save everyone, but given a split second to choose, I would probably save my own children (my cats) first, then go back for the people who are someone else's responsibility. My children are clearly mine, probably the most important responsibility I have here on Earth. If I fail in that, how can I ask for a husband and human children of my own to look after?
I suppose that is where we disagree. I say that protecting human life is everyone's responsibility over that of protecting any animal, be it wild or a pet. I can't say that I would think too highly of the person who made a split second decision to save his or her cat over a child. That's the person who I wouldn't trust to have their own human family to look after.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
That is sad.
Here's another scenario. Last year in the aftermath of Katrina, they tried to get people to evacuate without taking their animals. Would you have stayed with your animal? Or left them to fend for themselves, and probably die, without you?
I guess I feel that anyone who would leave them should not have an animal. I can't stop them from having animals, but I really think they oughtn't to get them. It would make me question, too, whether they should have any vulnerable living creature under their care. I doubt I would want to leave my kids for them to babysit, for instance. Maybe, in a pinch, they would save their own children and leave mine to die. Who knows? I certainly wouldn't want to marry someone who felt that way.
I'm not saying this to be rude, but just to make it clear that the situation with respect to mutual trust between us is fully reciprocal. Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
I just really can't grasp this concept, Tatiana. Human children and animal children are both cute, cuddly, loving, and may be part of a family but they are not the same. I can't imagine that God has placed you on this earth to take care of animals because the other humans all have other people to be responsible for them. That's a nice thought but...
I admit, when I was a kid I had this recurring feeling that some night we were going to have a big house fire and that I would have to grab someone and stagger out. Then the firemen would prevent me from going back in. Would I pick my brother or my parakeet first? I prayed about it a lot. I dreamed about it, even. Eventually I had to admit that saving my brother would be more important. Also, that an almost suicidal mission to save an animal is not allowed whereas a similar mission to save a human being would be.
I also have to admit that if I were stuck in a house in Katrina with my animal, I'd probably choose to stay if it were up to me. However, my refusal to leave might put other humans at risk. If that appeared to be the case, I'd morally be obligated to leave. Furthermore, as a physician I would feel I HAD to leave, if they needed my services. Which they would have, unless I were too sick by then. I'd have to help humans over animals. No matter how much it hurts.
Come to think of it, if I were stuck in a Katrina house without food or water in 100 degrees heat, I don't know that my being there would save the animal. We'd perish together. That might be my choice and it might not but I don't think you can expect anyone besides yourself to choose that death.
I think we ALL have responsibility for human life AND for humane treatment for animals, but those responsibilities aren't on the same level because the human lives have to come first.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Tatiana, if you had four cats and one human child of your own, would you value them all equally?
Edit: I thought of another question. If you and your cats were in a burning building, would you ask the firemen to rescue your cats first, and come back for you later? Assuming that you're all equally trapped and equally unable to help yourselves. Would you allow yourself to be horribly burned and disfigured to save your cats?
[ September 03, 2006, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: MightyCow ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tatiana I really think you are missing an important point when it comes to this whole discussion.
Most human beings can respect animals as a fellow "Sentient" being. Meaning they can feel pain and pleasure and their goal like ours is to limit pain and increase pleasure. Break a cat's leg, it feels the pain just as surely as any of us. We can empathize with that, many of us feel for the cat in that situation. Obviously some people feel that the responsibility for preventing pain and suffering and promoting pleasure and happiness is the responsibility of every human being. That every "Sentient" creature deserves equal treatment. Some people take this view to such extremes that they refuse to eat anything that came from an animal or in some cases any animal products (milk, butter, cheese, chicken broth), since animals are at best inconvenienced for these commodities and at worst treated in a horrible manner.
Of course there are those who are on the opposite end of the spectrum and care little for the suffering of others if it means limiting their own pleasure. These people care little for other human beings much less animals.
We often "Dehumanize" those who we want to feel better about hating, harming, molesting. We feel that if they are some how beneath us we are justified in not treating them as we would be treated.
Animals are sentient like us, it is true, and so for many that gives them the right to not be maltreated. What "Maltreatment" entails clearly is a point of debate, as this thread demonstrates.
What some of us see as your flaw is that not only do you give animals equal footing by virtue of the sentient nature, but you also go as far as to close the gap between the inteligence and self awareness of animals in comparison to human beings.
Correct me if I am wrong but it appears that you believe human beings are just another animal, not more inteligent enough to deserve special treatment and just as sentient, therefore no more important than any animal.
Animals are not less inteligent, they simply do things their own way, and human beings do ours. Their (animals) seemingly less inteligent nature is purely a perception issue that is our (humans) fault.
There seems like there is a paradox in your thinking considering your statement that you are more qualified to save a mouse than a human being. It feels like you are saying human beings are more complex and therefore more difficult to save then say a kitten. Because a kitten so willingly puts itself into your care that its easier to save.
The natural response of many of the people in this forum is to try to setup situations where a human being and a kitten have equal chance for survival but only one could be saved, who then would you save. They are trying to establish that you in fact consider the lives of animals to be more valuable than a human being. Pushing you into admitting such a position (one that is definately in the minority) leaves you in a much more difficult to defend position.
If I am incorrect in any of my assertions concerning your opinion PLEASE let me know.
IN SHORT: Being sentient makes animals MORE qualified to receive fair treatment than say perhaps a tree. Trees are just as alive as we are but cannot feel pain (as far as science has been able to prove, most are confident plants cannot). But most people are not willing to give animals equal credit for Inteligence, Self Awareness, or even codes of Ethics. Therefor they do not have the same rights as other human beings, just like a child does not carry the same worth as an adult.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: That is sad.
Here's another scenario. Last year in the aftermath of Katrina, they tried to get people to evacuate without taking their animals. Would you have stayed with your animal? Or left them to fend for themselves, and probably die, without you?
I guess I feel that anyone who would leave them should not have an animal. I can't stop them from having animals, but I really think they oughtn't to get them. It would make me question, too, whether they should have any vulnerable living creature under their care. I doubt I would want to leave my kids for them to babysit, for instance. Maybe, in a pinch, they would save their own children and leave mine to die. Who knows? I certainly wouldn't want to marry someone who felt that way.
I'm not saying this to be rude, but just to make it clear that the situation with respect to mutual trust between us is fully reciprocal.
It would make me sad but I'd leave the animal(s). There's simply not a scenario where I will choose the life of an animal over that of a human. Okay, maybe if the human in question was a convicted child molester or serial killer or something, but that's a whole different issue. For the good of myself and my family I couldn't stay.
As for the babysitting thing, I fully expect that most people will save their own kids over anyone else's if they have to make a choice. That's actually quite understandable. Honestly, who are you going to look in the face and say, "you should have let your son die and saved mine instead"? What would you say to someone who said that to you? There's only so much altruism you can ask of people. No offense, but I'm far more troubled by the idea that you might save your cats instead of my (hypothetical) children in a pinch.
Let's face it, everyone has an order or priorities in an emergency. For me (and I think most people) that order would be: 1) My own kids/loved ones. (I don't have actually have kids, but someday...) 2) Other people in my care. 3) Myself. 4) Other people who are not in my care. 5) Animals in my care. 6) Other animals that are not in my care. 7) Possessions.
The only acceptable variation in my opinion is that in the moment of truth some people might put themselves higher on the list, but I can't judge them since none of us really knows how brave we will be until our lives are actually in danger.
Like I said, I don't have children, so I can only guess what it feels like to be a parent, but I suspect that if/when you ever have children you'll understand how much more you care about them than a pet.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm sorry but you all are mistaken.
If you had two children, and one was handicapped and the other was not, which would you save from the burning building?
Understand that I believe all such questions to be false dichotomies. Also understand that none of us is competent to judge the rights and wrongs of the others' choices. I have very strong feelings that the only moral thing to do is what I would do, and it seems that some of you have very strong feelings that are the opposite of that. Realize that we both are put in charge of deciding our own actions, but not those of others.
You are not bringing any rational arguments against my point of view. You're just saying "no, you're wrong". This comes from your feelings, just as my view comes from my feelings, but I think your feelings could stand to be expanded and enlightened. Similar to those of the people in history I mentioned relative to the abolition of slavery, the sentience of women, and the ability of Native Americans to feel pain. I believe you are being similarly blind to the limits of "us-ness" as those people in history, who (you will notice) held the solid majority view for long periods of time. In other words, just because most people agree with you does not mean you are right.
Starways Congress feels completely justified in their genocide of the piggies, and I feel sure you would agree with Starways Congress that no piggy is worth risking the life of a human. They may be cute and all, but they're not us.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm convinced that the ones who would tell us we are crazy are the same sort of people who argued in the end of the 19th century that women are not sentient beings with thier own mental processes like men, and should under no circumstances get the vote.
I'm wondering how you'd react if I were to post this sentence, with "ones who would tell us we are crazy" (or, say, ignorant of biology) referring to those who oppose granting the protection of the law to fertilized human eggs.
quote:I feel sure you would agree with Starways Congress that no piggy is worth risking the life of a human.
Speaking of false dichotomies, you seem to enjoy making them. There's nothing to suggest that people who don't think animals and people have equivalent moral standing and worth are incapable of distinguishing sentient and non-sentient life (or animal and hnau, to use Lewis's distinction, or ramen and animal to use Card's).
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote: Here's another scenario. Last year in the aftermath of Katrina, they tried to get people to evacuate without taking their animals. Would you have stayed with your animal? Or left them to fend for themselves, and probably die, without you?
If my only responsibility was me and my animals, I undoubtedly would have stayed. Suppose I had a child with me, though - there is no way I would ever consider staying behind and putting that child at risk for the sake of my pets.
I love my animals very much, much more than I love most people and even a few of my family members, but human life is intrinsically more valuable than that of an animal, and I would never place the life of an animal above the life of my child. My boyfriend and I have had this discussion before, since we both have dogs that have shown wariness around children. My boyfriend loves his dog immensely, his life revolves around that dog, he even has his name tattooed on his stomach. But he says, and I completely agree, that if his dog ever bit his child, that dog would be dead in a matter of minutes. It doesn't matter how much you care for your animals, or how much you love them, the fact remains that human life should be prioritized over that of an animal.
I just don't understand how any human being can consider saving the life of an animal over another human being (unless, as previously mentioned, the human in question happens to be a truly evil, scum-of-the-earth person - but in some cases, how would you know?)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Please, enough with the animals as slaves analogies. I think it's insulting to the people who have actually gone through hardships to equate their suffering with that of a food animal being eaten or a pet being misunderstood.
Here is one unique distinction. When a person is harmed, that pain touches everyone around him. We're still talking about the effects of slavery, still feeling the effects of it, all these years later.
Cows around the world don't discuss the horrible crimes of people eating them. Cats don't protest living with humans because an owner didn't respect the cat's dignity.
Even if you want to insist that animals have a complex and meaningful internal life, it seems obvious that the internal life of humans is orders of magnitude more full, rich, and valuable.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: Funny trivia: Did you know that if you were to drop dead for any reason your cats would simply eat you like you're any old piece of meat? Dogs, at least, won't eat their master until they're near starvation. I actually like cats more than dogs, but I enjoy telling that fact to cat owners. Many refuse to believe it. I learned about it in a forensics class.
I'm not sure it's that simple, neo-dragon. I've seen this distinction between cat and dog behavior debunked at several places (e.g., a CityPages interview with the medical examiner of Minneapolis), though I haven't seen the topic come up at Snopes yet. Might be an interesting thing for them to look into.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana:
Starways Congress feels completely justified in their genocide of the piggies, and I feel sure you would agree with Starways Congress that no piggy is worth risking the life of a human. They may be cute and all, but they're not us.
I'm afraid that you've misunderstood my position, and probably that of others here as well. Piggies are self-aware and capable of higher order reason and thought. That puts them pretty much on the same level as humans in terms of the value of their lives.
If you want rational and practical arguments for choosing a human life over an animal life I can think of at least one. It boils down to the potential of that life. No animal has the potential to become a doctor who save lives, or a teacher who educates our youth, or a writer who writes a masterpiece, or a diplomat who stops a war. etc. Similarly, I don't believe that any animal is capable of having hopes, dreams, or ambition beyond survival necessities like food and mating. No animal aspires to make the world a better place. Sure, most humans may never make a huge positive impact on the world at large, but we all have the potential to. Any creature that is capable of thought and long term planning has a far greater potential to contribute to this world than any animal ever could. That alone makes our lives more valuable from a purely practical standpoint.
That's part of the reason why I am so troubled by this mental image of a person choosing to save a cat rather than a child from a burning building. It's completely disregarding the potential of a human life in favour of a creature that is incapable of accomplishing more than being cute and pooping in a box. What possible justification is there for that? When a person dies before their time we grieve not only because we miss that person, but because of the experiences that they never got to have, and the goals that they never got to achieve. "Poor Johny never got to fall in love, take his first born son to a baseball game, or finish writing that book he was working on..." What do you say when a pet dies beyond stating what you're going to miss about it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Its pretty dismissive Tatiana to simply say everyone who is arguing against you speaks only from emotion. I had a wonderful dog in Malaysia and she loved our huge yard and swimming pool.
She would rush to her gate to wait for me come home from school every single day, and SOMETIMES she would sleep through it, so I would try to get as close to the gate as I could without waking her up and then call for her. I had a special whistle that I only used to call her.
One day my dad was given a transfer and our whole family had to move from Malaysia to Hong Kong. We looked into animal quarintine law and they had VERY dated laws still on the books in Hong Kong. The rundown was that my beautiful dog would have to languish in a cage for 3 months before she could be cleared to leave the shelter and live at our house. The idea of taking my dog out of our huge yard and putting her in a cage without any contact from us for 3 months would have been intensily cruel.
So we did the only thing we could think to do. We found another wonderful family with children who were looking for a dog and we gave her to them. I to this day have no idea how Pepper took that move, but we called once in awhile and the family assured us Pepper was doing just fine and loved playing with their children.
Was it cruel of us to simply give up our dog? I think it would have been far worse to lock her up for 3 months.
So Tatiana don't assume that everyone who is initially shocked by your belief that there are scenarios where humans are not worth an animals life that we all think with our feelings and do not use rationality as our basis.
I would have greatly appreciated if you had addressed my points specifically, but apparently you feel I was just blurbing out my emoitions and I was not worth addressing.
I am sorry you got the vibe.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote: It's completely disregarding the potential of a human life in favour of a creature that is incapable of accomplishing more than being cute and pooping in a box.
Although I've already stated my opinion that I believe human life should always come before an animal, I think your above statement is very unfair and inaccurate. Many people have no human family and their animals are the world to them. A cat might not be able to write a novel or cure cancer, but it could certainly bring joy and love to a lonely person's life, which is a lot more of an accomplishment than many people can claim.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Fair enough. I'm not saying that pets are worthless, but humans can do that too, and a whole lot more! And isn't it saying something about the inherent value of each creature's life when perhaps the highest purpose an animal can serve is to enhance the quality of a human's life?
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Black Blade, I hold animals to be people, and I try to act morally toward them. I try to treat them as I would want to be treated by a large creature of another species who had me in its power.
If a large creature of another species had me in its power, I'd want more than anything else to be released.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
As soon as I read your post I knew that's what the link was going to be. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
They eat well, they just like the hunt.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Storm![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)