Fuck PETA: Shoot the damn fish already!
Feel free to stalk our every post with the f*cking c*nts RSS feed, subscribe to f-ckingc-nts.com by email, follow our new posts and random comments on Twitter, or become a fan on facebook. Go on. You know you want to! All the cool kids are doing it ...
So the intrepid lunatics at Mythbusters did an episode testing clichés and catchphrases (including the surprising discovery that elephants, or at least the elephant they were using, actually don't like mice). It is, apparently, perfectly OK to put a mouse in danger of being stomped, and an elephant at risk of being frightened … but later on, while diligently researching "shooting fish in a barrel", they resorted to putting a little motor inside a fish carcass, to appease the animal-rights crowd.
For fuck's sake.
Since when is killing fish on cable TV against the rules?! I've watched "outdoor" shows all about fishing. One fish after the next getting hauled out of the water and dropped on the deck of a boat … to die. I've watched shows where birds and quadrupeds get shot … and before you get the wrong idea, I must say I'm not actually a fan of hunting/fishing shows, but I have been in the homes of people who were watching them, so I ended up watching by default. It's like watching golf, for sadists.
Anyhow, let's just get real for a minute, shall we? I assume the hunting shows couldn't give a flying fuck what PETA et al. think about anything. So yeah, they're just going to keep shooting birds and catching fish. Yee-fucking-HA! And Mythbusters, being modern, sensitive souls, or some such horseshit, really just don't want to piss anyone off, hence Franken-fishie. Seriously, the fish dies either way. Please explain how suffocating a fish (which is what happens when you pull them out of the water, before they're gutted and wrapped around a submersible motor) is any more humane than shooting one?!
We're talking about offending the same sort of people who go "liberate" caged mink, so the poor fucking things can starve to death in the wild, because they've been bred and raised in captivity for so long they haven't got the vaguest idea how that whole 'hunting' thing works. They've been known to "liberate" beef cattle from stockyards, so the cattle can wander aimlessly onto a nearby highway and be hit by semi trucks.
Animal rights extremists remind me of anti-abortion extremists … the pro-life crowd talks a whole hell of a lot about the sanctity of unborn human life, and on and on, but they don't seem to give a fuck about the pregnant woman's quality of life, and they don't have much to say about Christian Scientists and other faith-healing sects allowing children to die from lack of medical care. All about the lives of embryos and fetuses, to hell with living women and children. PETA? Oh, they talk about the inhumanity of factory farming operations (true, true), and the cruel pointlessness of animal testing (I'll give you that one, for the most part), and generally make themselves out to be some kind of Humane Society with balls …
… but animal rights extremist cunts (much like the anti-abortion cunts who don't even want to allow legal exemptions to save the health or life of the mother) certainly don't want to stop there. You're apparently also not supposed to ever tie your dog up on a chain or rope, or keep them in a kennel. Don't let your cat out of the house, but don't keep your bird in a cage … because birds need the freedom to fly, but cats kill things when they're outdoors, so they don't get to indulge their natural instinct to hunt. No more zoos, no matter how well they care for their animals. I even found a website proposing that genetic engineering and nanotechnology be utilized to eliminate predatory, violent behavior in wild animals, so fluffy bunnies don't have to live in fear of wolves and other predators.
Look, I don't like the idea of a dog being kept on a chain 24/7, but my dog ended up in a wolf snare for 5 days over Christmas, because she ran off from my friend's unfenced yard … I think putting her on the dog rope in front of his house for the evening would have been preferable, don't you? Dogs with behavioral problems (like eating non-food objects) are much safer kept in a kennel while their owner isn't home. Captive breeding programs are the best hope for certain species' survival … and I really have no words for nanotech guy. Christ on a stick, man … we can hardly take care of the natural world, much less have any chance of engineering a little Beatrix Potter herbivore utopia.
I'm all in favor of improving conditions in commercial meat facilities. I'm all in favor of flat outlawing most laboratory animal experiments (Let's start by summarily banning the testing of any and all cosmetic and personal hygiene products … can't live without your mascara and hair spray? Suck it up, and take the fucking risk of getting a rash.). I'd love to see ear cropping and tail docking banned by the AKC. And while I, unlike PETA, don't have a problem with responsible, professional pet breeders, all my pets are adopted from private, no-kill shelters (something PETA also has a problem with). Hell, I don't think there's really any reason or excuse to wear fur, unless you live somewhere fucking cold enough to justify it (which I do … and I still don't wear fur). Leather, as a byproduct of meat production, I don't really have a problem with, outside my problems with industrial-scale meat production in-and-of-itself.
But shooting fish in a barrel?! Please. Just shoot the fucking fish already. Killing it, gutting it, and wrapping its carcass around a little electric motor really isn't any better.
You really should run for President, of the universe. You'd get my vote. :)
2nd April 2008 at 2:27 am | permalink |> Animal rights extremists remind me of anti-abortion extremists
Good observation.
I would add that preaching "don't eat meat 'cus it's not natural" sounds rather like accusing meat eaters of being gay… GOD FORBID.
2nd April 2008 at 3:04 am | permalink |Hahaha, I love the Mythbuster guys, but that is pretty fucking silly. And while I'm certainly in favor of reasonable treatment of animals, PETA would be better off if it really were People Eating Tasty Animals. Seriously, humans have been omnivores for what? Oh, only a couple million years (okay, not modern humans, but our ancestors were).
WTF is up with the Hedonistic Imparative?!?! Sounds like some shit James T Kirk would have run into on a distant planet. Some group of stupid fucks who decided that the natural order of things was… just too cruel and natural. Can you say, 'Stop evolution, I want to get off!'
2nd April 2008 at 7:23 am | permalink |@alphabitch: Right on. What did they find anyway? Is shooting fish in a barrel easy?
Also, on anti-abortion extremists and why they are ridiculous… I'm currently reading "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. Check it out. Basically, it's a secular humanist's response to Christianity. Love it so far.
2nd April 2008 at 7:32 am | permalink |"I even found a website proposing that genetic engineering and nanotechnology be utilized to eliminate predatory, violent behavior in wild animals"
Oooh, that's wonderful! I'd love to use it on some wild, uh, animals (……of a sort) I had the unfortunate opportunity to make a personal acquaintance with.
"But shooting fish in a barrel?! Please. Just shoot the fucking fish already."
Nah. That's too easy! Almost like…… shooting fish in a barrel, you might say.
2nd April 2008 at 7:54 am | permalink |"I even found a website proposing that genetic engineering and nanotechnology be utilized to eliminate predatory, violent behavior in wild animals"
Quite possibly the most fucking ignorant thing I have heard. They want to change the nature of the beast. These predators help keep balance in nature. Their bodies are specifically designed to operate in such a way. Just like over zealous vegetarians fail to realize humans are meant to be omnivores. We are designed to eat meat. Talk about a great example of fucking cunts.
2nd April 2008 at 9:08 am | permalink |PETA does do some good things. However they also take a whole lot of other shit to extremes they don't need to be taken too.
Does it matter if the fish is shot? No. Hell electrocute the damn thing for all I care. If your selecting that one out to be killed as long as your not making it suffer who the fuck cares how you kill it.
I will tell you right now when I catch me a cat fish I nail its fucking head in a stump. I am sure PETA would love that one. But I am going to the kill it and eat it. Would it be nicer to let it suffocate? Starve?
People don't think about things from a lot of perspectives I think. They see it how they want to see it and stop there.
Also my thought is , all extremists are ridiculous and crazy. Not just Christian ones, hell not just religious ones. Religion does not make the man. We are made how we are and try to find ways to justify it. ITs simple in my mind at least. A very high percentage of people are simply crazy. No matter what religion they are they were going to do something crazy anyways. *shrug*.
2nd April 2008 at 9:30 am | permalink |I had quite a long comment written up, but honestly it all comes down to one key point: Seeing life as a gift (and implicitly, viewing it as something holy - wether you're religious or not).
That's the problem with all of it. People viewing life as a gift. Life doesn't even know what it's doing, and nature is inherently insane.
The moment a person stops viewing life as a gift, a lot changes in their dialectics.
Imo, anyway.
2nd April 2008 at 10:42 am | permalink |PETA apparently operates KILL shelters (((GASP)))
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2008/03/people-euthanizing-thousands-of-animals.html
2nd April 2008 at 11:44 am | permalink |@JS: "You really should run for President, of the universe." Eeww. I'd much rather be a valued advisor. I don't want to be president of anything. ;-) (I'm sure more than a few people are thinking, "Oh, thank god!" lol)
@anne: "preaching "don't eat meat 'cus it's not natural" sounds rather like accusing meat eaters of being gay… GOD FORBID." I hadn't heard "it's not natural" to eat meat, but I love, "don't eat meat because it's mean," spoken by people wearing leather shoes. ;-) Nanotech dude is the only person I've heard who can get away with that argument. Even most vegans support maintaining nature in it's untouched, heartless-as-fuck, natural state.
@Eric: "an you say, 'Stop evolution, I want to get off!'" Yep, I think that's exactly what he's saying … without a touch of irony. Mindboggling, no?
@stellarmouse: "What did they find anyway? Is shooting fish in a barrel easy?" It was confirmed … if only for the fact that the shockwave from the bullet would probably kill any live fish whether you hit them or not.
Heard of the Harris book. Highly recommended all the way around. :-)
@Baal Devarim: I don't think the nanotech is quite ready for prime-time yet. hehe
@Jim - Just a Guy: "These predators help keep balance in nature." I'm assuming he'd also be engineering the prey animals to not reproduce so quickly, once all the predators were hanging out beside them munching the grass too … or something. hehe
@raven: "PETA does do some good things." Yeah, they do. I agree with them on a number of points, actually. But then they take the good things and jump right off the cliffs of idiocy with 'em.
"Also my thought is , all extremists are ridiculous and crazy." I couldn't agree more! :-)
@Zef: "… viewing life as a gift. Life doesn't even know what it's doing, and nature is inherently insane." That's an interesting way of looking at it … I hadn't thought of things like that. :-)
@grandpa Mccain: "PETA apparently operates KILL shelters (((GASP)))" And I do agree with that policy. No kill shelters, even when run really conscientiously, end up with a lot of old, sick, suffering animals that really would be better off being put down. So PETA puts those animals down. Good for them.
2nd April 2008 at 3:04 pm | permalink |Suspect it comes down to a general rule - the guidelines for treating animals humanely probably have something to say about capturing any animals, putting them in close proximity, then picking them off one by one. Think about doing that to, say, dogs in a cage, and you've got an equivalent, if scaled-up, problem. So, the guideline is applied, and dropping fish into a tank and shooting them is forbidden. Could also be that there's rules against killing captive animals in a pre-meditated way on telly, maybe even in a certain timeslot - distressing to viewers stuff. Don't know, and don't trust mythbusters to not play into their target market's assumed prejudices with the comment.
I'm not sure it justifies a rant against PETA - as you've said, they do a lot of good things, and I tend to think the extremists serve a purpose - it wasn't so long ago Vegetarians were looked at as weird, now they're much more mainstream because people's attitudes change when they're faced with opposing views.
From what you've said, most of what PETA et al does, you agree with in principle. The fact that this one instance comes off weird is, I think, a reason to laugh at that one instance - not a good prompt to write an article that looks like a slam on the whole animal rights movement. I'm not even sure what PETA actually has to do with the humane animal rules for TV productions - do they police they?
Incidentally, I agree with you, if I'm reading your article right - the particular instance looks crazy given what people do to critters day in and day out anyway, and when you try to make things better you have to think damned carefully about the consequences of your actions. But I'm reading with my own slant on the article, so I'm hoping I'm getting that right ;) Personally, I'd rather they fail in the direction they have than in the other, but that's personal bias.
IMNSHO, YMMV, etc etc. Oh, and disclaimer: I'm vegan (but not American so nothing to do with PETA), FWIW, so probably fall into the "crazy" category for many of your readers.
2nd April 2008 at 4:18 pm | permalink |@kevin1: Well, fish farming (where the fish in question quite possibly came from) is all about having a lot of fish in close proximity, and then killing them (albeit en masse, rather than one by one). I've seen TV documentaries showing fish farms, so apparently that's not really against the rules.
I suppose, if I had to sum up my point regarding Mythbusters specifically, it would be: Either shoot the damn fish, or pick a different cliché to test.
And if I had to sum up my point to PETA, it would be: You're shooting yourself in the foot, because you're going way too far.
PETA is, IMO, the animal rights equivalent of the NRA. While I support some of their specific goals, their overall philosophy is way too far into extremist wingnut land for me. I'm against cruelty to animals, I'm for legal gun ownership, but I'll never be a member of either organization.
You are, in fact, reading my article right … in part. The other part, which you would most likely disagree with, as a vegan (assuming you're vegan for philosophical/moral reasons and not just health reasons), is that animals are not people, and while I don't support gratuitous cruelty towards them, but I don't think they need full human rights either.
2nd April 2008 at 4:46 pm | permalink |Thanks for the response. I tend to believe that people like the NRA or PETA exist so that people like you can sit at the spot you do. Your views on gun ownership are probably at odds with the general view here (.au), as we don't have an equivalent of the NRA. Likewise, if PETA didn't exist, you'd probably be one of the wingnuts for believing you _can_ be cruel to animals. I exaggerate slightly, but I'm sure you get what I mean. I also don't view most of PETA's views as extreme - overall, their impact is positive - their execution may be off sometimes, their followers may be a bit crazy sometimes, but an idea is not responsible for the quality of people who believe in it ;)
WRT cruelty versus full animal rights, my reasons for being vegan are that I don't believe we should treat animals as a "per-unit resource". We forget that they can feel pain, and we treat them as though they're here for our convenience - I think that cheapens them and us, so I choose (as much as possible) not to be involved. So I see farming in most of it's guises (particularly large-scale farming) as gratuitous cruelty. I'm not sure whether you view that as a wingnut extremist view or not (I'm using the phrase a lot because I like it ;). I reserve comment on "full human rights", as I'm not sure entirely what that would entail - but I'm not sure what you mean by "gratuitous" too, this whole area is a morass of grey.
WRT fish farms, I think there's an emotional difference between shooting fish in a barrel, and showing fish in a farm. You'll notice you _never_ see the inside of an abattoir on telly. That's not because what they do is cruel (our views likely differ there), but because it's emotionally upsetting to the viewers. A similar effect kicks in on shooting fish in a barrel versus showing farm animals, which we're conditioned to not think of as critters with feelings.
Anyway, the above is conjecture - as I say, I don't trust that mythbusters didn't play into the assumed prejudices of their viewers (that's in-style for that show, I think) with the throw-away line. I do agree it seems a crazy thing to draw the line at, but I'm not convinced it's up there with the crazies you've mentioned - I think it more likely it's just a policy applied in a funny way. I do kinda agree on "shoot it or pick something else", but I'd be plumping for picking something else ;)
Ta for the forum and the steady stream of sane posts ;)
KJL
2nd April 2008 at 5:12 pm | permalink |@kevinl: I think 'factory farming' is horrendous, and a lot of current practices therein ought to be banned. Keeping pigs and chickens in cages so small they can hardly move; processing cattle through slaughterhouses at such a high rate of speed they're not reliably stunned before being killed (it's rather telling that US slaughterhouses usually have to slow down the production line when processing animals for export, due to humane slaughter regulations in other countries)… nasty, rotten bullshit.
I buy eggs and meat from small local producers whenever I can, and buy free-range/grass-fed/etc., if available otherwise. I'm not utterly perfect on that count (I don't quiz restaurant owners on where they source their meat & eggs, for instance), but I do make an effort.
The 'human rights' thing, OTOH, is more along the lines of people who want to see an end to animal captivity and domestication altogether. One of which, if you dig far enough into their website, appears to be PETA: "we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed."
2nd April 2008 at 5:28 pm | permalink |Hrm.
Lemme wind this back for a sec. Your initial post used the example from mythbusters - which we both agree is a bit silly, but for slightly different reasons - as a path into having a go at PETA, lumping in a bunch of "crazies". I thought (and still do) that lumping them all together was a bit unfair.
Leaving that aside, one of your complaints about PETA is that they don't believe we should keep pets. I had this discussion recently with someone else, and it's a spot I'm mixed on.
Firstly, people keeping pets is an age-old practice, and we've successfully had symbiotic relationships with horses, dogs, cats, etc for longer than recorded history. No question, there's some gain there - or was, when we lived agrarian lives.
However: We've had a spate of fuckwits burning or otherwise mutilating cats here recently. We have three cats, all of the rescue cases (one cat a year at xmas) - one of whom was found with a kink in his tail and slight brain damage, we believe was abused by neighbourhood kids. The shelters in our area kill an average of 10 cats a day over the entire year - that's the ones that make it to the shelters. A friend of mine just got a kitten, because his neighbour was systematically breaking the necks of a litter and he rescued this one.
Faced with a lot of this stuff, and the incredibly low value we put on their lives, it's not hard to argue they'd be better off without us thinking they're so cute and fluffy. Humans don't make that good an ally, on balance - large portions of the population are just bad.
So I sympathise with PETA there - I'm not sure I support a call to stop pet ownership, but I certainly think penalties for animal abuse should be much harsher (and if you want to be human-centric about it, factor in that animal abuse is often an indicator of future human abuse, or at least a good sign the person in question is a fuckup). I also think we should value our pets more than the puppy and kitten farms do.
I'm not sure that that particular belief of theirs is sufficiently out there to be used as an example of them being one of the crazies. Your "Hedonistic Imperative" mob, yeah fine, they're nutters - they haven't thought through the implications of their ideas properly. But given my low opinion of humans as a group, I can't help but sympathise with people who believe we shouldn't put animals (or small children) into most of the population's care.
KJL
2nd April 2008 at 6:17 pm | permalink |@kevinl: Should animal abuse penalties be harsher? Definitely. Would animals be better off having never been domesticated? Hard to say … most animals we currently think of as "pets" (as well as the ones we think of as "food" fwiw) wouldn't even exist in the form we know them today, were it not for human intervention.
I also mentioned a few other bits and pieces from PETA's site above, as reasons I think they're a bit nuts.
Really, "some people mistreat pets, therefore no people should have pets," is poor logic. Some people can't handle alcohol responsibly, so should we ban alcohol? Some people drive dangerously, so would be therefore be better off without automobiles?
Taking a category of occasional human misbehavior and using it as a rationale for eradicating all circumstances potentially leading to that behavior is just not good policy, IMO. I think there are far more people who treat their companion animals well, than those who don't.
2nd April 2008 at 6:33 pm | permalink |Fair enough. We have 3 cats, 1 dog, 3 fish, 1 duck, 2 chickens and 3 quail, so I can't stand and say people shouldn't have pets. I agree that just because some people mis-use something isn't a good reason to ban it altogether. The problem I have is you've lumped PETA's policies (don't tie dogs up, don't let cats out, don't keep birds in cages, no zoos) with other, wilder ideas (nano-engineer suffering out of existence and the silly case on mythbusters). I'm not convinced PETA's responsible for either of those crazies, and I can see reasonable rational arguments for each of PETA's policies above - they're reactions to the current situation, and driven by a belief that we should either give critters a damned good life or get out of their way. I can sympathise with that, where I can't with the other, non-PETA cases you've grouped in with them.
KJL
2nd April 2008 at 7:02 pm | permalink |> I hadn't heard "it's not natural" to eat meat
That means you missed the massive food fight over at Scott Adam's blog… worth checking out as he's made a complete ass of himself.
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2008/03/natural-meat-ea.html
2nd April 2008 at 11:09 pm | permalink |The world is full of red herrings…
3rd April 2008 at 1:09 am | permalink |I would just like to say that I admire kevin1 for taking a firm stance on these issues. I'm not a vegetarian myself, but I do appreciate the moral implications my food habits make. I also strongly support harder punishements for animal cruelty at the same time as I support animal housing and people having pets. I believe a human and his/her animal can enrich each others life.
Another issue I would like to raise to your attention, as I have pondered it for some while, is the case of hobby-hunting. People dressing up in their camo-clothes and their rifle in hand, head out into the woods to shoot wild animals for the sport or fun of it. It almost makes me sick when I think of it. Please, don't misunderstand to think I abolish hunting altogether. Of course I don't. Animals hunt each other, it's the law of the jungle, and only natural. But hobby-hunters don't shoot deer because they are starving, they do it for the pleasure of killing a wild animal. They do it for fun. And it makes me ashamed of beeing the son of an active hobby-hunter.
3rd April 2008 at 1:22 am | permalink |@Almightybitch: "@JS: You really should run for President, of the universe.
3rd April 2008 at 1:42 am | permalink |Eeww. I'd much rather be a valued advisor. I don't want to be president of anything. ;-) (I'm sure more than a few people are thinking, "Oh, thank god!" lol)"
The whole point of it really is to get a lot of people shaking in their boots. What if, suddenly, one would have to take responsibility for ones actions?! What if one were not allowed to be a hypocrite?! What if one would have to have a longer thought path than ones nose?! What if it was the _law_ to have to give respect where respect is due.
I'm pretty sure your leadership would be more towards these issues than the current leaders of the major countries in the world. :)
Noticing issues like shooting a real, albeit already dead, fish in a barrel would make you perfect for the throne. ;)
But if you insist on being the adviser, maybe you can puppet me up there, just like the oil and war industry is puppeting that "person" that's doing the job for the US today.
SHIPOOPI! SHIPOOPI! Shooting fish is alright with me!
3rd April 2008 at 9:14 am | permalink |@kevinl: Fair enough, I didn't make a very clear distinction between PETA and the super-wackos in the post. :-)
@anne: Oh lord. I wish I hadn't read that. hehe. I like Dilbert.
@winchester: Trophy hunting makes me sick, honestly. I have no problem with people hunting for meat, even if they're not starving … but to hunt just for shits and giggles and having a head to hang on the wall? Fuck that.
@js: I definitely insist on just being the adviser. ;-) And I'm not sure I have the money or influence to get someone in to office, but once you're there, drop me an email!
@thomas p: *totally misses the reference* hehehe
3rd April 2008 at 2:46 pm | permalink |@alphabitch
Its from a song from family guy that he sang after scoring a touchdown. SHIPOOPI !!!!
3rd April 2008 at 3:54 pm | permalink |No. The guys on Mythbusters used that as an excuse to develop an animatronic fish. These are the types of guys that sit around and wonder, "Hey, I bet I could make a lifelike animatronic fish." And then they go make one. It works because they know shit the rest of us don't.
The mouse merely needed to take one for the team. Team Nerd. Team Awesome Nerd. Team Awesome Nerd that Makes Me Jealous because They Have the Coolest Fucking Jobs Ever Devised.
The greatest lesson I learned by watching Mythbusters: my decision to study liberal arts was wrong. Had I stuck to physics, I'd be blowing shit up for fun right now.
Instead, it's late, and I'm here with you, which, I might add, is a distant second… No offense.
3rd April 2008 at 8:14 pm | permalink |As for putting a dog on a chain or in a kennel, if you're going to do that it would be best to, if possible, take your dog on a good long walk first. At least 45 minutes. If that's not an option, get a doggie backpack (yes, that THEY wear) and load it with about 14% of their bodyweight and walk them for about 20 - 25 minutes.
It'll makes the whole thing a LOT easier for them. Personally we keep our dogs inside until we can find a place with a fenced in yard but if you ARE going to do the chain/kennel, walk 'em first.
Where am I getting this crap? Cesar Milan, the dog whisperer. Yes, everything he does on his show is real and it works. He's a goddamn dog genius.
4th April 2008 at 5:48 am | permalink |@b: "an excuse to make an animatronic fish" sounds a lot better to me. lol! And no, I'm not terribly offended that hanging around here is a distant runner up to blowing shit up for a living. ;-) I'd love to have their jobs too …
But maybe I'm not cut out for it, because I would have just shot a fish. heheh
@davidgx: I could run my dog behind a snowmachine until she was about to drop, and she'd still be a nervous wreck when I got her out of the kennel. hehe
But in the kennel, she's a nervous wreck, and that's it. Out of the kennel, she's STILL a nervous wreck, but the house is a wreck too. Little separation anxiety thing going on. heh
That's why she ends up sitting in my truck while I'm at work. Then she feels like she's doing a job, watching the truck and all. And she's totally happy at the end of the day. Weird animal.
4th April 2008 at 2:51 pm | permalink |i think the problem is, America, and all your f*cking political correctness. if the mythbusters had used a living f*cking fish, they would be sued from femicalifornia to the motherf*cking eastcoast. and i think the mythbusters themselves has little to say in these matters, the insurance compaies rules, don't y'all think?
4th April 2008 at 3:15 pm | permalink |@bill: I'd be inclined to think that, if it weren't for all the hunting and fishing shows on the air …
I think "just because we wanted an excuse to build an animatronic fish" is probably the most plausible idea so far. ;-)
4th April 2008 at 3:33 pm | permalink |agree, and that's why i love the mythbusters, use any f*cking excuse available, to build the doomsday nerd machine
4th April 2008 at 4:39 pm | permalink |he he
Hunting fishing
4th April 2008 at 5:19 pm | permalink |shows
on tv
how smart
human is
Damn one
not the other
kill some cod,
not the dolphin
@alphabitch
Try a dog backpack. Stuff like:
http://www.affordableagility.com/backpack.htm
or
http://stores.doggiesduffelbag.com/Categories.bok?category=Doggie+Back+Pack
or
http://www.altrec.com/pet-gear/dog-backpacks/
Or something like those. Load it with about 14% of your dogs weight. A good way to find that is to get on a scale, write down your weight, then pick up your dog (if it's not a behemoth @_@) and weigh yourself holding the dog. The difference is your dogs weight.
Strap them on, use a choke chain and walk your dog for at least 45 minutes in the morning. Come back, give it a big bowl of food and it should be set.
Another good idea would be to NOT pet your dog when it's nervous. Whatever state of mind your dog is in when you pet it, you encourage that when you give it affection. So only petting your dog when it's calm is the best thing for it.
That's enough from me maybe @_@
/endrant
4th April 2008 at 6:11 pm | permalink |@davidgx: I don't actually need to use a choke chain on her … She's been heeling off lead since about 3-4 months after I got her. And she weighs about 75# last she was at the vet, so I'd hate to have to pick her up. ;-)
Personally, I'm thinking she'll grow out of it … given that she's just 3yo, and Belgians are generally wound tighter than an 8 day clock until they're around 4. (As reported by other Belgian owners, and police who've trained and worked with them.)
And yes, I'm familiar with the I generally tell her to go settle down (ie: lay down on the other side of the room) when she gets really wound up.
4th April 2008 at 6:40 pm | permalink |As long as she stays beside or behind you on the walks then that's great, otherwise a choke chain might be a good idea. Most people recoil in horror when you suggest a choke chain, probably because of the name.
It's not supposed to choke them, you just put it on the top of their neck and give a quick tug (NOT to cause pain) and release if they get out of line. It's like a quick, light tuck on the collar of your shirt. It just breaks their concentration, that's all a choke chain is supposed to do.
I wouldn't wait for her to grow out of it either, I'd strap a backpack on her and take her for daily walks. That'll help a LOT, regardless of what breed she is. Put about 10 - 11 pounds in it. Use dumbells or pretty much anything that equals that amount.
I'd bet $$$ that you'll see an improvement.
4th April 2008 at 7:09 pm | permalink |@davidgx: I've been obedience training all my dogs for about 10 years. ;-) I know all about choke chains … that was one of the first things I bought when I got her. :-)
4th April 2008 at 8:41 pm | permalink |Awesome. After watching cesars show I sometimes tend to ramble on about this stuff because it's crazy.. You'll see on there stuff like "Well we went to three dog trainers and they all said to put our dog down because it's too violent and it's a pit bull and those are violent dogs and there's nothing you can do"
He comes in and in like 10 minutes the dog is doing better and you think "nah.. he's faking that, it's staged for TV. There's no way." And then YOU try it on your dogs.. and the shit works. You see this several times and the show goes "Don't try these techniques without consulting a profresional!" and you think "…WHAT professionals? All the professionals are telling people to euthanize dogs and this guy comes in and tells them exactly how to fix things. There ARE NO professionals, it's just this guy, that's it >_<"
But I've rambled enough.. I'm tired.. ZZZZzzZzzzZ….
5th April 2008 at 2:36 am | permalink |@davidgx: :-) I grew up around dogs of all kinds (mom was a breeder and groomer), and it never ceases to amaze me how many people just don't 'get' dogs at all. Funny you should mention pit bulls … I just got a teeny runt 9 week old pit bull puppy. ;-) She's sleeping in my lap right now.
(I'd love to see if he could cure my sister's new 9yo rescue dog of running away when you call him though. hehe)
5th April 2008 at 9:36 pm | permalink |P.E.T.A.
People for The Eating of Tasty Animals.
I find that instead of shooting fish, a quarter stick of dynamite is much more effective (in generally a 20 foot radius of entry)
@davidgx: whats with the inability to get past the backpacks. It's not the pack it's the job. All dogs need a Job. All dogs are made for outdoorsy romping.
@alphabitch: Just you wait, once she's 1.5 yrs we'll see whose dog wiggles more…why Gidget? Its just so WRONG!!!!
Cheers
P.S. PETA and the Humane Society wanted to destroy all of Mr. Vick's Dogs out of hand. Several Pit Rescues intervened and all but 2 of the dogs are happy family dogs.
5th April 2008 at 10:26 pm | permalink |Fuck PETA. Dont FUCK with what you dont understand.
@frozensiren: I'd assume, in a container as small as a barrel, a gunshot would have a similar effect to the dynamite. ;-)
A backpack, otoh, is perfect for someone who lives in a city where the dog can't run properly … I prefer the "chase the offroad vehicle" method, given that I have the room and access to the vehicles.
And as for Gidget, it's perfect. hehehe "Girl Midget" and spunky enough to surf instead of sunbathe … granted there's not much surfing or sunbathing going on up here, but it's the principle of the thing. ;-)
5th April 2008 at 11:05 pm | permalink |(… and she answers to Gidget too. ;-P )
5th April 2008 at 11:08 pm | permalink |@ frozensiren I only suggested the backpack if the dog was either really hyper or there wasn't enough time to give a proper walk. Dogs give the majority of their attention to one task at a time, so if it's using that to carry something, less likely it'll be doing all sorts of other bad behavior.
@ alphabitch
"(I'd love to see if he could cure my sister's new 9yo rescue dog of running away when you call him though. hehe)"
Her taking the dog on daily walks would help as far as trust goes. As far as just getting the dog to come to you, put a collar/chokechain on the dog and have her call it, once. If it doesn't come, she goes to the dog, gets it (grabs leash/chain) and brings it to where she was when she called it.
Eventually it'll learn that if you call the dog, it's going to come, one way or another. That's worked for me with one of our dogs. (I say "it" when referring to the dog just because I don't know the sex of it.)
7th April 2008 at 3:32 am | permalink |@davidgx: That's exactly what I did to train my dog (who I got as a 13 year old untrained holy terror) to come when she's called … I actually got a 50 foot super lightweight nylon line to attach to her collar, so she couldn't feel the weight of it, and could get well out of what she thought was "leash range". hehe
But yeah, Arthur … he came from a fucked up home where he was left on a chain and not fed. He's actually slowly getting over the running away thing … but the big trick is to not actually call him when you want him to come. Special case, that one.
7th April 2008 at 2:46 pm | permalink |