Python kills children in New Brunswick

[Boges]

BTW just doing a cursory Google search. I could only find one story saying that the investigation of the Python killing has switched to a murder investigation and it's not even from a Canadian source.

Not surprisingly, Reptile forums are picking up the story.

http://www.fox.com.au/fox-news-feed/2013/8/snake-deaths-now-a-murder-investigation/

[cybercoma]

Quick let's ban snakes.......and now people that kill children and make it look like a snake did it......

I caution again that we don't know the details of this murder investigation. It might be the case that they're investigating "negligence causing death" and calling it murder. It might not be that someone had criminal intent to murder the children and carried it out. It could be that they're calling it murder because the owner of the snake did not have it secured properly.

I'm not suggesting that this is actually the case. It is possible that someone murdered the kids and tried to cover it up instead. But just be aware that it is possible that the police are investigating it as a murder in the aforementioned manner.

[Bonam]

That's a really good point. Domesticated animals are different....they've been part of human lives for so long that it's actually part of their natures.

It is only part of their "nature" because it has been cruelly beaten into them over thousands and thousands of years to be submissive slaves to humans. Pet ownership is a perversion. People that keep dogs are giving their silent approval to millenia of enslavement and abuse of an entire species and its twisted modification for mere human pleasure.

[Boges]

It is only part of their "nature" because it has been cruelly beaten into them over thousands and thousands of years to be submissive slaves to humans. Pet ownership is a perversion. People that keep dogs are giving their silent approval to millenia of enslavement and abuse of an entire species and its twisted modification for mere human pleasure.

Archeology would indicate wolves first approached humans and the garbage they left out. The ones that weren't afraid of humans bred and comfort with humans became part of their instinct.

I would disagree with the argument that the creation of the dog is an example of "enslavement". It's a mutually beneficial partnership.

One could argue dogs get a far better deal out of the relationship, they're provided for while we as humans get a companion or an animal that gladly does a job that was bred into them.

Sure humans have done cruel things by breeding dogs that are genetically unsound or creating breeds that are appreciated for genetic mutation. But that doesn't mean dog ownership on the whole is a bad thing.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Boges

[bleeding heart]

It is only part of their "nature" because it has been cruelly beaten into them over thousands and thousands of years to be submissive slaves to humans. Pet ownership is a perversion. People that keep dogs are giving their silent approval to millenia of enslavement and abuse of an entire species and its twisted modification for mere human pleasure.

I'm afraid I don't quite share this view. I don't think it's totally, 100% without merit...but I think Boges answers it well.

[Guest American Woman]

From what I've read, no matter how hard man may try, for however many years, not all animals can be domesticated. Most evidently can't. Most are, and will always be, wild - which suggests "domesticated" animals were different from "wild" animals to begin with; that man didn't "cruelly beat" domestication into them.

Edited August 20, 2013 by American Woman

[Bonam]

Archeology would indicate wolves first approached humans and the garbage they left out.

Citation? Not that I find this unlikely, many animals in the wild go after human garbage, but is there any evidence that domestication was not a conscious effort and decision by humans?

I would disagree with the argument that the creation of the dog is an example of "enslavement". It's a mutually beneficial partnership.

One could argue dogs get a far better deal out of the relationship, they're provided for while we as humans get a companion or an animal that gladly does a job that was bred into them.

Why is this argument acceptable in this case and yet highly controversial if one points out that slaves transported from Africa sometimes ended up with better living conditions and were "provided for"? Their descendants certainly ended up much better off. Yet if you tried to pull the "mutual benefit" argument about slavery you'd probably get punched in the face...

Sure humans have done cruel things by breeding dogs that are genetically unsound or creating breeds that are appreciated for genetic mutation. But that doesn't mean dog ownership on the whole is a bad thing.

I see no benefits to dog ownership among most city-dwelling people other than satisfying the vain human desire to be adored by a submissive creature.

[Boges]

You would also likely oppose using animlas for any purpose. For example food or transportation.

If that's your opinion then it's not surprising that you oppose keeping animals as pets.

Comparing it with human slavery would indicate that to me. There's a huge difference if you believe humans are meant to be created equal.

Up until the Victoria Age dogs were bred for a purpose. So their plight is similar to that of the horse.

Western civilization was built on the shoulder of the horse. Do you also see that as immoral enslavement?

[Guest American Woman]

I see no benefits to dog ownership among most city-dwelling people other than satisfying the vain human desire to be adored by a submissive creature.

Then obviously you don't see all that dogs have to offer.

[Bonam]

You would also likely oppose using animlas for any purpose. For example food or transportation.

If that's your opinion then it's not surprising that you oppose keeping animals as pets.

Comparing it with human slavery would indicate that to me. There's a huge difference if you believe humans are meant to be created equal.

Up until the Victoria Age dogs were bred for a purpose. So their plight is similar to that of the horse.

Western civilization was built on the shoulder of the horse. Do you also see that as immoral enslavement?

Actually I don't really care about animal rights at all and am fine with using them for scientific research, food, etc. I am making the point that for people that do care about so called animal rights, pet ownership would be very hypocritical, whether it is a "domesticated" species or not. If one laments keeping a "wild animal" as a pet, one should lament even more the age-long oppression and self-serving modification of an entire species, which once also was wild.

[Boges]

Actually I don't really care about animal rights at all and am fine with using them for scientific research, food, etc. I am making the point that for people that do care about so called animal rights, pet ownership would be very hypocritical, whether it is a "domesticated" species or not. If one laments keeping a "wild animal" as a pet, one should lament even more the age-long oppression and self-serving modification of an entire species, which once also was wild.

What about conservation vs agriculture? Most have don't have a huge moral issue eating an animal raised to be eaten but do have issues with endangered animals being hunted purely for sport and not being used for food. Is that hypocritical as well?

What about hunters here in North America that hunt animals like deer or water foul for food but are keenly in-tune with conservation. They hunt them for sport but also eat them and pay for permits that go to keeping the ecosystem vibrant.

Sure dogs are exploited for human enjoyment and for practical purposes but they've also been linked to the fate humans across the globe, same with horses. That's why many in the West oppose eating dogs and horses. They're seen as special animals. Some might find that hypocritical but it's certainly a popular opinion in the West. It's purely cultural too because other cultures find dogs dirty, others eat them.

As for the comparison with a large, non-native, predator. I can see your point but there's a difference when you pluck an animal from the wild and keep it in a cage in an apartment. At least dogs have been genetically trained to have a kinship with humans, most breeds would likely have trouble surviving in the wild. Up until humans the industrial era people owned dogs as tools.

The other problem, as mentioned before, is the ecological crisis owning an non-native apex predator has on our eco-system should it get free. Again see the problem they're having in Florida with Pythons let free by people who no longer wish to care for them.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Boges

[BC_chick]

Actually I don't really care about animal rights at all and am fine with using them for scientific research, food, etc. I am making the point that for people that do care about so called animal rights, pet ownership would be very hypocritical, whether it is a "domesticated" species or not. If one laments keeping a "wild animal" as a pet, one should lament even more the age-long oppression and self-serving modification of an entire species, which once also was wild.

I'm against animals for scientific research, food and slavery. In fact, I always feel badly for the animals that are euthanized after an attack because ultimately it was some human's fault, the animal was acting within its nature.

However I don't think that owning a dog or cat is hypocritical with my beliefs, especially a rescue pet. The species have already been domesticated, they can't survive on their own.

The slavery analogy was also somewhat incomplete. People don't work their dogs and cats to a premature death for financial gain.

[cybercoma]

News is reporting the owner of the shop had blood on his hands when officers responded.

I think this is a bit irresponsible of the news. They're implying something very serious here without very much to go on. If the children were bleeding and he checked the bodies, then it's possible he had blood on his hands from that.

This entire thing has been suspicious from day 1, so I won't be surprised if the kids were murdered. It's just the news is being a bit careless here, IMO.

[Guest American Woman]

According to the autopsy report, the boys were asphyxiated. Media sources are also saying Savoie had blood on his shorts, so I'm wondering how he would get the kids' blood on him when they were killed by asphyxiation.

Edited August 22, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

According to the autopsy report, the boys were asphyxiated. Media sources are also saying Savoie had blood on his shorts, so I'm wondering how he would get the kids' blood on him when they were killed by asphyxiation.

asphyxiation isn't like the movies

[Boges]

According to the autopsy report, the boys were asphyxiated. Media sources are also saying Savoie had blood on his shorts, so I'm wondering how he would get the kids' blood on him when they were killed by asphyxiation.

Perhaps because the snake did in fact bite the kids.

[cybercoma]

When a person is strangled, they may choke up blood.

Edited August 23, 2013 by cybercoma

[BC_chick]

News is reporting the owner of the shop had blood on his hands when officers responded.

I think this is a bit irresponsible of the news. They're implying something very serious here without very much to go on. If the children were bleeding and he checked the bodies, then it's possible he had blood on his hands from that.

This entire thing has been suspicious from day 1, so I won't be surprised if the kids were murdered. It's just the news is being a bit careless here, IMO.

I looked for the article after reading your post. It does mention the blood initially but the rest of the article goes into detail about the damages in the building from the snake escaping. Several times it discusses criminal negligence, but overall the tone of the article seemed quite implicit about the snake being the culprit.

I didn't read any innuendo and I was even trying to find something, having read your post.

[cybercoma]

I looked for the article after reading your post. It does mention the blood initially but the rest of the article goes into detail about the damages in the building from the snake escaping. Several times it discusses criminal negligence, but overall the tone of the article seemed quite implicit about the snake being the culprit.

I didn't read any innuendo and I was even trying to find something, having read your post.

I was mostly railing against the headline. With Twitter and social media, people won't often take the time to read the whole article. Meanwhile, the headline seems to imply he had blood on him as though he was the one that killed the kids. Otherwise, what a pointless detail to make the headline when it has nothing to do with the article at all.

[BC_chick]

I was mostly railing against the headline. With Twitter and social media, people won't often take the time to read the whole article. Meanwhile, the headline seems to imply he had blood on him as though he was the one that killed the kids. Otherwise, what a pointless detail to make the headline when it has nothing to do with the article at all.

Actually, I got your point after I wrote that post when I clicked on the main page of huffingtonpost.ca. It was pretty bad, first article, big red caps:

BLOOD ON HIS HANDS

[cybercoma]

That's the one I was thinking about. I couldn't remember who published it.

[bleeding heart]

It's slimy journalism. That phrase is a conventionally-understood metaphor--for guilt, among other things--but they can say, "No, we just meant in the literal sense!"

That's textbook tabloid journalism.

[Boges]

Here's a good story in today's Toronto Sun about why treating an exotic animal as a pet is cruel.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/08/25/sanctuary-provides-home-for-unwanted-exotic-pets

The recent New Brunswick python tragedy that claimed the lives of two boys brings to light the horrific consequences of keeping exotic or wild animals as pets.

A 45-kilogram African rock python escaped its enclosure one night earlier this month and strangled brothers Noah Barthe, 4, and Connor Barthe, 6.

“Wild is wild, instinct is not taught,” says Mary Barros, who runs the Bear Creek Exotic Wildlife Sanctuary in the Barrie area.

“Unfortunately many exotic animal owners forget what wild animals have — their instincts. That is something that can never be taken away. You must never forget the intelligence of any creature or its strength.”

The six-hectare sanctuary, located in Essa Township, provides refuge to a wide range of unwanted creatures.

“Many of our exotic animals have previously been owned as pets, acquired at a young age, but when maturity hits, they become even more dangerous and harder to handle,” says Barros, who adds that “neglect and carelessness becomes another issue.”

Barros and partner, Werner Ebner, provide a safe haven for rescues that come with histories of abuse, abandonment and confiscation by authorities. Many arrive malnourished, lethargic, weak and full of parasites after living in filth and squalor in tiny cages.

Bear Creek provides a home to cougars, lions, Siberian tigers, bears, wolves, lemurs, primates and parrots. The lame, old and disabled are welcomed, including Annie, the blind llama, Priscilla, an aging and balding black Columbian spider monkey, and Marika, a former lab test monkey.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Boges

[Boges]

Another example of what looks like an idiot who wanted to own an exotic reptile then releases it in the wild when it gets too large.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/caiman-captured-near-toronto-s-high-park-1.2698981

The caiman has been caught.

The aquatic, alligator-like reptile was seen on the weekend swimming in Catfish Pond, just west of Toronto's High Park.

• 

1 of 6

Teghan Stadnyk, who saw the creature Sunday and took video of it, identified it as a caiman — a semi-aquatic reptile similar to the alligator and native to tropical climates.

"We were just hanging out and my friend saw something in the water," she told CBC News in an interview.

It's not yet clear how the creature made it into the pond. But Loyst suspects that someone likely ditched the caiman.

"It would have been someone’s pet who released it for whatever reason," he said. "It would depend on the individual why — maybe it got too large, maybe the novelty wore off and they released it into the pond, unfortunately."

Edited July 8, 2014 by Boges

[guyser]

To be honest it would not last the winter if anything like we just had. In fact any TO winter would kill it.