Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nature is pretty cruel, the world is not a big park. Most animals do not die from old age - they get eaten by another animal or they get sick, or starve in the winter. They get infections from wounds just like people, they are vulnerable to tick-born diseases, there are infectious diseases that get passed around.
It looks upsetting to us but it is how nature works; it is normal.
Yup. Attempts to sanitize nature and euthanize all of the sick or dying animals will not go well. I guess it depends on what kind of nature park it was. If it was an isolated park surrounded by urban area, then yeah dispatching it might be the best thing from the standpoint of human and pet health. But if it was in a relatively wild area the best thing to do would be leave it alone.
Yup. Attempts to sanitize nature and euthanize all of the sick or dying animals will not go well. I guess it depends on what kind of nature park it was. If it was an isolated park surrounded by urban area, then yeah dispatching it might be the best thing from the standpoint of human and pet health. But if it was in a relatively wild area the best thing to do would be leave it alone.
How so if it had rabies or distemper or something else highly contagious? That would just give it the opportunity to further spread the disease.
Let's not forget we humans are stealing more and more land from the wild critter habitats every passing day.
We are partly responsible for the escalation of diseases.
And no deserterer, you don't just leave something to suffer a horrible death if you come upon it, if at all possible. Especially if a highly contagious disease might be involved.
Let's not forget we humans are stealing more and more land from the wild critter habitats every passing day.
We are partly responsible for the escalation of diseases.
And no deserterer, you don't just leave something to suffer a horrible death if you come upon it, if at all possible. Especially if a highly contagious disease might be involved.
Wild animals suffer, starve, get sick and die every day in the wild. Like I said, if its infectious and in a populated area that's different. Otherwise, please keep your morals away from wildlife so they can remain wild.
Let's not forget we humans are stealing more and more land from the wild critter habitats every passing day.
We are partly responsible for the escalation of diseases.
And no deserterer, you don't just leave something to suffer a horrible death if you come upon it, if at all possible. Especially if a highly contagious disease might be involved.
True, but raccoons are winners in that lottery, on the whole anyway.
Depending on where he is, it’s probably distemper. I mean, never mess with a wild animal that’s not acting right. Always good advice. But there are other nasty illnesses other than rabies, and that doesn’t sound like rabies.
I said if it was in a populated area with people and pets at risk it should probably be euthanized.
I didn't comment on that. I commented on what you suggested for a wild area. Do you really believe that it would be preferable for an animal in any area to be permitted to spread diseases to its surrounding populations? Will your suggestion change when the scope of the problem reaches crisis proportions or is a simple epidemic enough to take steps to eradicate such an occurrence.
I didn't comment on that. I commented on what you suggested for a wild area. Do you really believe that it would be preferable for an animal in any area to be permitted to spread diseases to its surrounding populations?
Yes, it is preferable to let a wild animal in a wild area succumb to disease unless there is a larger problem. Its naive to think that removing one sick wild animal is going to prevent a major disease spread. Its not.
Quote:
Will your suggestion change when the scope of the problem reaches crisis proportions
Yes, of course, when it becomes a problem then it is a problem. Until then its just a normal natural occurrence of the wild that isn't a problem.
Quote:
or is a simple epidemic enough to take steps to eradicate such an occurrence.
Not sure what that means, and not sure how we came to be talking about epidemics. We are talking about a single animal, that we don't even know for sure has a contagious disease.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Solly says — Be nice!
