Girl throwing puppies in a river

[JoeBentley]

Alright very little to go on, but a video has hit Digg and Reddit that purports to show a young woman throwing a littler of puppies, one by one, into a river. Story is it hit 4Chan first and ironically enough the one thing that will actually mobilize the /B/tards into a force for good is animal cruelty.

Goes without saying that the video is potentially very disturbing. I'm linking to it instead of embedding it for that reason.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/peggy/crazy-puppy-throwing-girl

[franjava]

I know that people drown puppies/kittens when an unwanted litter arrives, but I think it's really weird/creepy that someone videotaped it. The act is disturbing enough, but to "show the world" . . .

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Isn't the criticism of the girl and the video really just western cultural bullying and intolerance. Who are we really to say that drowning puppies in a rushing river is a bad thing? That is just imposing our values on wherver this girl comes from (reportedly Bosnia)

[frogpond]

I'm assuming that was probably sarcasm but...

There are some values that I recognize as superceding the differences between cultures. Cruelty to innocents is horrible no matter where it occurs.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Yeah, sarcasm. There was a discussion in a thread, I think the one about the Saudi family that hammered nails into the body of their Sri Lankan maid as punsihment, in which the basic topic was whether we have the right to criticize such practices from our cultural viewpoint. And I agree with you, that there are some things that should transcend culture (I am not sure that killing excess puppies is such a thing, but I would say that doing so more humanely is at least closer to something that could be considered a universal standard).

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

Yeah, sarcasm. There was a discussion in a thread, I think the one about the Saudi family that hammered nails into the body of their Sri Lankan maid as punsihment, in which the basic topic was whether we have the right to criticize such practices from our cultural viewpoint.

No, it was about the stoning for alleged homosexuality story.

[frogpond]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

Yeah, sarcasm. There was a discussion in a thread, I think the one about the Saudi family that hammered nails into the body of their Sri Lankan maid as punsihment, in which the basic topic was whether we have the right to criticize such practices from our cultural viewpoint. And I agree with you, that there are some things that should transcend culture (I am not sure that killing excess puppies is such a thing, but I would say that doing so more humanely is at least closer to something that could be considered a universal standard).

I figured it probably was sarcasm, but as usual I made the mistake of reading some off-site comments that said we had no right to judge her because of what's happened in Bosnia. That doesn't make a difference because the method of disposing of the creatures and the act of filming it is reprehensible to me.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

Isn't the criticism of the girl and the video really just western cultural bullying and intolerance.

Western values often include the drowning or otherwise dispatching of unwanted litters of puppies/kittens.

[Beachlife!]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

Isn't the criticism of the girl and the video really just western cultural bullying and intolerance. Who are we really to say that drowning puppies in a rushing river is a bad thing? That is just imposing our values on wherver this girl comes from (reportedly Bosnia)

I'm not sure if that is sarcasm, but the answer might depend on whether the objections were about the killing of puppies all together or how they were killed or the apparent enjoyment she takes out of it.

[Mickey Blue]

Originally Posted by Beachlife!

I'm not sure if that is sarcasm, but the answer might depend on whether the objections were about the killing of puppies all together or how they were killed or the apparent enjoyment she takes out of it.

Cannot speak for others but for me killing puppies in the first place is not necessarily bad depending on ones motivation I guess, however most rationals I can come up with to do so regularly are reprehensible and show a lack of maturity required to (IMO at least) own an animal. How they were killed is bad IMO, if one 'has' to kill something I think it should be required to do so in as humane a way as is possible/reasonable (short of self defense of course). As for enjoyment, that goes beyond 'bad' and moves into 'sick'.. I am quite disturbed by those who enjoy killing an animal (at least an animal that is not harming them in any way). I enjoy fishing, I will generally eat what I catch, but I do not get 'joy' out of killing the fish, I mean I don't feel sorrowful or anything but to me getting some thrill of enjoyment out of killing anything is sick, plain and simple.

-MB

[Jonesy]

The mother probably got run over. That's why we'd probably be killing a perfectly good litter of puppies/kittens when I was a boy.

Of course no video. And dad would do it, not me. But throwing them in the river seems like a pretty good way to do it.

It doesn't seem mean when you've been hearing the cry out in hunger for a day or 2.

The world is not a nice place.

[One-Fang]

Originally Posted by Jonesy

But throwing them in the river seems like a pretty good way to do it.

No. If you do not have access to a vet to humanely euthenise the puppies, you snap necks or shoot them. Drowning an animal is NOT "a pretty good way" to humanely dispose of it.

Even bopping them on the head would be more humane, with a good enough bop to ensure instant death, anyway.

[llewtrah]

Originally Posted by One-Fang

No. If you do not have access to a vet to humanely euthenise the puppies, you snap necks or shoot them. Drowning an animal is NOT "a pretty good way" to humanely dispose of it.

Even bopping them on the head would be more humane, with a good enough bop to ensure instant death, anyway.

If you can do it without endangering yourself, carbon monoxide (from a car exhaust) is considered humane. Some of very old books I have give details for using chloroform vapour then leaving the newborns under water once they stop breathing (because sometimes they did revive) but the books condemned drowning a conscious animal. There used to be a misconception (certainly in the 1800s) that drowning was "immediate" but even as early as the 1900s animal fanciers were condemning the method as inhumane.

Throwing them in the river simply takes the cries out of earshot as they drown And there's no need at all to listen to orphaned puppies/kittens cry in hunger for a couple of days - plenty of puppies and kittens have been handreared (there are homemade formulations if commercial puppy/kitten milk replacer isn't available).

[Jonesy]

Originally Posted by llewtrah

If you can do it without endangering yourself, carbon monoxide (from a car exhaust) is considered humane. Some of very old books I have give details for using chloroform vapour then leaving the newborns under water once they stop breathing (because sometimes they did revive)

Yeah - see we didn't have alot of access to chloroform vapor where I was growing up. And killing a puppy with car exhaust carbon monoxide without killing yourself in the process might be tricky. I would recommend you read up a little on carbon monoxide poisoning. It's not going to happen in 2010 anyway - damned emission standards!

Killing a puppy with a blow to the head might be more than some people could stomach (like ME!)

A neighbor with a rifle is a great idea - if you have a neighbor.... with a rifle.... who doesn't scare the bejesus out of you.


The vet is the best idea, if you happened to have a nice middle-class upbringing where everything was taken care of with a 15 minute ride in daddy's Mercedes and a quick swipe of the plastic.

Any other ideas? Those hungry puppies are still crying for their dead mama.

[One-Fang]

Originally Posted by Jonesy

The vet is the best idea, if you happened to have a nice middle-class upbringing where everything was taken care of with a 15 minute ride in daddy's Mercedes and a quick swipe of the plastic.

Any other ideas? Those hungry puppies are still crying for their dead mama.

Um ... bollocks. Even if you're a farm boy, you have a farm vet. You get your groceries from somewhere don't you? Most of humanity in this day and age is within an easy driving distance (whatever vehicle you've got) of a town. Most of those towns have a vet or an SPCA/shelter. The shelter is usually even free. Just drop down there, and have the balls to say "I don't want these puppies and I don't want to pay the vet to kill them - you take care of them".

There is simply no excuse. I would falter at killing a puppy myself, but if I lived so remotely that there was no vet/spca, AND I didn't know anyone with a gun nearby, AND there wasn't some more experienced/knowledgeable father/help/neighbour to do it for me, THEN yes, I'd be killing them myself via some quick method.

At worst, as someone said, if you resort to drowing something hold it under water yourself (or in a sack) to make it as quick as possible. Simply tossing a puppy in a river is not even a guaranteed way to kill it.

If you still think tossing puppies in a river is a "pretty good way" to dispose of unwanted dogs, you're just sub-human. It's not normal.

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by Jonesy

Any other ideas?

Not having puppies if you can't afford to take care of them. That wouldn't help after the fact, though.

I don't understand why you seem to act as if having access to basic medical care for animals should be some major luxury, though. Really, if you can't take care of animals, don't get any in the first place. But if the mother was out running free in the road as you suggest, the owners probably didn't care that much about her or her offspring anyways. The puppies were probably accidents of their irresponsibility.

[DemonWolf]

Originally Posted by llewtrah

If you can do it without endangering yourself, carbon monoxide (from a car exhaust) is considered humane. Some of very old books I have give details for using chloroform vapour then leaving the newborns under water once they stop breathing (because sometimes they did revive) but the books condemned drowning a conscious animal. There used to be a misconception (certainly in the 1800s) that drowning was "immediate" but even as early as the 1900s animal fanciers were condemning the method as inhumane.

Throwing them in the river simply takes the cries out of earshot as they drown

it didn't in the video. I'm pretty sure I could still hear the squeaking after they hit the water, but the adio could have been out of sync.

[GenYus234]

Regarding humane ways a civilian could put animals down, would alcohol fumes do the trick? IE, put the animal in a closed container with a large amount of rubbing alcohol. I think they used to kill insects that way. And rubbing alcohol is probably easier to obtain than chloroform (not that I've tried ).

Of course, taking them to the pound / vet is the best way to be rid of them.

[ricco1]

Looks like the person doing the filming may have been the brother of the girl seen in the video. More info here:

http://mashable.com/2010/08/31/video...rowing-puppies

"According to threads on 4chan and reddit, the footage was filmed by the girl’s brother, who uploaded the video to YouTube, but soon removed it. Faced with threats from 4chan, a person identifying himself as the girl’s brother asked for help on the forum section of Croatian gaming site HCL.hr, arguing that these were stray puppies and that they had to do it to “protect their health.”"

[JoeBentley]

So we're all in agreement that the video looks pretty real?