#tw: discussion of behavioral euthanasia

[caecilius-in-horto-ubi-sedebit]

I know this isn't reddit, so it's very possible anon won't be interested in my paragraphs, but this hooked me in on all fronts.

So. My mom is a Rhodesian Ridgeback breeder, has been for the better part of a decade. I grew up around dogs, and for the past year or so I've worked in dog daycares and dogwalking gigs. And before I ever went professional, I was doing some pretty hardcore training stuff with my own dogs, I have some experience as a dog show handler. Point is, I love dogs! And clearly your brother also loves dogs, and that's great. But a big part of loving dogs is meeting a dog's needs.

There was a dog my manager's girlfriends fostered briefly. It was this ridgeback mix, super people aggressive, food aggressive, would bond with certain people, and then see anyone else as a threat to be eliminated. The good thing is that his aggression was predictable, which meant it could be responded to, to some extent. He ended up going to his forever home. A couple who lived in the middle of buttfuck nowhere in New Hampshire. No neighbors or neighbors' pets to be aggro towards.

It seems to me like that sort of environment is what Brutus needs.

I want you to be aware, anon, that it is incredibly fucked up, fucked down, fucked sideways, all kinds of fucked, for brother to bring a dog with a bite history into your home without disclosure. It's irresponsible, it's disrespectful, and it's downright wrong. Doing that endangered you, endangered brother, and endangered Brutus. You clearly have a lot of knowledge of dog bpdy language, and I'd bet my behind you are doing everything in your power to avoid triggering Brutus, but he is clearly incompatible with the life you two currently lead.

Brutus is a rottie. Rotties are inherently a lot of work. The breed was created as a guardian dog, they're highly territorial, they're generally more prone to biting than other breeds might be, and this dog in particular is a shelter dog, already has reactivity and aggression issues and has bitten a toddler in the face. Assuming he doesn't decline, he needs a lot of work. So much work. An insane amount of work. Work your brother clearly does not have the time to do for Brutus.

From how you talk, you clearly know how to act around dogs, you know what went wrong when you were attacked at 8, you know what to do, what not to do. This is entirely a problem with brother and Brutus.

So, let's recap quickly. Knowing full well that you have dog bite trauma, your brother, without ever discussing anything with you, asking you, nada, brought a large scary dog into your shared living space. Said dog has aggression problems, has reactivity and resource guarding problems, and oh, your brother lied to you so you wouldn't find out that not only does the dog have a bite history, the dog bit a god damned toddler. And he can't even be contained. He is unstoppable.

If at all possible, find a way to get out of living with your brother. This was such a reckless, irresponsible, dangerous, disrespectful decision, and brother has not once shown a comprehension of what a clusterfuck he's created.

In the short term, you are so NTA for not only asking that brother rehome Brutus, I might even say you should advocate for BA. (Behavioral Euthanasia) BA is an awful choice to make. No one wants to do it, no one likes it, but sometimes it's what's necessary, and it's what's kindest.

Brutus's aggression is probably partially fear-based, and partially the instincts bred into him as a guardian breed. He's living on edge, all the time. He's anxious, he's attached unhealthily to your brother... Poor man is not having a good time. He's in a constant state of stress and anxiety. He's unwell. It could easily be the case that the kindest, most merciful thing to do for Brutus is BA. And I have a hunch brother is not a fan of BA, so it probably wouldn't go over well, but it is an option that could be what's needed.

But regardless, this situation isn't sustainable. You can't be scared to leave your room in your own house becayse of a decision your roommate and brother made without ever looping you in. That's unacceptable in any circumstance. Brother needs to pull himself back to reality and realize he is hurting you!

I really hope Brutus finds that miracle home, with no neighbors for miles, and I hope you can feel safe in your home again. But at the very least, I hope your brother takes the mask of stupidity off and realizes how irresponsible he's been. Wish you all the best, and wishing your brother any braincells he can get, and wishing Brutus a nice relaxing nap.

AITA for asking my brother to rehome his reactive dog?

Sorry this is so long. I (F22) live with my brother (M25). My brother recently brought home a 120lb rottweiler named Brutus despite knowing I am afraid of big dogs.

I'm afraid of them because when I was 8 I was attacked by my uncle's German shepherd and had to get stitches in my leg and on my face. Don't get me wrong, the attack was my fault. My parents were in the other room comforting my uncle who just lost his son in a car crash, so they weren't paying attention to me. The dog was in her crate, and I snuck away to open it and climb in and start bothering her. She tolerated me for a long time before she finally snapped and attacked. I was old enough to know better, and my parents also told me to stay away from the dog and I didn't listen. It's entirely and solely my fault but all that being said, I'm still afraid of big dogs. I can warm up to them slowly and I have an ok relationship with a few friends' dogs (lab, 2 pit bulls, and a couple mutts).

My brother volunteers at an animal shelter and we had been talking about adopting a small dog, until one day he called me and said "please don't freak out" and told me he brought home Brutus. Brutus was surrendered to the shelter for growling at his owner's toddlers, and had been at the shelter for months with no adoption offers. He was going to be euthanized if no one took him, but my brother had bonded with him and panicked when he heard and adopted him.

I tried to like Brutus, I really did. But Brutus is a one person dog. He bonded to my brother and would resource guard him from me. My brother tried training him and it didn't really help. I tried playing with him, or giving him treats, or being the one to feed him, but whenever I get close to him his body language changes. His body goes stiff, he starts licking his lips with anxiety, and he gives me whale eyes. These are all the signs of a nervous dog who might bite, so I just stay away from him. My brother started locking Brutus in his crate before leaving me home alone with him.

Then Brutus figured out how to open his crate. And the next one my brother bought. And the next one.

I started being terrified to come out of my room when I was home alone, because I never knew if Brutus would be roaming loose. It came to a head after about 8 months when I really, really had to use the bathroom when I was home alone, so I tried to sneak out of my room. Brutus was sitting outside my brother's bedroom door, between me and the bathroom. He tensed up when I got close and growled when I tried to inch around him. I was so scared I left the house and peed outside and called my brother crying and told him I want Brutus gone.

He said no one would take Brutus and he couldn't return him to the shelter because he lied about him only growling at a toddler: he bit the toddler in the face. If I make him give Brutus away, he'll probably need to be euthanized. But I'm really, really scared of him and don't like being terrified to leave my room in my own home. AITA?

[shrimplymoray]

Would it be cannibalism if a wolf beastmen ate a sheep beastmen

Fantasy cannibalism dilemmas my beloveds... We discussed this on the server Angel, I have a couple of thoughts on this, so buckle up!

TW: fantasy cannibalism and discussions involving it

Okay so, we know for a fact that there are different types of beastmen. That is a given. What we need to know and understand is if that instantly means they are the same species and different races, or if different animals = different species. My bet is on the latter, which could ALSO explain Merfolk.

Okay so, if we consider this, we need to think about how their societies evolved. We know beastmen are all around the twst world and that different species have things that remind of their animals (Jack talking about how Wolf beastmen mate for life, Ruggie and the fact Hyena beastmen have a strong pack sense, etc.), so if we assume this stays for the predatory nature of predator beastemen over herbivore beastmen, much like it seems to stay for merfolk, the "beastmen cannibalism" and true beastmen cannibalism could be not seen as a crime, but more of a taboo.

Cuz like, think with me: If a Neanderthal ate some Homo Erectus, that wouldn't be the cannibalism we know of. Why? Because it isn't eating one of the same species, but of the same notion of sentience. That doesn't fall over what humans call cannibalism, which is the consumption of one's same species, but it is just as much of a taboo. Considering this, we can assume the same would be for a predator beastmen to eat a herbivore beastmen. They are NOT the same species, they evolved from completely different beings, but they do share sentience and the ability to consent. If the Sheep beastmen consent to the Wolf beastmen consuming their body, then there is nothing that in human laws would be considerably legally wrong. They are DIFFERENT SPECIES.

However, I do believe it would be considered morally wrong, as it is something seen as primitive, and as an animal characteristic. It will be seen as you acting on primitive behavior. Again, this is for beastmen. I do believe that Merfolk, as different people with a different culture, sees it differently, much like how in our world we have different views on different acts depending on where we live (see euthanasia and abortion for an example).

TL;DR If a Wolf beastmen ate a sheep beastmen it wouldn't be cannibalism as much as it would be a taboo act

[just-a-whumping-racoon-with-wifi]

Hello it’s me, what would mason do with a trans pet anon and I am backkkkk for more. I don’t know why but the combination of fair but strict and very competent at his job(for better or worse) is making me absolutely melt for mason. Anyways back to questions. Would mason ever recommend killing a pet if they were too traumatized by a bad owner to function? Also besides obedience and loyalty, is there anything in particular he values about pets? Also what if there was an owner that gave his pet deliberately confusing orders just so he could punish them?

Masons already made it clear he wants pets to have clear orders but he’s also made it clear that pets job is to please their owner. What if a pet was depressed and didn’t obey? How would he respond to that? Also have you ever thought about role play? No pressure, but I think interacting with mason would be fun.

Can I be🪶 anon please

Hello 🪶 anon!

Mason is so engaging BECAUSE of that!! He's easy to hate but also something enticing about how he thinks..... Thank you so much for the questions i always adore them.

And yes!! I've done role play before and very much enjoyed it!! You can catch me here on tumblr however I like using discord because then I get to use italics and such in chats. I'm #raccoooooooon6286 (yes there are 8 o's idk man i thought it would be funny at the time and now it feels too iconic lmao)

Besides obedience and loyalty, is there anything in particular he values about pets?

"Pets are fantastic companions and have such entertaining personalities and behaviors. Personality is the thing that makes each pet so special and unique - no two are alike. I know there are some trainers out there that require such strict exceptions of behavior there is no room for the pet's own personality and that is borderline abuse. They might be a lower life form but they are still a living being.

"Take Clyde for example. There are times during hikes or just out in public where he lags behind because he's staring at the ground or a tree or something random. He's a good boy though so he never gets lost - but he's not right at my heels like another trainer would demand. And you know what? Every time I go see what he's staring at it reminds me to appreciate the world a little more. Seeing plants or birds or patterns through his eyes is fun and engaging. I mean I can't live my life like that all the time because I'm a human being with responsibilities, but moments of thinking more simply like they do are refreshing."

What if there was an owner that gave his pet deliberately confusing orders just so he could punish them?

"That is abusive," he sighs. "Not technically illegal and not reportable but abusive as hell. Sickening. Some might say "oh at least they're not taking out their issues on other people" but still. Just deal with your own shit instead of tormenting your pet, ya know?"

What if a pet was depressed and didn’t obey? How would he respond to that?

After he established that the disobedience was from depression, his first step would be seeing if there are environmental factors to the depression. Is the pet getting proper sleep, nutrition, exercise? If so then he would recommend "supplements." (He has an affiliate code for the company he recommends lol). They're not technically medication because they don't have to be approved for human use by a testing organization, but they're "based on" research from human medications [aka drugs lol]. Typically he recommends some that are for anxiety, but I'm sure there are plenty out there for depression too. Likely the pet would end up in a bit of a perpetual state of disassociation 😬.

Extra TW for discussion of euthanasia

Would mason ever recommend killing a pet if they were too traumatized by a bad owner to function?

In general, no. If a pet is so traumatized by an owner they can't function and require a high level of care, Mason would advocate for legal action against that owner. Either jail time or having to pay for the pet's full time care. Killing or incapacitate pets is not socially or legally acceptable. nor is euthanasian really. Perhaps if the pet killed someone, but even then Mason would argue there is something else going on in that situation. Again, not because he's a good person, but because he infantilizes pets so much he doesn't believe they are capable of a lot of things and therefore not responsible for their actions.

[curly-snoot]

tw: discussion of behavioral euthanasia 

My brain is melting a little bit from the smoke, but I had a convo with a volunteer this morning that got me thinking again. I had this volunteer come into my office and we were discussing a dog, and she mentioned that this dog was so nice, friendly, and then said, “Sam, we can’t euthanize this dog.” I had problems with this statement, mostly because the thought of having to euthanize this dog had not crossed my mind at all since his intake, his reported behavior in home and in shelter were not that concerning. I wondered where she got this idea that staff were considering euthanasia for him.

The second reason this bothered me was the general culture and ideas around behavioral euthanasia in the shelter that fuel this sort of statement.

Typically, when I believe the most humane and safest outcome for a dog is euthanasia, it is because the dog has shown behaviors that make them dangerous for the general public. So, when I go in to our animal welfare meeting to say that I believe we should elect to euthanize an animal. When the other members of the committee agree with me, the main emotion I feel is relief, amongst other emotions. Relief that a dog that I believe is dangerous now will not be able to harm anyone. If the other members of the committee “disagree” with me, the primary emotion I feel is anxiety. Anxiety that I, either, am placing a potentially dangerous dog in the community, or that I am condemning a dog to months of being warehoused in a kennel while their QOL declines.

So, I think the organizations that have high live release rates almost tend to go too far in the opposite direction and be a little bit more “save them all” and will avoid euthanasia at any and all costs even if the cost is another person’s safety.

I think instead of saying, “We have to save these dogs, we can’t euthanize them, we just can’t.” Instead we should be asking ourselves, “Is this animal safe for the average adoptive home? What happens if management fails with this animal? Is the animal’s quality of life poor? Is this animal’s behavior predictable?” I want animal welfare organizations to focus on placing good pets and not on “save rates”.