Would you jump into water to rescue your dog?

Ironman76

100% yes. Major softie when it comes to dogs.

Mr.Fred

kneemos wrote: »

With one hand around them and their co-operation.I have trouble seeing how you could hold a dog and swim.

You'll tend to find cooperation is the last thing on a persons mind when they're on the verge of drowning. Usually they see the life gaurd as some sort of flotation device and climb all over it.

Depending on the size of the dog it wouldn't be a huge effort but as said if you're not used to open water in cold conditions you'll be struggling yourself as soon as you hit the water you'll be out of breath.

UCDVet

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I sincerely hope no one ever has to risk their life to save yours.:)

Likewise

DeadHand

UCDVet wrote: »

My dog > a stranger.

One of these threads again...

So your dog's potential 4 to 5 more years of being a dog are more important than, say, a three year old girl's potential 80 to 90 of being a loving and loved human being?

You'd be willing to ignore her crying and pleas for help to rescue an animal? You'd be able to face her parents afterward and explain how your dog was more important than their child? I'm sure they'd be greatly consoled by the fact your dog is safe and well.

ShadowHearth

100% yes. NO second thoughts about it.

moxin

Can't swim so wouldn't risk it for human or dog (sorry folks). I'd throw a life buoy of course and ring 999 immediately.

Corvo Attano

People really dont understand how cold water is different from warm in terms of swimming. Had this been summer the story might have been different but ice cold water isnt anything to mess with.

PizzamanIRL

Corvo Attano wrote: »

People really dont understand how cold water is different from warm in terms of swimming. Had this been summer the story might have been different but ice cold water isnt anything to mess with.

Ma mi piace i miei cani...

Spring Onion

The dog always survives. I love dogs and I am a strong swimmer but only an idiot would risk his life for a dog, especially in winter!

Mickey H

If it was swimming out, then no. Otherwise, yes.

Corvo Attano

PizzamanIRL wrote: »

Ma mi piace i miei cani...

Then you coax him to the edge and pull for his life.

Howard Juneau

No, jumping in after an animal is the height of stupidity, if you in turn get into difficulty, somebody else has to endanger their own life to rescue you.

Mint Aero

Nope, any dog is 10.4 times better at swimming than me.

moxin

Had a dog before(Labrador), he swam about a mile the entire length of the canal locally, all in the name of chasing ducks. Now if there were an Animal Olympics, a certain Gold medal right there!!

Wibbs

Depends on the breed Id reckon. One of those toydog anklebiter yokes I might risk it as they may not be good swimmers, bigger working dog? I'd hope he'd be the one rescuing me if it came to it. Something like a lab is a way stronger swimmer than I'd ever be. Spaniels ditto.

Once while fishing on a river all wadered up, I did rescue a wild fox. True story. Apparently they're crap swimmers, well this one was anyway. Looked like he had fallen in a good bit upstream as he was nearly done for when I hauled him out. Laid him on the grass, stroked his head and then gave him some room to recover. Took about five minutes but he slowly came back to life. He actually stayed quite close to me and actually followed me at a distance for nigh on an hour after. If I was of the treehugger* bent I'd suggest he knew I saved his red arse, but even the cynic in me reckons he knew I was something opposite to a threat and worthy of curiosity at the very least.





*actually I would be on that score. Find an old tree and give it a hug. Very therapeutic. Or maybe a fallout from my youthful lysergic use, your milage may differ.

UCDVet

DeadHand wrote: »

One of these threads again...

So your dog's potential 4 to 5 more years of being a dog are more important than, say, a three year old girl's potential 80 to 90 of being a loving and loved human being?

You'd be willing to ignore her crying and pleas for help to rescue an animal? You'd be able to face her parents afterward and explain how your dog was more important than their child? I'm sure they'd be greatly consoled by the fact your dog is safe and well.

I think I might have done a bad job of explaining myself....

I have a pet dog. It costs money (and time and effort, but specifically money) to raise a dog. I pay for it's dog food, I take it to the vet. While I'm doing this, there are LITERALLY people starving to death. There are innocent people in prisons and forced labour camps. I'm sure there countless hungry, impoverished children in Ireland *right now*.

Heck - according to this - ONE IN FIVE - children in Ireland are 'hungry'
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/one-in-five-children-are-going-to-school-or-their-bed-hungry-29772602.html

So, clearly, by my actions, I care more about feeding my dog than feeding people. There is no rational justification other than, 'Out of sight, out of mind'.

And it's not just pets - it is every single non-essential first-world comfort we all enjoy. If you own a computer, you would rather pay for a computer than see that money go to a starving child. For all practical purposes - there is an endless supply of starving people in the world and ANYTHING you purchase is something you'd rather have than help feed them, because, if it wasn't - you'd give it to them.

The overwhelming majority of us are OKAY with this. Because we don't see them as people. They are faceless strangers that aren't us and aren't our families. And we're all sitting here on Boards.ie - so there isn't one among us that can claim they haven't made the same choice I've made. Sure, sure, I donate *some* money to charity and sure I pay some taxes that help some people - but it's not enough. Some TWENTY THOUSAND PEOPLE will starve to death each day. EACH DAY. All of us could go and sell our PCs and cancel our internet subscription and feed some of them.

But we don't. Because we want nice things.

So yeah - my dog > a stranger. And everyone with a dog is implicitly saying that because, if it weren't true, they'd get rid of it and use those resources to feed a stranger. And that's just hunger, there are lots and lots of other ailments too.

There are some interesting studies on what makes people feel 'connected' to other people. At some point, we start to see an individual person as another human being that we have some obligation to and not as a stranger. And the things that illicit that response are kind of weird sometimes (IE 30 people watching a dude get stabbed might just stand there and watch - but one person watching a dude get stabbed is way more likely to try and help....because he feels nobody else will, so he must).

Even in your hypothetical, you're sort of playing on that. It's not JUST a girl, it's a girl near by. People feel a stronger connection with people near them. And it's not just her death I have to deal with, I have to talk to her parents about it. Not just notify them in writing but 'face' them (we associate identity with faces. I wouldn't recognize my wive's elbow - but I would recognize her face). The implication too, is that I (and I alone) is forced to decide. I can't just save MY dog and let someone else save her. NOBODY else can save her. Also, you made it a child. Most people feel a deeper obligation towards helping a child....cultural or instinctual....I don't know, but if I see a drunk guy fall off a bridge, my first thought it, 'Wow he is stupid'. I expect certain things from adults....I don't expect things from children. People say things like, "Well, serves him right, he should know better" - but I would never say such a thing to a small child that resulted in any sort of serious damage.

Short of saying that I personally know the girl, you've done all sorts of things to build up a connection that I would feel to her. And yeah, sure, in certain situations, I would choose the person over the dog. Even if I don't know them personally. But you'd be stretching pretty hard to come up with situations.

On the other hand.....every single day, I choose my dog over *at least* 20,000 people who will die. People I could have helped by selling my dog and not buying it dog food.

DeadHand

UCDVet wrote: »

Articulate waffle

Right, you said in your post your animal's life is more important to you than the life of a strange human being.

Stranger's include toddlers.

I took your view as you expressed it to it's inevitable conclusion. The results are ugly.

Human life is more important than animal life. This is a basic and fundamental moral common to all civilised societies. Like 'murdering people is wrong' or 'raping people is wrong'.

If I jumped into a thread on AH saying that Africans, the Roma or Travellers are less important than animals I would (rightly) be savaged. Yet, if I said all people (implicitly including the aforementioned) are less important than animals I'd get plenty thanks and people backing my skewed view.

Your view as expressed in your original post is immoral, inhuman and simply wrong. All the wriggling and waffling in the world won't change this.
Anthropomorphism to me is foolish, puerile and infantile. Dehumanisation to me is utterly unacceptable. You manage both.

wretcheddomain

The individuals who voted to jump in and save your dogs life. Just a question;

Would you jump in and save a dog if it wasn't your own?

Would you jump in and save a human whether it was or wasn't your own? And would you do so if you had a choice between the stranger human and the pet dog?

The reason I ask is because surely this shows that nobody *really* values a dog more than a human, regardless if it's a pet or not.

SparkySpitfire

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The individuals who voted to jump in and save your dogs life. Just a question;

Would you jump in and save a dog if it wasn't your own?

Would you jump in and save a human whether it was or wasn't your own? And would you do so if you had a choice between the stranger human and the pet dog?

The reason I ask is because surely this shows that nobody *really* values a dog more than a human, regardless if it's a pet or not.

I'd try save my pet if it was struggling but I'm not a good swimmer and it'd b pointless for us both to die...

Unless I was sure I'd come out unscathed I might jump in after someone else's dog, depends on the circumstances. I'd make some sort of effort like coaxing them to safety at least!

And yeah 100% I'd try save somebody else but again, I don't want to die

And thirdly, priority would be the human but ideally I'd try help both. Like go to the dog after I threw a flotation device to the person (and they caught it).

People get so butthurt that people love their animals. But really if it came down to it, a lot of people would prioritise: family member, family pet, human stranger, human pet.

I know and love my pet, I an emotional attachment that makes them more important to me than a random stranger. The above hypothetical about the drowning child is stupid. If my granny was drowning and some stranger's child was drowning, I'd save my granny. Should I not because she has less years left? She's more important to me. Sure I'd feel awful about not being able to save the girl but family comes first. For me anyway.

DeadHand

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Should I not because she has less years left? She's more important to me. Sure I'd feel awful about not being able to save the girl but family comes first. For me anyway.

It's not to do with years left, it's to do with animals vs. humans.

In your hypothetical I honestly don't know. Both "targets" are human therefore it's a grey area. When the choice is between an animal and a human, there are no grey areas it is black and white. The human comes first. Always.

Rasheed

Yeah I would. My dog is my best friend, that's the long and the short or it.

About 3 years ago, I was in the bog footing turf with with my brother and the dog was there pottering along. He processed to walk so far into the rushes that he fell into a bog hole. He plopped into the boggy water and luckily didn't struggle so my brother was able to pull him out. Without a doubt I would try and save him, I wouldn't be thinking rationally if something like that happened again. He means more to me than most people in my life so I would risk all for him.

SparkySpitfire

DeadHand wrote: »

It's not to do with years left, it's to do with animals vs. humans.

In your hypothetical I honestly don't know. Both "targets" are human therefore it's a grey area. When the choice is between an animal and a human, there are no grey areas it is black and white. The human comes first. Always.

For me, it's not animal v human, it's family v stranger. And family will win every time and nothing anyone could say would sway me otherwise.

DamagedTrax

because i own an RB and she's always on a secure lead, if she goes in im more than likely getting dragged in too!

NTMK

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The individuals who voted to jump in and save your dogs life. Just a question;

Would you jump in and save a dog if it wasn't your own?

depends on the circumstances and conditions tbh for my own pets its pretty unconditional

Would you jump in and save a human whether it was or wasn't your own? And would you do so if you had a choice between the stranger human and the pet dog?


The reason I ask is because surely this shows that nobody *really* values a dog more than a human, regardless if it's a pet or not.

Yes if i could help. choice would probably be the Human

bobwilliams

yes I have done this once, took a few seconds to get the courage up, it wasn't my first thought to jump in.
anyway, it looked to me that the dog was struggling so in I went,striped down to me jocks and dived in.
The wife went nuts,the feckin bathroom floor was drenched after it but the dog was fine thank god.

Maximus Alexander

Spur of the moment, it's impossible for anyone to know what they'd really do. But my gut instinct is that yes, I'd go to the aid of my pet if I thought I could do anything to help it.

I don't know why this has become a human vs animal debate, but I'll bite. Thinking calmly and rationally from the perspective of sitting on my couch, I'd say the human is more important and of course I'd save them first. While thinking about why this is, I'd say it's because a) I am a human and I empathise with other ones and b) humans live a hell of a lot longer than dogs. If my dog is say... seven, it probably has about six more years to live. If I save a 70 year old human, they've probably got longer.

Tigger

I'd go in for my dogs but I'd go in for a stranger
I can swim an I'm no gonna watch some one ( or a doggy ) die

Dilly.

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

I'd try save my pet if it was struggling but I'm not a good swimmer and it'd b pointless for us both to die...

Unless I was sure I'd come out unscathed I might jump in after someone else's dog, depends on the circumstances. I'd make some sort of effort like coaxing them to safety at least!

And yeah 100% I'd try save somebody else but again, I don't want to die

And thirdly, priority would be the human but ideally I'd try help both. Like go to the dog after I threw a flotation device to the person (and they caught it).

People get so butthurt that people love their animals. But really if it came down to it, a lot of people would prioritise: family member, family pet, human stranger, human pet.

A human pet? Sounds like quite a creature

the_syco

Corvo Attano wrote: »

People really dont understand how cold water is different from warm in terms of swimming. Had this been summer the story might have been different but ice cold water isnt anything to mess with.

People don't always think logically when their pet is in trouble.

I'd probably tell the human how to swim towards me. What people don't understand is that if you get close to a drowning person, there's a good chance that they'll latch onto you (as you're floating), and drag you down. This is something that many people may not consider.

Reindeer

It's rare you get to choose a family member. I love my hounds, and do whatever I can to ensure their safety and well being. Merry Christmas, Folks.