Fox News
On Tuesday, October 24, Frika the overweight miniature pinscher was attacked by a bear. Her owner accredits her survival to her extra fat content. She weighs 15 pounds, about double the weight of the average healthy dog of her breed. People have responded to the story by criticizing the owner for allowing the dog to reach this unhealthy weight, but others are more forgiving since the extra pounds were able to protect her from danger. The owner claims that Frika's veterinarian said "she's just really hearty," which, given the image, is questionable.
One could argue that the owner should be allowed to provide any diet that he chooses for the dog, but animal rights activists would argue that dog owners must be more responsible. Given the circumstances that being overweight saved Frika's life in this rare occasion, do you think that it is more important to uphold owners rights or protect the animal's health?
20 comments:
Even though the owner realistically has control over his pet's diet, I think that the animal's health should always be the priority. Since this circumstance is an unusual one, I don't think it's a sufficient argument to support the owner's decision to let Frika become overweight. If Frika had never been attacked by a bear in the first place so that this story would reach the news, there wouldn't be any debate over whether the weight of an overweight dog like her is unhealthy and should be changed.
I agree with Emma. Honestly, the reason the bear probably attacked the poor dog in the first place was because it looked like a succulent piglet. Furthermore, according to peteducation.com, "approximately 25% of overweight dogs develop serious joint complications," and other side effects of canine obesity include increased risk for diabetes, decreased stamina and liver function, shorter lifespan, and an overall lower quality of life. I can attest that all of the above are true, as I am also a former owner of an overweight dog who was extremely legarthic and eventually died of kidney failure. Finally, if this were a child, that dog would've been put in foster care now. Not only is this dog most definitely sedentary and being fed an either extremely unhealthy, quantitatively excessive diet, but it was also ATTACKED BY A BEAR, and the owner had the nerve to use her dog's unlikely survival from a brutal attack to justify her clearly deficient pet care skills. To sum it up, this owner is delusional and ought to be educated on how to care for living things, but if that's not possible then the dog is better off living with a new family.
While it is fortunate that the dog survived the attack due to the fat, I seriously doubt the owners overfed her with intention to provide it with more natural armor. Bear accidents are not common, so this was more of a lucky anecdote than a good strategy for pet survival. The owner was irresponsible for overfeeding her. While she might have also been lucky, irresponsibility is not a good trait, and she should have been criticized for animal abuse.
As the summary states, this was a “rare occasion” in that bears do not attack dogs often. Additionally, a dog’s health spans over its entire lifespan, which is a long time compared to this one event of a bear attack, demonstrating that maintaining good health in Frika should be a priority and should be done. The animal rights activists are definitely more informed and have expertise on the topic of this situation, upholding their credibility in that the dog owners should be more responsible and thus solidifying that the dog owner should have not overfed the dog. Also, what if Frika had better health? Could she dodge the bear attack more easily because she would have the capability to sprint away faster? As Emma said, realistically the owner’s rights should be protected over the animal’s health because a human life is usually valued over that of an animal in our society.
I really like Harrison's point that it is obviously unlikely that Frika's owners overfed her to protect her attacks like this. It obviously was just a rare circumstance that happened to work in the dog's favor, but that does not mean that her owners are justified in overfeeding her. I agree that we shouldn't respect the owners' rights to overfeed their dog when that endangers the life and health of an animal in their care. I also am worried that the vet does not oppose their overfeeding, instead condoning it by calling Frika "hearty," even though Frika's weight obviously points to future health issues.
I agree that it is inhumane to overfeed any animal like that. By owning an animal one must be prepared to treat it well. It is the owner's responsibility to care for it when acquiring a pet. It is lucky that it was due to the extra fat that the dog survived, but this is a rare case in possibly many situations where people overfeed their animal which results in either health issues or possibly even death. By agreeing to own a dog, an owner must be prepared for the responsibilities related in doing so.
I am in agreement with Vincent. I think that it was a lucky coincidence that the dog's extra fat saved him in an attack, but the dog's owners should not overfeed their dog like that. If you get a dog, it is your job to take care of your dog and keep it healthy. It is arguably better to have a dog that is a little overweight, but no dog should be that fat where they have health issues, especially since they depend on their owners to take care of them.
How is this relevant to American government?
I agree with Diana. I feel like the pet's health should be prioritized as it is the most important just like parents watch what their kids eat and protect their diet. Owners, like parents, can buy whatever food they like and feed them as much s they like, but that wouldn't be in the best interest of the dog or kid. It somehow worked for Frika in this case, but I doubt it will in all cases. What if that extra weight made her slow down and that's why she got attacked in the first place. This is a quite unusual story, nonetheless, because there are plenty of overweight pets that seem healthy and haven't reached the news because there wasn't a compelling story to argue.
A lot of dogs and cats are prone to being overweight if they were spayed or neutered very young, and even with a controlled diet and exercise given by the owner, these animals might be overweight despite this (speaking as the owner of a fat cat who gets plenty of play and has limited food quantities). I’m not sure how we could regulate what people are feeding their pets and if it is acceptable or not, so I’m not sure how practical this is. On the other side, obviously it is important that pets are getting exercise and a practical diet.
If it were a perfect world, then yes the owner should watch what they feed theirs pets. But since it's not a perfect world, we can't really tell someone what to do with their pets. there is also no way to regulate it either. We see million of parents with obese kids, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the parents are inhumane either. I think the correct word for this would be irresponsible, not inhumane.
I think that some more attention should be paid towards the vet, as Erin mentioned. Yes, the owner is irresponsible for overfeeding her dog, but I believe more blame should be attributed to the vet as they are the one who neglected to emphasize the importance of healthy eating for Frika's dog, merely calling it "hearty." While we don't have exact statements from the vet, is safe to assume that the vet still could have told her about possible health risks and of pointing out the obvious overweight nature of the dog. I also agree with Claire that while it is imperative that we advocate for protecting the animal's health, it is also somewhat unfeasible to regulate each owner and their respective pets. I believe setting some basic guidelines and increasing advocacy of animal health and denouncing owner neglect of their pets (as is most unfortunately presumed in this case) are our best bet thus far.
This is a one in a million case. Usually dogs are not protected by their fat; in fact, they are harmed. Like Hannah said, the vet should be the one held accountable. If the owner is hearing good things about the diet of their dog, then they are much more hesitant to change it. The only way to change the obesity of pets is probably for vets to set guidelines for the owners that they can not follow. This is the one of the only way to do things without taking away rights.
A large majority of the time, being fat isn't a a good thing that protects the animal. It makes them unhealthy and weaker, so the fact that the vet is just saying its okay what the owner is doing in incorrect. the vet should not encourage the owners behavior and should be held accountable for his actions. Vets should make sure owners are responsible for their pets health.
It's really only luck that the dog's fat saved its life; otherwise, the dog's general health is more important than "just in case a bear attacks my dog (an attack likely due to my dog being fat in the first place)". If a person wants to overeat, that is their own choice; however, the dog has no choice in the matter. I believe the dog's health should override an owner's right to feed pets as much as they want. The vet isn't exactly helping promote healthy eating in dogs either and should also hold some accountability.
I think the dog getting saved by fat is never going to happen again so it can be dismissed. Being fat is not healthy for dogs and dog owners should be responsible, but I don't think that there should be any regulation on what you can feed them now. If there was regulation on what you can feed dogs then it would be ridiculous that we don't have regulation on what you can feed your children. We need to solve food problems for humans before we do it for dogs.
Many consider pets as friends. Having pets comes with responsibility, and they should be taken care of with care. Just because of the circumstances in this situation, it is still not safe to have an overweight pet for many reasons. I think that it is great that the extra weight protected the dog, but this situation is not likely to happen again, so better care should be used in the household.
I agree, What were the chances that the dog would suddenly be attacked by a bear and the chances of it happening again would be slim to none. I think the owner should put the dog on a diet because if the bear doesn't kill the dog. I think health problems will significantly lower the dogs life span.
Post a Comment