Rich, you have to see this.

[wade]

Oh, you weren't finished. Well thanks for the additional information.

 

[tyflier]

All of this science is hurting my head, lol.

To clarify my point... I do find it cruel to catapult squirrels to a possible slow and suffering death. I just see a lot of ways for the squirrels to break their bones and suffer. However, I don't find the posting of this video to be anything like some of the other said videos that have been posted and labeled cruel. The video of the snapping turtle feeding was just sick. Don't ask for why I find it different, I just do, and the intent of the person taking the video had far more disturbing intentions that the creator of this video. Whoever came up with this idea was probably just innocently inventing a humorous squirrel repellent, and I'd be lying to myself if I didn't chuckle a little bit once the squirrel catapult was set in motion (in a cartoony "look at that squirrel fly" sort of way). But the thought after was that the squirrel really could have gotten hurt, suffer, and die a slow death. For that, I think that the invention was a bit cruel to the squirrels. Like I said, maybe test the catapult out on a non-living squirrel sized object, then setup a net (volleyball?) to safely soften the impact.

Bottom line____ I saw the video. I laughed. I immediately felt bad for the squirrel. I think they should have some sort of safety net to not cause injury and suffering to it. Then I'd laugh again.

By NO means do I find the creators of this video as sick individuals. I believe it was a harmless creation, that unfortunately wasn't thought out enough to not cause suffering to the animals. Are they twisted tortures like some of the other videos that showcase animals suffering? No, not in my opinion at least. The intention appeared to be WAY different.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm really trying to understand...

Some time back, a video was shared where a young man spent several hours tossing bunnies into the air by hand and flipping them and catching them before he fed them to his boas. This video was deemed cruel, heartless, and twisted, not because the bunnies were fed to the boas, but because they were "tortured" before being fed.

This video flings squirrels through the air to land on the ground under the power of a high-tension slingshot or spring. It is deemed "humorous" and "innocent". What's the difference? :shrugs:

Is the difference "pet" vs. "vermin"? If so, than why all the fuss over how people treat feeder mice and rats?

Is the difference "cute" vs. "annoying"? Seems unfair to me, as the animals has no choice in how it looks.

I'm just trying to get a handle on what is "acceptable". Seems to me that what is deemed "acceptable" is based more on who shares it and states their approval more than what is actually being shared, and if you ask me...that's just ridiculous.

I find it very difficult to say this video is "humorous and ionnocent" whuile the kid tossing his bunnies around is "cruel and abusive". To me they are the exact same thing...torture, purely for entertainment's sake.

And to me...that's twisted and sick, no matter how you look at it. Regardless of the animal that is being tortured and abused, the person performing the abuse is still willfully inflicting pain and suffering on another living creature solely for the purpose of their own entertainment. And videotaping it to show the world how "cool" they are. That's sick and twisted, whether it's a cute bunny, ugly squirrel, or a cat.

If you have a vermin problem, buy a BB gun, some traps, or poisons. That's what "normal" people do.

What do YOU call a person that spends that much effort finding new and humorous ways to torture animals for entertainment? :shrugs:

 

[tyflier]

Oh, you weren't finished. Well thanks for the additional information.

Hey wade, why don't you go torture some squirrels? Maybe you'll get lucky and actually get to watch one go SPLAT!! That oughtta put a grin on your smug, hypocritical face.

 

[mike17l]

I know how you could prevent the suffering Wade, when they go flinging through the air, fill them full of lead. Kills a few birds with one stone, no mess to clean up on the deck and no suffering for the squirrel.

 

[wade]

Chris, you have raised some very thought provoking questions. I hope you are able to get a handle on what is acceptable. I can understand how that might be useful information for future reference,

"And to me...that's twisted and sick, no matter how you look at it."​

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us.

 

[luckycharm318]

Goodness Chris. There are millions of squirrels in the world. They get run over and eaten every day, not all of them die painless deaths. You need to realize this, and get over it.

Squirrels also fall out of tall trees on their own, daily.

You cannot worry about the welfare of every single animal on the planet.

 

[Nanci]

"Saving the life of one animal may not change the world, but the world will surely change for that one animal"

 

[luckycharm318]

"Saving the life of one animal may not change the world, but the world will surely change for that one animal"

You are right Nanci, but no one can save them all, unfortunately. :awcrap:

 

[tyflier]

Goodness Chris. There are millions of squirrels in the world. They get run over and eaten every day, not all of them die painless deaths. You need to realize this, and get over it.

Squirrels also fall out of tall trees on their own, daily.

You cannot worry about the welfare of every single animal on the planet.

So...anything that eventually dies is fair game for torture and abuse as long as there are millions of them?

Let's see...millions of people in the world...check. People get run over by cars, killed by other animals, and die painful deaths everyday...check. By your reasoning, than, people should be fair game for torture and abuse? :shrugs:

I'm sorry, but this really makes absolutely no sense....

Non-sensical justifications. That's all it is. You need to realize this and get over it...

 

[wade]

Well I'm over it, how about others?

 

[Michael823]

This video flings squirrels through the air to land on the ground under the power of a high-tension slingshot or spring. It is deemed "humorous" and "innocent". What's the difference? :shrugs:

I've stated that I found the catapult to be cruel. I'm not saying that the act is humorous or innocent. What I am saying is that I do not believe that the device itself, or the filming of the video, was intended as some sick pleasurable torturing device. I can't exactly argue my case as to why, because cruelty to animals is cruelty to animals, and I found the device cruel. However, I am simply defending that I do not believe that the people who created this have some maniacal satisfaction with the torture of the animals. I don't believe that they thought that far into the act of squirrel hurling to do so. That doesn't excuse the act itself, but just that I do not find them as mentally unstable torturers that get sick thrills.

On the other hand, comparing this to the snapping turtle video, I do believe that the person filming had some severe, sick satisfaction out of the torture and cruelty to the animals. I believe that that person did think ahead enough to realize the suffering of the animal, and went so far as to dramatize the video through the use of timed slow-motion, and showing in depth detail of the animal fighting to survive while it's being tortured.

Had the squirrel catapult video shown a closeup of the squirrel hitting the tree, breaking it's limbs, and subsequently suffering to death, I would have found the people involved to be equally demented. Because that would have been proof that they in fact did think it far enough as to the animals suffering, and capitalized on it for entertainment in their video.

This is all my opinion. It's just how I see it. I did find the catapult cruel, no mistake about it. I was simply responding as to what I found the major differences in this cruelty vs the cruelty in a video like the snapping turtle feeding video. No one has to agree with me, and I'm not trying to speak for anyone else. It's just the emotional response when I see one video against another, and what I find to be the major differences.

 

[tyflier]

Chris, you have raised some very thought provoking questions. I hope you are able to get a handle on what is acceptable. I can understand how that might be useful information for future reference,

"And to me...that's twisted and sick, no matter how you look at it."​

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us.

Hey wade...here's a little insight...

I showed this video to my 6 year old. She was intelligent enough to realize that it was cruel to throw squirrels through the air for fun.

You, my friend, are not.

 

[tyflier]

I've stated that I found the catapult to be cruel. I'm not saying that the act is humorous or innocent. What I am saying is that I do not believe that the device itself, or the filming of the video, was intended as some sick pleasurable torturing device. I can't exactly argue my case as to why, because cruelty to animals is cruelty to animals, and I found the device cruel. However, I am simply defending that I do not believe that the people who created this have some maniacal satisfaction with the torture of the animals. I don't believe that they thought that far into the act of squirrel hurling to do so. That doesn't excuse the act itself, but just that I do not find them as mentally unstable torturers that get sick thrills.

On the other hand, comparing this to the snapping turtle video, I do believe that the person filming had some severe, sick satisfaction out of the torture and cruelty to the animals. I believe that that person did think ahead enough to realize the suffering of the animal, and went so far as to dramatize the video through the use of timed slow-motion, and showing in depth detail of the animal fighting to survive while it's being tortured.

Had the squirrel catapult video shown a closeup of the squirrel hitting the tree, breaking it's limbs, and subsequently suffering to death, I would have found the people involved to be equally demented. Because that would have been proof that they in fact did think it far enough as to the animals suffering, and capitalized on it for entertainment in their video.

This is all my opinion. It's just how I see it. I did find the catapult cruel, no mistake about it. I was simply responding as to what I found the major differences in this cruelty vs the cruelty in a video like the snapping turtle feeding video. No one has to agree with me, and I'm not trying to speak for anyone else. It's just the emotional response when I see one video against another, and what I find to be the major differences.

It's not "the same" as the snapping turtle video. I made that referance to make a point that cruel is cruel, just in a matter of degrees.

But it is precisely the same, even more cruel, than the kid that tossed his rabbits around. THAT is the one that confuses me most. THAT video was deemed cruel enough that a group of members from THIS FORUM petitioned to have the video removed from YouTube, and tried to bring the kid up on cruelty charges.

In my opinion, hand-tossing bunnies in the air and catching them is FAR less cruel than sling-shotting squirrels through the air to land...wherever...pools, trees, rocks, gravel, pavement, grass...wherever...

Like I said, I'm not trying to argue with you. We each have our opinion and we needn't agree. I'm just trying to understand where the line is drawn...and why...

 

[luckycharm318]

Why do some people always try to compare animals to humans?

Everything dies.

Some people find enjoyment in causing the deaths of other things.

Over explaining your views and opinions about it being wrong to the internet community doesn't change that.

 

[_skittles_]

Hey wade...here's a little insight...

I showed this video to my 6 year old. She was intelligent enough to realize that it was cruel to throw squirrels through the air for fun.

You, my friend, are not.

Intelligence has nothing to do with this.

It comes down to compassion. Your 6 year old sees a cute furry animal. A grown adult sees a pest.

 

[tyflier]

Why do some people always try to compare animals to humans?

Everything dies.

Some people find enjoyment in causing the deaths of other things.

Over explaining your views and opinions about it being wrong to the internet community doesn't change that.

Humans, rats, mice, fish, puppies, kittens...The species does not matter. The species is not what makes an act cruel...the act itself is.

Tossing animals of any species into the air by force of high-tension slingshot or spring is cruel. The type of animal is just a means of justifying your own cruel behavior as somehow better or more righteous than someone else's.

I'm sorry you're having such a hard time understanding that concept. Perhaps if it was one of your own pets, you might begin to grasp the cruelty behind the act?

Or maybe not. I mean...there are millions of puppies and kittens and snakes that die horribly painful deaths every year across the world. So torturing them should be just fine by your standards. Right?

 

[tyflier]

Intelligence has nothing to do with this.

It comes down to compassion. Your 6 year old sees a cute furry animal. A grown adult sees a pest.

My 6 year old sees a human being intentionally causing the needless pain, suffering, distress, and potential death of an animal in a cruel and unusal manner.

Shooting a pest with a BB gun or small caliber rifle rids your yard of them. It doesn't cause needless suffering.

My daughter understands this concept. People here evidently do not.

If you ask me, that has a LOT to do with intelligence...

As I said above...the species of an animal does not justify it's cruel treatment. At least not by any person claiming to be "humane"...

 

[mike17l]

Intelligence has nothing to do with this.

It comes down to compassion. Your 6 year old sees a cute furry animal. A grown adult sees a pest.

The question begs to be asked, is it cruel (read: child abuse) to show this video to a six year old, if you already think the video is cruel?

 

[mike17l]

Humans, rats, mice, fish, puppies, kittens...The species does not matter. The species is not what makes an act cruel...the act itself is.

Tossing animals of any species into the air by force of high-tension slingshot or spring is cruel. The type of animal is just a means of justifying your own cruel behavior as somehow better or more righteous than someone else's.

I'm sorry you're having such a hard time understanding that concept. Perhaps if it was one of your own pets, you might begin to grasp the cruelty behind the act?

Or maybe not. I mean...there are millions of puppies and kittens and snakes that die horribly painful deaths every year across the world. So torturing them should be just fine by your standards. Right?

What if you toss a leach, a sponge, a mite, a tick, a chicken, or a sparrow in the air? Is it still cruel?

 

[KJUN]

THAT is the one that confuses me most. THAT video was deemed cruel enough that a group of members from THIS FORUM petitioned to have the video removed from YouTube, and tried to bring the kid up on cruelty charges.

One difference based on what I'm hearing....(and I haven't watched the video yet because I can't at work, but it sounds similar to one I've seen before)...is that these guys are not herpers. The bunny feeder was a herper. Right or wrong aside, the herper (although we might not like him) is one of ours. I believe we have an obligation - and ethical responsibility - to police "our own" to protect our hobby. If the squirrel chunker isn't a herper, then maybe people are less up in arms because he is not perceived as one of us. I'm not saying one action is right or wrong - I'm just saying different reactions might be warranted because of selfish reasons: we want to keep the herper image as clean and respectable as possible.

For clarity, I haven't seen this video. I'm not defending either side of the argument. Cruel, funny, or cruel and funny - I don't know yet. I don't have an opinion nor do I have an opinion about other's opinions given here. I'm just saying that maybe the difference in the strength of the response MAY have a logical basis. Just a thought.

Shrug? ...or I'm completely off base. (For the record, I don't remember actually watching all the bunny tossing video, either.)

What if you toss a leach, a sponge, a mite, a tick, a chicken, or a sparrow in the air? Is it still cruel?

Luffa sponge would be OK. Dang plants deserve it! Hmmm, what about swatting a mosquito away from your face? I know I get ticked when neighbors kill honeybees.

What if they are MINE?