Those mysterious horns you hear at night? That's its cry. It lives in the underground tunnels. It eats junkies and spits out the needles. Want proof? JUST LOOK AT OUR PIGEONS!

Move over Sasquatch.

Happy hunting!

Happy Hunting I say!

We should have teams of blow dart leagues helping rid our city of these vermin!

@13 if you truly are a "animal rights activist" I pity you. My condolensces.

People Eating Tasty Animals is a lunatic fringe organization who's very erratic terroristic behaviors have placed it into an elite eco-terrorist tier of whack jobs. Mainstream society outside of your little touchy feely blue parts of the country have come to realize that your very existence is a scab on society.

No amount of "good PR" will ever be able to drag the public's perceptions to where you'd like to see them. The silly little "demonstrations" you hold make your cause look foolish and pathetic.

That just about sums up my initial brief feelings on the subject.

health department, i'm looking at YOU. give the crazy fucks jobs at the zoo.

@14: Pigeons spread disease like rats. Your argument is the philosophical equivalent of saying we should save germs and viruses.

Also, the last time I checked, pigeons were not endangered.

Two weeks ago in Last Days, I featured an eyewitness report of a downtown pigeon with a syringe through its head. In the world of Last Days, junkie pigeons are news.

But then it turned out the pigeon wasn't pierced with a syringe but a blow dart, and it wasn't just one blow-darted pigeon but a whole bunch, at which point the story moved the Stranger news section. Who the hell was blow-darting Seattle's pigeons?

Today brings the highest-quality photo yet of a blow-dart pigeon, featured here on Slog. Nowhere in this chain of events does The Stranger condone or encourage the blow-darting of pigeons.

Yes, they may be rats with wings, but still: people should be spending their time doing something other than blow-darting rats with wings. Read a book or something.

In other news, who knew PETA was such a contentious organization?

Honestly, I assumed it was a city program but I guess not.

And you go on to say they should all be captured and euthanized? How very... I dunno, childish of you? Capture how many millions of pigeons and kill them all? And then of course they come right back. This is a city. Pigeons have lived in cities for thousands of years. Neither your plan nor blow-dart-idiot's plan will change that. Stop feeding them like 16 said, and stop throwing trash on the ground for them to pick at and you might make a dent.

I agree that slog is taking this too lightly. This is cruelty, whether you like pigeons or not. And this whole disease spreading thing is BS. When was the last time someone got sick from a pigeon?

please stop giving the mysterious person with the blow dart gun the attention s/he is seeking.

thank you.

And no, I don't want to blow dart you.

Who the hell would bother to blow dart pigeon shit?

No, my regard for you ends with avoiding you as you rain down from above (and then trying not step in you).

Personally, I'm waiting for Chuck Mudede to weigh in (Please try to find a pigeon with a pige-pick AND huge boobs so we can hear from him.)

The end result in this case might be "don't maim/torture", regardless of the DNA of the torturer or torturee. Tell me why the DNA of involved parties alters the morality.

I guess it wouldn't cause me the slightest personal harm if somebody was hurting rats, or pigeons, or gays. Not my problem, unless I happen to have compassion for the suffering of others.

The fact is that people who torture animals will eventually move on to child abuse and spousal abuse. It doesn't matter whether you're inflicting suffering on a person or animal. If you can stomach causing pain, and even start to enjoy it, then you're dangerous, and society has a right to be protected from you.

This kind of thing doesn't happen in a vacuum. Dude-buds like You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me and Reality Check were without a doubt abused terribly in the past, and this is what we get from that. The point is that we can break the cycle if we are willing to do something rather than just laugh it off.

I thought it odd that a junkie would have good enough aim to hit a pigeon in t6he head with a syringe and make it stick.

I agree with Jefferson and Franklin that human rights are universal and derived from natural law. You just point out the obvious, that not all governments acknowledge all rights of all men. That, however, does not lead logically to an argument that all creatures possessing DNA have the same natural rights.

@17 is right, You argue for the philosophical equivalent of endowing germs and viruses with the same rights as persons.

You, clearly, are wrong. (And do your cause a huge disservice by over playing your hand to the point of being absurd.) Get some protein in you diet. I think you may be brain addled by its lack.

Needless to say that I have compassion for a pigeon with a dart in its head.

http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/bird_details.aspx?id=234

http://urbpan.livejournal.com/191664.html

Jefferson and Franklin were not trying to give you a Bible with instructions on how to do every little thing in your life. They just needed to get a government working, and they hardly had time to state the obvious fact that a healthy human being takes no pleasure in causing or tolerating useless suffering.

In this society, animals do have rights. There are laws against animal cruelty and the blow dartist (darter?) is clearly breaking those laws.

And #16 is right. Keep the bums from feeding the fucking birds and much of this problem goes away.

I also don't understand why people have more animosity for pigeons than crows. Crows are noisy and annoying. Pigeons are quiet and, unlike actual rats, they don't live in the sewers and feed on shit.

Think a human could go out for lunch with a dart through their head like nothing's wrong?

The human race will be long gone, but the Earth will still have those fucking pigeons.

Lame. Shame on you.

Granted (and agreed) that Jefferson and Franklin were not trying to give us a Bible with instructions on how to do every little thing in your life. (I'm searching in vain for where I made this assertion... Please point it out and I will retract it immediately.) But you are grossly mistaken in claiming that the Declaration Of Independence was intended to "get a government working" in short order. (They already had functioning Colonial Governments... they were simply throwing off political ties with the British Crown to become independent States. A little remedial American History may help you through your confusion here.)

That said, even if man does (arguably) have a personal responsibility under natural law to be a good steward of his resources, including the flora and fauna of the earth, (which I agree is true), that personal (possibly moral) responsibility does not translate to a right enjoyed by those resources. To say man’s personal responsibility (one born by virtue of man's rights) creates a correspondent right inherent to its subjects would in its very nature create the same but reverse responsibility as incumbent upon those subjects to man by nature of possessing those same natural rights.

Man has natural rights and therefore certain personal and moral responsibilities while lesser creatures have no natural rights and therefore no personal or moral responsibilities.

Being the beneficiary of moral responsibilities does not grant an organism natural rights unless it has (or would typically be expected to grow to have) the capacity to accept the moral responsibilities incumbent upon those rights.

Nothing can have rights without responsibilities and nothing that can not bear (or be expected to bear) responsibility can have rights.

To abdicate personal responsibility by inventing animal rights is a lazy, immoral and dishonest maneuver that comes naturally to a society that has no sense of personal or moral responsibility but has not yet fully managed to un-burden it self of the intrinsic compassion that qualifies it to be endowed with certain natural rights.

Geesh. (Engage brain and apply logic please.)

These laws were not passed based on the rights of animals. They were passed because everyone believes that wanton cruely is depraved. They were not outlawing animal suffering. They were outlawing animal torturers. See? It's not the pain of the animals itself that society rejects. It's you, Mr. Kidding_Me. It's people who like to see pain that we have laws against, because animal torturers are not welcome to be members of our civilization. We prefer them to be incarcerated.

This is bothering you so much because it is bringing out the past abuse you have repressed. It's that pain that you need to be working through; your own pain is what make you enjoy seeing birds suffer. Granted, modern talking therapy isn't a whole lot better at helping you work through this trauma than it was 100 years ago, but there are a wide range of new drugs that can control your feelings of anger and shame that drive you to react this way. Do you have insurance?

It's picnic. Moron.

And there is a presumption that, since animals are capable of suffering, we have a responsibility not to inflict undue suffering onto them. A "pick nick" table can't feel pain.

Additionally, it's not illegal to fuck a "pick nick" table. It is, however, illegal to expose your junk and commit sexual acts in public.

I thought it up. I published it in the comments last week.

At least site the source you dicks.

p.s. Sorry I'm a total douche.

You tard. Show me where I have advocated for treating animals cruelly. Show me where I have professed to enjoy treating animals cruelly. In fact, I have laid out a clear argument that we have a personal and moral obligation to be responsible in our treatment of animals. All I have argued is that we must treat animals responsibly because we have a responsibility to do so not because they have a right to be treated so. It's an important distinction. (And for the record, the most abuse I have been victim to is the drivel posted by genetic recessives like you on posts like this.)

@43

What the fuck do you think I have been saying?... Your right sweetie pie we do have a "responsibility" to treat animals ethically (as opposed to animals having the "right" to be treated ethically). I know this is hard for you to wrap your pretty little head around but let me try one more time.

People have rights

Things that have rights must also have responsibilities.

Animals do not have rights or responsibilities.

Also, where the hell did I ever deny that we have laws against cruelty to animals or question their legal validity?

You obtuse ignoramus.

Please delete Kesh's attempts at being me.

Thank you.

Also, where the hell did I ever deny that we have laws against cruelty to animals or question their legal validity?

You obtuse ignoramus.

Also, where the hell did I ever deny that we have laws against cruelty to animals or question their legal validity?

You obtuse ignoramus.

Also, where the hell did I ever deny that we have laws against cruelty to animals or question their legal validity?

You obtuse ignoramus.

Also, where the hell did I ever deny that we have laws against cruelty to animals or question their legal validity?

You obtuse ignoramus.

Show me where I said that you advocate causing animals pain. Our society has determined that animals have a right not to suffer undue pain at the hands of humans. What other justification is there for outlawing inhumane treatment of animals?

Speaking of ignoramuses -- and genetic recessives.

If you did not suffer from what I can at this point only assume must be sever mental retardation (or female hysteria) you would be capable of understanding that while society has determined that it has a responsibility to prevent animals from suffering undue pain at the hands of humans, this does not imply that animals have rights, merely that society desires that society, and its members, have a responsibility. One does not beget the other you simp.

i hope english is your second language.