Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

An animal follows its natural instincts, so you kill the animal? This doesn't make sense to me at all...

Humans are also animals. We also have natural instincts; one of which is defending our children from attacks by wild animals.

Yes, I'm aware that killing the dingoes wasn't fair. But nature isn't fair.

I've always disliked the "nature isn't fair" (or "life isn't fair") argument. Fairness or unfairness is a property of intelligent beings, in which category I do not place nature. Nature isn't unfair, either. If there is to be any fairness, we have to provide it ourselves, because we're the ones capable of it.

Not that I'd argue against euthanizing the dingoes, sad though it is; once animals learn to victimize humans, that makes them more dangerous.

i do agree the parents should ave not let a 3 year old child out off theit sight and i agree that euthanizing the dingoes was the best option they are nasty wild dogs that ave killed many of our children in the past and no doudt will attack and kill again and again 92.41.47.153.[talk[[tara needham] 02.39. 5th may 2011.

In this case the parents were not supervising their child. This is the parents' fault, not the dingoes'.

True, and they shouldn't get off scot-free for it. But the reason for euthanizing the dingoes isn't that it's their "fault".

Then for what reason do we euthanize dingoes? To educate the other dingoes that might consider attacking humans in the future? Non-human animals certainly do not have the capacity to think like that... unless you're proposing that in the long run, dingoes will evolve into a species that does not attack humans, since dingoes that are more inclined to attack humans are more likely to die earlier and therefore don't reproduce as much? :/

I referred to this earlier. When an individual animal learns to victimize humans, it makes that individual animal especially dangerous. Pets are euthanized under similar circumstances.

KILL ALL DINGOS ;-)

someone's gotta die when a child is injured

This makes me sick that people are so dumb. I think the parents should be put down for having a iq under 80.

Once again people have chosen to "visit" wild animals, someone has gotten hurt, and GOSH, the animals are blamed. Suppose someone comes into your home without your invitation, does something you feel (rightly or wrongly) is threatening, and you defend yourself. Do the police come in and haul you off for punishment? No. Well, I hope not.

Why is it when humans intrude into a wild animal's territory and get themselves hurt (no, I'm not blaming the toddler who also had no choice), the animals are punished, even killed? If we mark an an area as "wild" then WE should take the consequences if we overstep the rules of the animals there.

I completely agree with Scarabrea. The dingoes were not at fault. There is a saying about sharks, "when you swim in the sea, remember who is your landlord" The same applies to all wild beasts. 156.8.251.250 (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice!