I was in the woods and found a very large bullfrog tadpole in a tree. It look like it had been dropped there and the tree was a bit bloody. But I didn't notice much in the way of wounds, so I figured it had healed.
I thought he was dead, because he wasn't responding, the tree was bloody, and he was out of water, and I accidentally dropped him. When he fell, he had a wound, that seemed to have gore or something coming out of it (a small wound; seemed like it occurred from me dropping him). Well, then he started to move a little, too! I thought "Oh no, he's gonna die now, because of this wound, and because he's out here in the woods" so I figured the best thing to do was just put him out of his misery.
Afterwards, I started thinking, what if I had just found a pond and set him in there? I assumed he was dying since he was out of water, but upon further investigation it looks like they can live a while if moist (which he was). Do you think his wound would have healed up if I set him back in a pond somewhere? It was a little gross but maybe not too severe. Perhaps the sort of wound the tip of a pencil would deliver. A little fleshy stuff seemed to be sticking out of it. It was somewhat anterior.
I don't like hurting animals but I thought at the time it was the only option. Afterwards I thought about the cartoon Avatar, and how Aang refuses to use killing to help save the world-- and even though the odds seem insurmountable, and all his friends say that killing is justified, he still finds a way to solve his issues non-lethally. Which I'm not necessarily advocating, but then again, this was a tadpole in my control, not Hitler who needed to be stopped. Now I feel like I just killed something that could've survived. What do you think?
---
SIGNATURE
While I'm not sure I would have actually taken the step of doing something when I find a bullfrog that appears injured (I am currently trying to think of a situation where I saw a bullfrog that was not in a zoo or zoo-like situation), I think that the fact that you took the time to research the situation and animal in question after you took action to be the correct one, rather than just doing it and assuming that was the correct thing to do off the bat.
---
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/ukealii50/kylo.jpg - Thanks uke!
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/829/07kyloforce.png - Thanks Diyosa!
I am definitely a fan of nonviolence. Well, interpersonal nonviolence. There's nothing wrong with demolishing buildings. Well, non-consensual interpersonal nonviolence. I mean, I don't see a reason to deny euthanasia to people who want it. I'd say the same for animals, except I'd be hard pressed to show you an example of a truly suicidal animal.
As you know, I have remarkably low standards when it comes to ethics and animals: I think that animals should be treated entirely as property. (So I regard killing a tadpole as innocent as stepping on a twig. You're in the clear with me, buddy.) And I'm perpetually kind of puzzled by people's ambivalence concerning animal ethics. Euthanasia is a good example. People think that animals should be protected from pain as much as possible in the process of using them for meat, milk, scientific research, or whatever. And yet we're happy to keep eating them. Isn't the right to life more important than the right to avoiding suffering? I'd rather be alive and suffering (which I am) than dead. We are at least generally in agreement that somebody in extremely poor health who hasn't opted in to suicide should be kept alive at all costs.
---
One man's converging evidence is another man's pilpul.
That's rough dude. I'd come at it from a similar point of view, with the preferring life to death thing.
I'd keep in mind that "twitching" and "likely to survive" are very different things, particularly for something like a tadpole--they're basically nature's Fritos. Even if it hadn't been sitting out there very long, and even if you'd gotten it back to the water quickly, it would've been wounded, fatigued, and maybe leaking vital fluids, and would have been eaten by a fish ~82 seconds later. Instead it probably got eaten by a bird or some insects, and it's all the circle of life.
---
Willis, it seems like every other time you post, I need to look up a word that's in the OED or Urban Dictionary but not both.
-Mimir
Thanks for the input everyone. I even got a few laughs. I'll just have to take more time in the future to consider my options more carefully.
---
SIGNATURE
…particularly for something like a tadpole--they're basically nature's Fritos.
You have quite a future at the marketing department of Whizzo Chocolate Company.
---
One man's converging evidence is another man's pilpul.