Life’s a Boar

Over at Takimag, Dr. Dalrymple recounts witnessing two dogs attacking a wild boar near his French estate, following which he draws some parallels with the worst politics of mankind.

Was this fight not a metonym for a horrible political movement, founded by a megalomaniacal scoundrel, vicious but not devoid of courage, to be taken up when safe to do so by a baying multitude? The large dog was a kind of Lenin, while the smaller stood for all his followers and henchmen. No doubt one could easily think of other parallel cases.

2 thoughts on “Life’s a Boar

  1. Bryce Mansfield

    I doubt Dr. Daniels will ever see this. But his story triggered a thought for me that I think is a good extension on the analogy he has made:

    I am a Canadian of almost 50 years of age. When I was a teenager, all provinces that I am aware of had a shared series of laws in place regarding the protection of wildlife: If a person were to witness any situation where two or more domestic dogs were attacking wildlife (“two or more domesticated dogs hunting as a pack”, was the wording as I recall it), you were permitted to shoot them. The logic went that a domesticated animal who was attacking wildlife – especially while out of the control of its master – was doing what it was doing of out a savage instinct that was inappropriate for a domesticated (i.e. “civilized” animal). Therefore, it was proper to eliminate the threat it posed in order to protect the wild animal being attacked.

    I also remember being taught as a child that, in such a situation, dogs will almost certainly not eat what they kill (considered the only “legitimate” reason for hunting when I was a young). It was only “for the fun of it.” Therefore the dogs could be considered dangerous and the private citizen could take unilateral action…as long as they later reported what they had done to the authorities.

    My father, who is 27 years my senior, tells me that, when he was young, you were not only authorized to kill them – you were obligated to do so, “if you had the means.” Apparently, in his day, if you witnessed a situation like Dr. Dalrymple describes, and you had access to a firearm, you would be guilty of a crime if you didn’t make use of it.

    Today, as far as I know, all provinces of Canada have changed the laws so that you are neither obligated nor authorized to intervene. You are only allowed to call a government wildlife agency and ask that one of their agents come out to deal with the situation. As if there is a chance in Hell that they’ll get there in time.

    This just struck me as an appropriate continuation of his line-of-thought in that article.

    Reply
  2. David Seri Post author

    Hello, Bryce. Thank you for taking the time to share that interesting and related story. Sadly, it does not come as a surprise that the wildlife rules in Canada have been changed in recent years in the direction that you describe above. Cheers.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.