It's a fox. There are plenty of feral ones living around here, and I enjoy watching them in the evenings. They have a very distinctive way of moving and holding their tails, both demonstrated clearly in the video above. As for the colour, the fur colour of a red fox can vary hugely depending on where it lives (for example, the highlands of Scotland vs the streets of London).
It's about as 'cruel' as the process horses go through when learning how to take a saddle and bridle. This isn't animal cruelty, it's gently introducing them to an unfamiliar situation that won't cause them any harm.
Rescue dogs in disaster zones frequently wear these to protect their pads from glass and other harmful materials on the ground. It'd be potentially far more cruel to *not* put those on. As for taking a dog out in the cold or rain... personally, I think it's a mostly unnecessary measure, but it certainly won't *hurt* them. Cruel, pah.
Save for a few words that sound almost fluffed rather than intentionally different, I hear very little difference from regular English. It's just with a more rural British accent.
Of course, given that Americans seem to need subtitles whenever a foreigner with an accent speaks on tv (even when they make perfect sense), the fact that this is somehow 'noteworthy' doesn't really surprise me.
I think you'll find, at least in the UK, poor people have lots of kids at a young age because it nets them a house and benefits without having to work for any of it. :/
Indeed, how foolish and ignorant of science to try and battle a disease that kills so many people. Next they'll cure cancer, those stupid scientists.
I love the armchair critics that think they know better than people who've studied for years to get to these points. That's not to say that science doesn't make mistakes, but the kneejerk reaction and outcry of 'Mother Nature this' and 'God' that... zzzzzz. What dark age did you crawl out of?
'Inventions that are (thankfully, always) around the corner', stated in the header of the article, should be a big enough hint that the post is made in jest. Step away from the indignation, guys.
That said, I thought some of these were really quite clever and inventive, albeit usually impractical. As a paranoid, physically weak individual that often finds herself living alone, I admit that the fear of home invasion does cross my mind from time to time, and these made me smile - I'd certainly invest in a few if I could!
I'm getting a little tired of postings like this on Neatorama.
I'm not one of those people that think *everyone* loves dogs and that they can do no wrong. I'm not a vegetarian. I support animal welfare, but not animal rights. I am firmly of the opinion that humans > animals. I feel it's important to mention these things lest I be dismissed as any of the above.
If the dog had been harassing the deer, or even investigating the fawn, I don't think I would have found this to be particularly upsetting.
As it is, the deer felt threatened by a dog that, from the video, doesn't even seem to realise the deer's there until it's already on it. I don't fault her for protecting her baby, but there's nothing 'neat' about it. It's a video of a dog getting hammered by another animal for simply being in the wrong place.
You wouldn't post this if it was a human, even if that human was reacting for *exactly the same reasons* as the deer.
I'm also in the UK and have never heard of this 'custom' of drinking a bride's urine at a wedding.
Some context to this article's claim would be nice. It suggests that this is an ongoing practice (especially when it points out that most of the other claims happened a long time ago), while the comments here suggest otherwise.
Rescue dogs in disaster zones frequently wear these to protect their pads from glass and other harmful materials on the ground. It'd be potentially far more cruel to *not* put those on. As for taking a dog out in the cold or rain... personally, I think it's a mostly unnecessary measure, but it certainly won't *hurt* them. Cruel, pah.
Of course, given that Americans seem to need subtitles whenever a foreigner with an accent speaks on tv (even when they make perfect sense), the fact that this is somehow 'noteworthy' doesn't really surprise me.
I take it none of you wear any animal products and you're all vegetarian, yes?
I love the armchair critics that think they know better than people who've studied for years to get to these points. That's not to say that science doesn't make mistakes, but the kneejerk reaction and outcry of 'Mother Nature this' and 'God' that... zzzzzz. What dark age did you crawl out of?
That said, I thought some of these were really quite clever and inventive, albeit usually impractical. As a paranoid, physically weak individual that often finds herself living alone, I admit that the fear of home invasion does cross my mind from time to time, and these made me smile - I'd certainly invest in a few if I could!
I'm not one of those people that think *everyone* loves dogs and that they can do no wrong. I'm not a vegetarian. I support animal welfare, but not animal rights. I am firmly of the opinion that humans > animals. I feel it's important to mention these things lest I be dismissed as any of the above.
If the dog had been harassing the deer, or even investigating the fawn, I don't think I would have found this to be particularly upsetting.
As it is, the deer felt threatened by a dog that, from the video, doesn't even seem to realise the deer's there until it's already on it. I don't fault her for protecting her baby, but there's nothing 'neat' about it. It's a video of a dog getting hammered by another animal for simply being in the wrong place.
You wouldn't post this if it was a human, even if that human was reacting for *exactly the same reasons* as the deer.
Guidelines =/= RULES.
I'll believe it when someone else says it.
Some context to this article's claim would be nice. It suggests that this is an ongoing practice (especially when it points out that most of the other claims happened a long time ago), while the comments here suggest otherwise.
:\