Posted on 11/13/2013 7:08:58 AM PST by chessplayer
If you were stranded in the wilderness, your supplies gone, and you were about to starve to death, could you kill your best friend? That's the heartbreaking dilemma one man faced when he found himself trapped in the Canadian wilderness with no food. At the beginning of his planned three month trek, Marco Lavoie, who was hiking with his best pal, his dog, had his camp rations and canoe destroyed by a bear. But his faithful pooch saved his life by chasing the bear off. He would be "rewarded" three days later by having his own life taken -- by his beloved owner.
Exactly.
I can see doing it when you’re approaching, say, the two-week mark and haven’t seen any other possible sources of food the entire time. This guy, however, didn’t survive three weeks off of eating that dog alone — there obviously was other food in the area and he obviously figured out how to get it. I wouldn’t imagine dog meat stays good very long when you don’t have a freezer.
His dog saved his life once. That “second time” was pure selfishness on his own behalf.
“He reportedly killed him with a rock”
How does he go into bear country, without a gun?
The owner was an idiot and made a fatal mistake. The dog should have been able to eat him.
Sorry for the dog, sorry the idiot managed to survive the way he did. The dog deser ved better.
Idiot.
you’re pretty tough hearted aren’t ya?
assuming anyone hikes lone is a fool
and deserves their fate
hmm
difference in personalities..i always found that short story poignant and a writ of frustration and desperation
but yes...we have become like animists vaunting some animals over say...fetuses
“Three weeks” should have been “three months.”
The guy supposedly survived three months off of that dog.
ok...say you’re stranded with your 6 year old daughter?
i bet after a week or two Rover would be on the spit
perspective is everything
“When push comes to shove, libs have no attachments or loyalties beyond saving themselves. That’s why you don’t want one watching your back.”
That’s a fact some people simply refuse to accept and will only learn it the hard way.
When a lib is behind you they are mentally drawing an X on your back.
There was a Stephen King story about a doctor who was shipwrecked and stranded with no food. It got so bad that the only way he could survive was to amputate his legs, surgically repair himself, then cook and eat his own flesh. Eventually got rescued.
Wait- did he eat the dog at the end of the three months or the beginning?
The beginning.
Hanging horse or cattle thieves was about property loss and/or stranding a man without transport..like this guy
Not about emotional valuation as a pet over human life
A dog that good you eat slowly.
Story doesn’t add up, timeline is very odd. This fool didn’t deserve such a loyal companion and protector, either way. He went into wilderness unprepared, apparently no supplies, no means of defense.
Oh, of course, but I’m not sure it would stay “good” very long without refrigeration...
Within the context of the story (which I didn't have the time to more than merely synopsize), it is made clear that he is indeed a fool - not merely for hiking in the Yukon alone, but for disregarding the "Golden Rule" of all the old Sourdoughs that no man may venture forth alone when the temperature drops to below -40 °F.
London drops other clues that make it clear that the man is entirely culpable for his obstinate refusal to think ahead, or be reasonable.
Regards,
/johnny
Three months worth of camp rations, and NOTHING was salvageable after the bear attaack, to the point that three days later you kill and eat your dog?
Not to mention the afforementioned "starving" after three days. No, you're REALLY hungry after three days, but you're not starving.
I probably would have killed the dog too, if I were in that situation.
But I’d like to think I wouldn’t get in that situation. They found him in the woods...there’s lots of stuff to kill and eat in the woods.
His problem, as I see it, is that he was not equipped to kill anything wild in the woods. So, he had to go to plan B, and kill the one tame animal, that would trustingly walk right up to him.
One .22 rifle would have changed his entire situation. Or even something as simple as a fishing hook. But is sounds like he just loaded up a bunch of food into a canoe and headed out into bear country, with no ability to ‘live off the land’ for even 3 days.
Once a year in the boy scouts, we would live off the land for 2 days. We weren’t allowed to hunt anything, but we could fish. And we all learned exactly what local plants were edible, etc. This guy was probably walking over stuff that was edible constantly.
So, I do blame him for not being prepared with equipment or knowledge...and setting up the situation that forced him to kill the dog.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.