I propose a replacement for the puppies being used as research. We should round up gorillas and dolphins instead.
Back to the CO thing. I’ve heard that some places use CO[sub]2[/sub] no CO to kill animals. I haven’t observed CO used, but I have seen some people do that and in that case they do gasp and struggle if not anesthetized
first. (I’ve killed my fair share of rodents, but I won’t do it that way.) Bella, could it be that they use CO[sub]2 instead?
PC
PosterChild–AFAIK you’re correct. “Gassing” usually refers to using carbon dioxide, as opposed to “trapped in the garage with the car running” situations which involve carbon monoxide. Most of the articles on this specified that it was CO[sub]2[/sub] being used in the shelter, and that is what we use at my job–although not on anything larger than a rodent.
bella
I don’t understand how any of you can feel bad for those puppies, while in the past 48 hours you’ve probably ate the flesh of a dead cow and/or a dead chicken.
If you think getting eaten by a snake is brutal, try getting hoiseted up by one leg, hung upside down, having someone shoot you in the head with a “stunner”, which completely misses your brain, and then when you’re still conscious, have someone slit your throat, peel your skin off, and start gutting you. This happens about 300,000 times a day, so you can get cheap hamburgers.
But yet, you weep over this one puppy like it was the tragedy of the year.
Grow up, people, and get a little perspective.
-TGD
Well, like I said, it doesn’t bother me much. But for most of the people in this thread, I think it’s because, in the US, at least, people tend to keep dogs as pets. Therefore, there’s an emotional tie to the idea of “dog”. Cows and chickens are raised as food, and therefore, people generally don’t care about them. In a society where dogs were raised as food, and cows and chickens were kept as pets, you’d probably get the reverse response.
Actually, I said “I fail to see the problem.”
I don’t even think what happened to those puppies was important enough to be in the paper.
BTW-For those real animal lovers out there, Dal also spent quite a bit of her first thread insisting that a vegetarian diet would not be harmful to cats.
Well, after reading this thread, I would like everyone to know the following:
I have voluntarily adopted 2 cats this year from someone who can no longer keep them. Those cats are currently in GA. At home, my mother has 2 cats and cannot take anymore as she may be moving within the year - where, she doesn’t know.
Two days ago, my best friend and I took 2 of her cats to the shelter.
The cats we had taken to the shelter were sweet, friendly - part of an accidental litter. My friend is a student and has been trying to get her adult female fixed - her mother would not give her the money (the adult male she has is fixed, out of Erin’s own pocket). All of her cats are indoor cats. Her ex-bf let the female out when he left (presumably hoping she would be hit by a car as Erin’s house is RIGHT beside the road.). She returned with a bellyful of kittens. 2 of those kittens were given away, Erin kept the other 2 because she couldn’t bear to give them up to the shelter (in retrospect, we’d have been better off taking them up then). 4 cats in an upstairs apartment on a student’s budget. Still, she managed it - until the building she was in was sold. She is staying with her parents, and they refused to have more than 2 cats in their house. Her ‘friend’ took the 2 younger females (none of these are spayed yet, mind you.) A week later, the friend claims that these cats have torn apart her house (whole couch cushions, mind you) which is absolutely foreign behavior for these two. Erin’s in tears - but she won’t keep them any longer. The cats are NOT acting like themselves and we think they’re in pain - don’t know what this so called friend did to them. I tried to pick up Skye and she screamed and scratched me on the face. She never scratches. I told Erin - it would be better to have them euthanised than to have someone like this ‘friend’ make their poor feline lives miserable.
The local shelter is overrun. We are still hoping someone will take in these 2 year old cats. If someone in Moncton, NB, Canada wants a pair of lovely companions, their names are Skye and Sunny. They told use at the SPCA they would keep them until Monday.
Again, I know they will likely be euthanised. I hope it’s not painful. I’ve had two of my own pets euthanised so far this year and have been there for both of them.
Geeze, now I feel bad…
Please don’t, Dave - there’s no way I would have been able to ship them down to the US in my car with all my stuff. 
YOU had problems just getting them from MD to GA, imagine Canada to GA!
Besides Dan is very happy with your babies. I in no way regret adopting them. I just wish someone could do the same for her.
There’s nothing like taking the bait hook-line-and-sinker. . .
When you get old and grey (if you live that long), I’ll enjoy the sight of your highly trained seeing-eye mouse guiding you safely across a busy intersection.
As for “highest to lowest” well, brain size probably has something to do with it. And ability to reason. So-o-o-o-o, you can guess where I’d place ya. I’ll give ya a hint, you get eaten before the chimp.
What difference does it make if they gas them or shoot them? Shooting is probably quicker. Now if he was shooting them in the leg for sport, that would be sadistic, but if he is just shooting them in the head, and they were to be destroyed anyway, I don’t have a problem with that.
Back to the Humane Society of the United States Statement on Euthanasia:
Note that HSUS is not a parent organization; shelters are independent of one another, not franchises or branches like, say, your local NAACP or NRA group would be. These are simply recommendations, and many shelters (especially municipal, government-run shelters) enthusiastically ignore them.
Daniel
Last 48 hours? Lessee…no chickens that I recall, but various bits of turkey, cow and pig. Maybe I’ll have some chicken for lunch just to be an equal opportunity consumer.
Actually, before I got drawn into a debate on the purpose of shelters (and I’m not going there again!), I objected to the idea that it was worse because it involved dogs. As, I think, did most of the posters in the thread, which you apparently failed to read in your haste to post Part 256 in your ongoing saga, Meat Eaters are Evil.
Learn to read, moron, and here, have some bacon.
(1) Yes
(2) Yes again
(3) Yes, three in a row (you’re on a roll)
(4) Um… No. For something with a larger-than-most-mammals brain and a demonstrated ability to reason, I would have expected more of you. Thanks for proving you’re an idiot, I couldn’t have done it better myself.
And DanielWithrow, to quote you:
Clearly you and I were attempting to do the exact same thing, namely comment on what seems to be a common misconception about how “shelters” work. I likened shelters to death camps because, as we both have pointed out, they perform drastically more euthanasias than adoptions. My logic being that, because of this fact, “shelter” was a grave misnomer (and “euthanasia center” just didn’t carry the impact I was looking for).
My purpose for doing so was to perhaps goad (cajole? ridicule?) people into the option chosen by scott evil, namely providing appropriate care for an animal even though doing so may not be easy, or convenient, or necessarily the first choice of the person(s) in question. I thought that if I gave a clear, if overly ugly, view of what will really happen to Fluffy then maybe Fluffy’s owners would concede that caring for Fluffy would be less awful to them than the alternative would be to Fluffy. If they really thought Fluffy would be adopted, then it would be that much easier to dump Fluffy at the shelter (less guilt for the human). However, if they really thought Fluffy was going to die, unpleasantly and soon, maybe they’d be guilted into not dumping Fluffy at the shelter.
In hindsight I suspect I was overestimating the chance of success this argument would have to get people to care for animals they have intentionally taken as pets (specifically addressing those people who then dump said pet when it becomes inconvenient to care for, or the kids lose interest, or the new boy/girlfriend doesn’t like it, etc). This argument, of course, does not address the current population of feral animals, and the unfortunate necessity of capturing and euthanizing them (namely for health (spread of rabies) and safety (wild dog packs) concerns).
I have already apologized for my choice of words, which I concede were inappropriate and unnecessary. You and I are on the same side of this argument. I hope you don’t think I’m the enemy (or with supporters like me you don’t need any).
I know we are, and I appreciate the apology. I don’t think you’re the enemy.
But I do think that an overly harsh description of what shelters do is counterproductive.
Two stories.
First, I just got off the phone with a woman who’s moving to a neighboring state, and who just found out that her new apartment can’t take dogs, and who therefore is getting rid of Toby, her pet dog. She wanted advice on what to do.
I started by explaining the difference between an open-access shelter and a limited access shelter, emphasizing that we euthanize thousands of animals every year and can’t guarantee that any specific animal will even be made available for adoption. I then gave her the numbers for four different limited-access organizations, suggested that she call all of them first, see if any of them have space for her dog. I ended the conversation by reiterating that we could take Toby in if no one else could, but that he might be euthanized if he comes to our shelter.
I could have said, “We run a death camp for doggies!” But if I’d said that, there’s a very good chance that instead of keeping Toby, she’d let him go by the side of the road.
Second story: we used to have a volunteer who worked for us who was, to put it mildly, a psycho hose beast. She would stop people in the parking lot and yell at them, telling them that we were going to kill their dog, what were they thinking?
Once we found out what she was doing, we politely invited her to get the hell away from us. People who are warned away from the shelter have a distressing tendency to dump their animals by the roadside.
We see ourselves as a last resort for people who can’t (or won’t) keep their animals. But we are an option. And if we scare people away from us, we defeat the purpose of having an open access shelter.
It’s a difficult balance, between diverting animals to better alternatives and remaining an option better than the streets. And again, I don’t think you’re an enemy in this. But it does help our mission if our allies aren’t brutal in their description of what the shelter does.
Daniel