Farmers have killed vermin that prey on their crops and livestock as long as there have been farmers. This includes birds, feral hogs, coyotes, rats, nutria, etc…
Why would a dog or a cat be any different? I’m sure people in the countryside know that this goes on, and either train their dogs well, or keep them penned up so that they don’t wander off and get shot by the guy on the next farm over.
It’s safe to say that the dogs getting shot on farms aren’t Bichon Frises who got loose from the corner penthouse and wandered out there, but rather nasty strays and feral animals whose whole goal is to harass and kill livestock for food.
Susanann, GQ is intended for factual information, not for your personal opinions. In my judgement, you are hijacking this thread. I am instructing you to back up your statements with cites, or else bow out of this thread.
Lately you have been doing this in threads on a variety of subjects. This instruction goes for other threads in GQ. If you want to state your opinions, open a thread in IMHO.
Violation of these instructions may subject you to an official warning.
Sorry, I was referring back to the link I posted (by the same AVMA). I amend it to “**Decapitation is not an acceptable method for euthanasia of companion animals (cats and dogs).” **Please refer to the link I provided in the post where you took my cite.
I’m well aware that rats and mice are decapitated (or killed by cervical dislocation). I’ve done so.
For dogs, OTOH, the focus of this thread, then no, decapitation is not allowed.
To get the brain from rabies, if they already had control of the dog, they most likely didn’t shoot it. They probably euthanized it along with the other dogs, by whatever method they used (inhalation or barbiturates), and then removed the head and sent the whole head to the appropriate diagnostic lab. There, other technicians opened the skull and removed the brain and submitted it to their virology section. Once there, the virologist/lab tech took the appropriate sections for the tests.
the intent of my OP is primarily to discuss the mechanics of the process of killing dogs using firearms, not legal aspects of when you can or cannot kill dogs. Although I am happy to see that some amount of legal info was contributed as well.
Don’t bother. I am bowing out. I am quitting. I will not contribute to this kind of thing. I want no part of this anymore. This is too much.
(As far as the legal aspect, there are tens of thousands of local laws all over the world, in every country, in every city and village -** impossible to cite every law that is out there** regarding to shooting a gun and killling an dog that does not belong to you) . As my final post, my last gift to you all is that I recommend that everyone in what ever country they are in, in what ever city or hamlet that they live in, should first check with the local police authority before they go call in a dog that belongs to someone else and then grab a gun and shoot and kill it. )
.
Susanann, you seem to be under the impression that the animals **Omar **shoots BELONG to somebody. Wild feral dogs are not pets, cannot be made into pets and furthermore are dangerous. These animals cannot be controlled and the most humane way to deal with the situation is to shoot on sight. Trying to capture the animals is stressful to both the animal and the humans, is costly, and time consuming.
No one is talking about shooting cute little doggies who got lost from their owner.
owned dogs that are allowed to roam have formed dog packs that might go out nightly and attack whatever the pack wants to. a dog’s behavior determines if it’s dangerous.
If someone calls a dog and it comes right up to them with no aggression, it’s probably a pet playing at feral and wouldn’t be shot. Feral dogs (and feral pigs) have no fear of humans. That makes them very dangerous.
In my vet tech experience, procedure was to euthanize the dog with a strong barbituate solutation, then remove the head to pack in ice packs for shipping.
It has been my experience working on a poultry farm in my youth that feral dogs, raccoons, opossums, coyotes, etc. get shot in the head with a medium caliber pistol or carbine. If beyond a reasonable distance a center-mass shot with a “varmint” caliber rifle was used.
The animal control and police officers I’ve known that have been forced to shoot an animal as opposed to capturing it have generally just shot for the body.
The answer is going to depend on where it takes place. In Australia, in semi-rural areas council officers prefer .22 rifles because they are cheap, relatively silent and don’t travel very far yet are still sufficiently accurate. However in those areas shooting is a last resort for dogs that can’t be taken by trap or bait.
In rural areas people use whatever weapon is available to/preferred by the shooter. Up to the late 80s at least the Lee-Enfield .303 was the standard weapon because it’s accurate and, being military surplus, both robust and incredibly cheap. Using a weapon with a 2 mile effective range on a dog is something of an overkill, but who cares?
From a random wound? No.
Most areas on a dog aren’t vital organs. Dogs are very lightly built, so you don’t need high powered weapons to be effective. A .22LR is more than enough to take down a dog out to at least 100 metres. However you still needs to hit the CNS or heart for an instant kill. To achiever a kill within a few days you need to hit the internal organs. However you would have to be a truly heartless arsehole to shoot an animal that you weren’t very sure you could kill without a very compelling reason. If you can’t get a head or heart shot on a dog you really shouldn’t be shooting because either you are such a bad shot that you don’t know where your shots are going and you are so far away that you really have no idea what you are shooting at.
I’ve shot my fair share of dogs, but in most circumstances it’s unnecessary to do it if you don’t have a perfect shot. The only time that should be necessary is if an animal is so wary that you can’t bait it or trap it or get close to it. That does happen, but it’s not that common and it usually occurs precisely *because *people shoot at the animals when they don’t have a goo shot.
Why are you under the impression that they DON’T belong to somebody? Just because a dog attacks someone’s livestock does not mean the dog is not also someone’s pet. We owned sheep growing up. A neighbor down the road owned a dog who wandered over and killed a lamb. It wasn’t a feral dog, just a pet. Many dogs who haven’t been taught otherwise will chase and even kill livestock, especially if they are with other dogs.
I would not have thought it right to shoot the dog who killed the lamb. The owner was made aware of the situation, took whatever measures he felt were needed to prevent reoccurrence, paid for the lamb, and that was that.
An uncollared dog might belong to somebody. But in a rural area,** Omar** might form the impression that they are probably not. And even if they are, he might not care if he has no straightforward way of locating the owner.
I had sort of the same issue back when I lived on acreage and had flocks of chickens and ducks. The coyotes would take one bird maybe once every 3-4 days, if that - no big deal. A pack of dogs would come in and maim/kill every bird they could in half an hour’s time, and I would have no idea who these dogs belonged to. And they did belong to someone because most were wearing collars. Once I found out that it was legal for me to shoot these dogs, some folks were out a pet as, if nothing else, I didn’t appreciate coming home to hundreds of mutilated birds after running errands.
I did try using hot wires to protect the birds but apparently if one of the pack was dumb enough to hit the wire it would short out the whole thing.
