When I hold a nuanced position, some call it “nitpicking”.
Very impressive research, kaiwik!
As I said before, this could well be a place that the DEA becomes involved: it does seem weird to me that they’d be carrying those drugs around with them. And you raise a good point about the location of the euthanasia being stressful for the animals. I still want to wait and see, but that’s the first point anyone’s raised that sounds like inhumane treatment of the animals. (Note that it would not in any way rise to the level of felony animal cruelty, IMO).
All I can do is assure you that’s not the law here. I’m unaware of a government-run shelter in North Carolina that uses an incinerator. Consider that if an incinerator costs $2.50 a pound, and a shelter euthanizes just 1,000 dogs a year, and the dogs weigh an average of 50 pounds, that works out to 125,000 spent on disposing of bodies. THat money, IMO, could be far better spent on increasing the level of vaccinations for shelter animals, building better facilities for them, public awareness campaigns of the need to spay and neuter, assistance for spaying and neutering for low-income pet owners, etc.
One problem with oral contracts is that different parties can have different understandings of what was said. With a written contract, this doesn’t happen.
It’s not uncommon for someone to get furious at our shelter for euthanizing their family pet after they brought it to us to be adopted and we assured them that we would find a new home for Fluffy. Fortunately, we do have written contracts, and so we can show the person where they signed a euthanasia request for their animal, signed paperwork acknowledging that we sometimes have to euthanize perfectly healthy and friendly animals, initialed next to the statement that they understood their decision was irrevocable and that they were agreeing that the animal would be euthanized if we were unable to place it in adoptions.
People, understand, get extremely emotional about the issue of cats and dogs, and they sometimes rework their memory for how it suits them. It would not surprise me at all if they were told that PETA would take the animals, adopt them if possible, and euthanize them if not. If that’s what they were told (with details, natch), then I wouldn’t characterize euthanizing these animals as breaking their word, if the shelter PETA uses was full.
I don’t think I was clear with the quote above. I was not saying that any of these reasons for tossing the animals in a dumpster would be acceptable; I was just throwing out some alternate reasons that weren’t directly related to animal cruelty, in response to someone who suggested that their being thrown in a dumpster was a clear sign of animal cruelty. I think it could be a sign of laziness, dishonesty, etc., not necessarily a sign of cruelty.
Nor do I. Nor does anyone who works at our shelter. The fact that it happens over 6,000 times a year at our shelter is horrific, something we all hate, the reason we are all such zealots about spaying and neutering. Please, please understand that this is true for the vast majority of folks who work at humane societies: those who perform euthanasia are not the ones responsible for the animals’ death (that responsibility lies with the folks who don’t have their animals spayed or neutered), but they’re the people who most keenly experience that death. It’s devastating work.
Fair enough. I also wanna point out that “humane society” isn’t a term like “McDonalds” so much as a term like “restaurant.” We’re not all one organization; we’re different, independent groups.
Daniel
In today’s Virginia Pilot, Ingrid Newkirk has a column addressing this incident: you can see it here.
Well, she doesn’t really address the specific charges against and actions of the two workers last week. Instead she just talks about how PETA is doing the work that “impoverished” NC counties can’t or won’t do for themselves. It seems to me that she and PETA are going to use this opportunity to once again scold people for mistreating animals.
She sorta does:
Which is part of what I’ve been saying: the clearest violation is improper disposal of bodies, and there’s possible misuse of a DEA permit (that remains to be seen), and depending on where and how the euthanasias were performed, it wouldn’t be up to the standard of euthanasia that we should be expecting.
But I absolutely think she’s in the right to use the column to highlight conditions in shelters. We need to realize how appalling the conditions are before we can change them; and if PETA is kicked out of these communities, we can expect a lot more gunshot “euthanasia.”
Daniel
Hey Daniel,
Does PETA give you a reach around while they’re fucking you up the ass, or are you just inventing every possible excuse for their reprehensible actions because you enjoy being a sycophant?
Alright, that was a little harsh and I apologize, but honestly, why are you making excuses for these fucks? They took animals from shelters under the guise of adoption and killed them in a truck, then dumped them in a dumpster. While there are a million "They could have"s or "They might be"s, at it’s heart it’s an indefensible act, from an organization that has repeatedly demonstrated that they are crazy and divorced from reality.
See “nuanced position,” above.
Daniel
Yes, I see that, very nice. In this case, however, your “nuanced position” bears a suspicious resemblance to a “desperate attempt to come up with any excuse”. What has PETA done that makes them deserving of ANY nuanced consideration? A nuanced position could be used to justify the medical knowledge gained by Dr. Joseph Mengel’s experiments.
See “Godwin’s Rule,” ibid.
Come back when you’re willing to not be such a flaming asshole, and I’ll answer your question, though the answer should be obvious.
Daniel
Seems to me a shot to the head is a lot quicker and more humane than some futz trying to jab a needle (especially if the van happens to be in motion at the time).
Sorry, Goodwin’s rule doesn’t apply ( although I somehow knew you’d bring it up). Goodwin’s rule states “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” I never compared anyone or anything to the Nazis. Reread what I wrote again, this time for comprehension.
Assuming:
- The shooter is accurate; and
- The bullet doesn’t ricochet off the skull; and
- the animal isn’t moving around wildly
then a gunshot can be less stressful to that particular animal than the very slight stress of a needleprick in a properly-administered intravenal injection (which is basically an overdose of sedative). It will still be more stressful to surrounding animals.
However, there are very rarely ideal conditions when shelters are using guns to kill animals.
I don’t know the circumstances under which these PETA employees were administering the lethal injection. That’s one part of the story that hasn’t come out yet, as far as I’ve seen.
If someone else wants to review Godwin with Weirddave, have at it; I don’t have time for such triflin.
Daniel
For more information, search for the words “Gunshot” and “pentobarbital” in The American Veterinary Medical Association’s 2000 Report of the Panel on Euthanasia.
Daniel
Josef Mengele would still have been a sadistic SOB even if he hadn’t been a member of the Nazi party. Nazism just gave him greater rein to perform his “experiments”.
“I don’t have time for such triflin.” I’ll have to remember that, it’s a neat turn of phrase to use the next time I’m wrong.
I’m not sure I follow. Wouldn’t Goebbels, Hitler, and all the other Nazis have been sadistic SOBs without having the party around? Yet isn’t invoking any of them invoking Godwin’s Law?
Daniel
No, it is not. Goodwin’s law refers specifically to comparing someone or something to Hitler or the Nazis. If I had said “PETA is as bad as Dr Mengle”, then that would have violated Goodwin’s law. The statement I made stands on it’s own and compares nothing to anything. What I said is true, and is a commentary on the weakness of nuanced positions-“A nuanced position could be used to justify the medical knowledge gained by Dr. Joseph Mengel’s experiments.” Merely mentioning Hitler or the Nazis is not a violation of the rule, it’s comparing people to them that counts. Doing so is worthy of criticism because it usually means that the speaker has run out of legitimate discussion points. See the difference?
Well, that’s pretty easy to figure out before you hire a person for a job.
And do you have any idea how rare that is? Besides, if you pick a fairly high powered weapon (such as a standard police issued weapon), there will be zero chance of the bullet richoceting off the skull, simply because the skull will be vaporized on impact.
So you aim for the center of mass, this drops the animal down and you then administer a coup de grace shot, pretty simple, really.
Of course, instead of shooting them, you could slit their throats, that’s pretty quick.
Whether or not they were sadistic at all is debatable. Mengele almost certainly was.
Did you check out the AVMA site? The AVMA is not exactly a rabid animal-rights organization.
Weirddave, you’ve got the choice of either debating this situation on the merits of the case, on the evidence, and on the law; or you can debate it with disgusting sexual metaphors and comparing the defense of PETA to the defense of Nazis.
Note that disgusting sexual metaphors could also be used in the defense of Dr. Mengele’s experiments; what does that say about you?
Daniel