You lying, disingenuous fuck. Your own word from this thread condemn you. You clearly gave your opinion of what PETA does:
So by your own estimation, 75% of what PETA does is either pretty fucking awful or political activism, yet none of this matters to you because of the 25% of what they do that is “pretty good”. What a crazy fucked up world you must live in. What would life be like if we applied these standards to everything. Iraq? Who cares? 25% of what the US does is good, so we can ignore that. Gitmo, Abu Ghraib? Inconsiquential, 25% of the prisoners held in U.S. prisons are not abused, so we can forget them. Murder rates climbing in urban areas? As long as we catch 25% of the murders, things are golden. Using your own fucking standards then, if the KKK devoted 25% of it’s time, effort and money on community outreach programs that helped people, then we should excuse the other 75% of what they do because it’s merely pretty fucking awful or political activism. As a point of fact, that’s a pretty good description of what the KKK does actually do. If they open a few orphanages, they’re good to go using your standards. In point of fact, Danny boy, the only stupid one here is you, for having such low standards.
Weird Dave, first the Nazi allusion and now the comparison to the KKK. I am aware that Goodwin’s rule doesn’t name the KKK explicitly, but the KKK certainly falls under the spirit of the law. The difference between these groups Dave, as I am sure you are aware, is that while PETA has some unorthodox ideas of animal rights compared to those normal understood by most American’s, and they seem to have a number of wack jobs in their ranks, they do not advocate as their primary mission murder, oppression, and/or lawlessness. Your case is weakened considerably when you clearly hyperbolize and resort to profane name calling.
I was trying to suggest that the act of shooting a captive animal is horrible and horrific enough that normal people shouldn’t be doing it. I hope that “professionals” are the only ones that perform these acts. The possibility of it becoming a crude and inhumane service is too slippery a slope foe me to consider otherwise. Sadly, I fear that many times “professionals” aren’t the ones performing the gun shot killings.
Thanks, monkeyfist. If anyone else is finding anything that Weirddave says to be remotely compelling, persuasive, or interesting, let me know, and I’ll address it. Otherwise, I don’t see that he’s raising any real points.
kaiwik I apologize for any offense taken for not understanding your involvement with animal shelters, although I had no way of knowing of that before your detailing. I didn’t mean it as condescending, was just trying to show that the hard work in working with animal shelters adds a depth of understanding the issue at hand, something not in everyone’s experience. I now see that you do have experience, and spend a great deal of effort to help animals.
In re-reading my post, I also see that my last statement
could have been written better. I wasn’t directing that at you personally, but to all readers. I can see how you took that as condescending, and apologize that I failed to make the distinction.
I in no way condone PETA’s actions in this case, and shake my head at the fact that they let people do euthanasia out of the back of a van and dispose of the bodies in a dumpster. As said, I have problems with their methods, but am not going to rail against them, knowing the complexities of the problems society has with domestic animal overpopulation. I am somewhere between kaiwik and Daniel in my judgement of this case, and greatly appreciate both your efforts and input here.
They “let” them do this in the same way that a Seven-Eleven might “let” employees steal cash from the register. Nothing I’ve seen in this case suggests that the employees were:
a) following organizational policies; or
b) allowed to continue their actions once PETA was made aware of what was going on.
elelle, I appreciate your response and clarification of intent. No hard feelings, we are on the same side.
Daniel, while I have enjoyed our discussion, until further evidence is put forth in black and white, I do not feel that I have anything constructive to add which I have not already covered. In order to keep my emotions from taking control of my fingers I am withdrawing from this thread, at least for the moment. I believe that there will be interesting developements in the near future, and I look forward to further conversation with you on this topic.
That said, I have seen the battlefield, I know the enemy. I have found perpetrators of heinous activity in the pomeranian world, as well as the puppy mills/brokers/USDA breeders, in the least likely of places. I fight the fight in my little corner of the world, and I educate at every opportunity. And I hate peta.
And here’s a thread in GQ discussing the problems with using lethal injection of prisoners (which involves some of the same chemicals). Ever think that part of the reason the vets might not like someone like the police using a gun to put down animals is that the vets don’t get paid for such services?
Yeah, that’s really evident by your comments. :rolleyes:
The key word in your first sentence is “some.” The key part of your second sentence is that you’ve not no evidence whatsoever to support it, and it’s a rather nasty charge against vets as a whole.
If you don’t have an argument on the facts, that’s fine. A cite for a different drug cocktail does not directly bear on this discussion.
The lethal injection cocktail used in humans is quite different than euthanasia solution used by most vet.s. I believe the human suff contains a paralyzing agent - something that is specifically banned because it is not humane.
Euthanasia is such a minute fraction of a vet.s income that I can’t imagine a single one complaining that somebody else is taking away their income. As a matter of fact, most vet.s turn down euthanasia on demand requests of healthy animals - the people who are going on vacation or moving so would rather have Rover out of the way. If they were just in it for the money, you’d think they’d welcome the business.
Instant death is preferable for the animal, IMHO, but often not pleasant for observers. A single, well placed shot in the brain is no doubt easier on the animal than having to feel a needle and then take a few minutes to die. But it’s harder for the humans to watch, and safer for observers as well as there is no loaded firearm in sight when injection is used.
Dork - you stated that the two individuals operated outside of PETA policy. How do you know? Have you actually seen their euthanasia/adoption policy? In a similar vein - have you or any other independent third party that you are aware of actaully seen the results of PETA money spent in good ways? Or have you just been told by them that it’s occuring.
Is it not possible that what came to light was very much business as usual for the organization (until they got caught). Can you find any animals placed in homes that were put their by PETA?
WHat is your response to the AVMA article on euthanasia by barbiturates vs. euthanasia by gunshot? As I’ve stated before, there are some circumstances under which euthanasia by gunshot is acceptable–I really don’t care about the aesthetics of the situation–but there are far more circumstances in which intravenal injection of barbiturates is acceptable.
In answer to the first question: I don’t know that for sure, but I do know that PETA has publicly repudiated what they were doing. It’s a fair point, though. Certainly if these guys were operating according to PETA policy, that’ll be part of their defense against any charges. Let’s see what they say; I refuse to assume that they’re guilty of a charge until there’s some evidence that they’re guilty of the charge.
As for having seen PETA money being spent in good ways, I earlier linked to their raising awareness about a local animal hoarder masquerading as an animal shelter. That’s just what I’ve seen in my community.
Personally, I’m pretty happy that their campaigns on Burger King and McDonald’s meat-slaughtering practices were successful: they brought a lot of pressure to bear on these two companies, and the companies in turn brought pressure to bear on slaughterhouses such that the slaughterhouses adopted more humane methods. I further hope their campaign on KFC is similarly successful. I include these campaigns in the 50% of their activities that I consider good or bad based on one’s political orientation, though.
No, I cannot, but nor can I find any animals placed in homes that were placed there by the San Francisco SPCA (for example): you’re asking for something very difficult to find. You seem to be implying that their statistics on adoptions are frauds, that they’re fraudulently claiming to adopt out 10-20% of the animals coming to them while they euthanize the rest. Frankly, if I were gonna make up fake stats, I’d use them to portray myself in a better light–but that’s beside the point. If you think they’re acting fraudulently, you need to do better than just implying that; you need to produce evidence that the organization is doing so.
My perspective on the AVMA’s euthanasia guidelines is very similar to that of other veterinarians involved in areas of animal welfare. They are generated by a committee - many of whose members are appointed for political reasons. There are more than a few points that I don’t agree with. It’s especially worrisome since it is used as the absolute last authority on the subject by just about everyone. It’s the best we got -but it’s not perfect by any stretch.
That’s what makes me wonder. Up to this point, I only knew them as a PR-type organization that brought issues to light. I had never heard of them actually being involved in animal care. There are Generals on the right and left sides of many causes. The one thing they have in common are that you won’t find them in the trenches.
Right, but you have stated several times that you work at an animal shelter in North Carolina. In the backyard of where all this took place. If PETA was adopting animals out in your county or in an adjacent area, I’d expect shelter workers to have heard of it. I know that if I read that PETA had been involved for years with finding homes for animals in Clinton County Indiana, for example, and that was the first I’d heard of it, I’d be suspicious that there was something hinky going on.
In that matter, I think your wait and see approach is best. Getting PETA on the hook is better than nabbing a linching Klan member to many folks, I’d be shocked if this goes away before everything is duly thrashed out in the press.
And as Long Time First Time pointed out the difference is a paralytic agent that is considered inhumane in the practice of putting animals down, and as far as vets being “professionals” who can do the job better, well how many people have to deal with medical professionals who can’t hit a vein in their life depends upon it? I know plenty of people who’ve bitched about going to the doc and having to endure repeated needle sticks because the doc/nurse can’t find their veins, and the human doctors don’t even have the excuse that their patient is covered by fur. The human also understands the point of getting jabbed repeatedly by a needle, all an animal knows is that this giant hairless ape is hurting them.
Simple fact of the matter is: No matter what method you come up with to put a human or animal down, someone’s going to object to it because they think it’s cruel.
It may not be perfect by any stretch, but I’ve read a fair amount on euthanasia, and I have yet to read anyone who’s an expert in the field who claims that gunshot is more humane than intravenal barbiturate injection. I think you’re right that it’s the best we’ve got.
There’s a fair chance I live as close to Clinton, Indiana as I live to Ahoskie, NC: I’m in the western corner of the state, and the counties in question are in the eastern part of the state, probably 5-6 hours from where I am. I haven’t been to eastern NC in several years. I can speak on state laws, and I can speak on regional trends, and I can speak on PETA’s actions in a neighboring county (Henderson County, with the story I linked to above), but I have no direct experience with their activities in the eastern part of the state. My apologies if I’ve given any impression to the contrary.
Indeed. But my offer of a wager still stands: I’ll bet anyone in this thread that not a single felony animal cruelty charge will stick to these two assholes in connection with any of these 31 animals. (I hedge the bet because I’m only willing to address the facts that we have in front of us; I certainly am not willing to vouch for the character of either of these two schmucks).
Barbiturates are sedatives, not paralytic agents. An animal that’s euthanized via intracardial injection of a sedative falls asleep almost instantaneously; the overdose of the sedative relaxes their heart, and makes it stop beating.
Yes, it can be done poorly: thus the requirement that euth techs get training. I’ve heard horror stories of poorly-performed euthanasias. However, and I want to stress this yet again, in shelter conditions, it’s easier for a trained tech to perform intravenal injection euthanasia humanely than to perform gunshot euthanasia humanely.
Does this “someone” include anyone with experience and expertise on the subject? If so, I’d appreciate a cite.
I have no idea what your point is any more. Is it some metaphysical point about the essential unknowability of the moment of death? If so, I don’t argue metaphysics; if not, I’d appreciate a restatement of your point, with any relevant cites you can muster to bolster it.
My point is that it doesn’t matter what kind of experts anyone can muster up in support of their argument that this or that method of putting an animal/person down is humane/inhumane, because there’s always going to be other experts who disagree with that particular method, and the very concept of euthanasia as well, and it will always be this way, because we’ll never have anyone with first hand experience to tell us (and even if we do, it won’t be reliable, since they’re experience could be colored by the sheer emotional horror of dying).
You state that the vets think drug induced death is the only way to go. Well, I’m sorry, but I can’t buy that. Not that I think that it’s painful, it’s probably not, and even if it is, it certainly doesn’t last very long. It seems more likely to me that the vets are coming at this from the position of “We’re the professionals here, and we’re the only ones qualified to make any decision about this matter, and if anyone tries anything other than what we normally do, it’s cruel.”
Putting down animals is emotionally painful business for people. No one really likes to do it, I’m sure, and I can well imagine that their thought processes are driven by that. So, lethal injection looks like a nice, painless, and clean way to go (and it probably is), whereas shooting is violent and messy, but it’s fast as hell. One second you’ve got a skull, the next, there’s nothing there but bloody vapor.
If this is true, then we’re back to my request for a cite. Can you point me to a single expert on euthanasia who disagrees with the particular method of intravenal barbiturate injection? I’ve never heard of such an expert, so your claim sounds doubtful to me.
No I do not. I state that the AVMA says that intravenal barbiturate injection is generally the preferred practice, because it is easier to administer humanely in a broader variety of situations than the alternatives. I agree that in some circumstances, gunshot euthanasia is appropriate (e.g., if a police officer finds a dog by the side of a rural road at night, the dog’s back is broken, the dog has no collar, and the police officer has no way of humanely transporting the dog to a qualified euthanasia technician).
Do you see the difference between what I’m saying and your paraphrase?
Have you ever been around a feral dog or cat? I’m assuming that you’re a pretty good shot: how confident are you in your ability to put a bullet through the skull of a feral cat on your first shot?
Of course, when doing IV injection of such an animal, they often have to sedate the animal first, and presumably you could sedate an animal and then shoot it. I am unaware of any organizations that do this, however.