http://aldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/kristen-lindsey-bow-kill-200x300.jpg
Pretty easily.
Correction: “emaciated.” The cat is clearly emancipated.
Stupid spell check.
I don’t think you could tell if they were dead or alive, but certainly from that photo (that DrDeth linked) it does look superficially healthy, and on a body condition score scale of 1 to 9 (which a veterinarian would know), the cat looks between a 4 and a 5, the least I can give is a 3 assuming that gravity is stretching the skin to hide the ribs.
I have seen healthy ferals, though. The ones that are “neighborhood cat”.
I more or less concur.
Yeah, that’s true, but not common. But then they are being cared for. So, it’d be wrong to kill one out of hand, in any case.
This response shifts the goal posts.
The Board, of course, is free to adopt any standards it pleases.
But the rationale for killing feral cats does not only rest on whether they are being cared for in the sense of various neighbors leaving out food for them.
If you adopt the position that it was wrong to kill a healthy feral cat under all circumstances, then I agree that Lindsey was wrong. The cat was not obviously, visually, ill.
I don’t think that the the Board concurs in that position. I think the questions were intended to show that the cat had an owner, which makes her actions in killing it without permission illegal, or that the cat suffered pain, which makes the method of killing illegal. I do not believe that the Board has, or will, adopt the reasoning that killing a “cared for” feral cat is wrong.
It was wrong, whether or not it was *illegal. *
OK. In your view, it was wrong.
Or are you saying in all possible moral and ethical systems to which any thinking human being could subscribe, this action was wrong?
As a veterinarian, I would say that by the ethical systems many veterinarians I do know, what that veterinarian did was wrong. 
I will admit to you, that it may not be the same ethical call used by the Board (albeit I hope so, or at least, that they really scrutinize her).
I would say that, even if it is a healthy feral cat, the fact that it is makes it hard to distinguish if it was a truly feral cat invading property or an owned outdoor cat. Enough to admit doubt and not to say “it was unequivocally feral”. So in that sense, the arguments about its appearance can have some weight in the argument “was this an owned cat or not”.
As to the fact she is still practicing, she may not be the only veterinarian in the clinic, or if she is, she still may have some regular clients that have already have rapport with her. It would be interesting to know if her business (if she is sole owner) has remained the same or how it has fared since the incident.
I understand that she was dismissed by the practice that employed her when the incident became public, and she has since joined another practice.
As to your other points: out of curiosity, in your opinion, is it possible for an ethical, moral vet to participate in a “trap and kill” approach to feral cats, or must a vet limit himself to “trap, neuter, release?”
If the idea is that “should a veterinarian kill…”… well, we can kill. But there is certainly a difference between trapping a cat and sending to a shelter (where the animal most likely will be euthanized, one expects according to the established guidelines) and hunting it as prey (without even knowing if it is owned). Please also remember that in modern shelters (and even trap programs), incoming animals are scanned first to make sure they are not owned before being released (and euthanized). You cannot do that if you’re hunting them.
There is one aspect that “trap, neuter, release” is also “trap and kill”, at least if you’re a pro-lifer or anti-abortion person. Pregnant queens (or bitches) can be spayed and are spayed in some of those programs. They are released, but obviously the fetuses die. If it is late enough in gestation that they could survive and someone can foster them, there are attempts to save, but otherwise no.
[QUOTE=Bricker;]
I don’t think that the the Board concurs in that position. I think the questions were intended to show that the cat had an owner, which makes her actions in killing it without permission illegal, or that the cat suffered pain, which makes the method of killing illegal. I do not believe that the Board has, or will, adopt the reasoning that killing a “cared for” feral cat is wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Do you believe they will take into consideration her recklessness, both in in inability to accurately determine if a cat is feral at 40 yards and the significently higher chance of wounding the cat rather than a clean, quick kill?
I don’t know if they will.
To my mind, she certainly WAS reckless. But I don’t know nearly enough about their past precedents to opine on whether recklessness of that type and caliber is grounds for loss of license.
From reading about it, it seems she also mentioned at some point that she had some concern for rabies. Just from that, as a veterinarian, I would be 
:dubious: and consider her that she must have forgotten her schooling and must be sent back to class.
If the risk is that the animal may have rabies, the animal is handled carefully, and care is taken that, while obtaining the brain, the whole area is disturbed as little as possible, and minimize the spread of any brain tissue.
Shooting an arrow through the brain defeats all purposes of rabies sampling and prevention of rabies spread.
Her attorney stated that she is unemployeed at the moment.
As does dumping the body into a garbage pit without doing a rabies sampling.
For what it’s worth she changed her mind on the whole rabies thing. (Excerpts taken from the TJT news page, I haven’t vetted for accuracy):
The fact that she proposed it, or even let her lawyer suggest that… she as a veterinarian, even if she wanted an excuse, should’ve picked a better one. :mad:
Which is what she did, after lying in an affidavit. Because that excuse of rabies will not fly with other veterinarians/health professionals (I’m assuming at least some/all of the licensing board are veterinarians).
I vote that Bricker is a stand-up guy for making this offer. Honorable mention goes to steronz for not slinking away.
One moral victory hinges on how this plays out next fall.
Ignorance has been fought. The best thing about making bets is that they are memorable. You can think back on your former certitude and compare it to life’s surprises. I’m guessing neither party originally anticipated that this process would drag out for so long. I doubt whether I would have either. Participate in enough long-run bets and a certain circumspection typically sets in. This is all to the good in my view. High fives for everyone.
Right! Bets make you accountable.
Sadly, in many cases the people willing to bet are mostly the people who are already accountable for error. The people who make confident, certain proclamations but refuse to bet are often the ones who are nowhere to be found when their error is finally shown…they are off in another thread making equally confident predictions about another future event.
For example.
An update on the case. The recommendations are not necessarily the final word, though.
Given the amount of ecological damage free-roaming cats do, I wish more people would take them out of the food chain. They are viciously aggressive invasive species in a natural context. I’d like to see them mowed down with a machine gun and stacked up like cordwood, and I have three (indoor) cats which I love very much. Keep your damn cats inside.