Even if this was a feral cat, having a vet gleefully kill it with a bow and arrow and show the picture of it hanging by the head with an arrow through it, while smiling, is very disturbing and not in line with what one expects from a medical professional.
It would be like, during slavery in the American South, there was a doctor who liked to kill escaped slaves with bows and arrows through the head, and took pictures of the dead slaves with arrows through their heads, while standing next to them smiling (assuming pictures existed). This is not something you expect from a medical professional, who, one assumes, wants to save life, not eliminate it. You wouldn’t want this guy to be your doctor.
And I wouldn’t want this vet lady to be my cat’s vet, not in a million years.
And for all those in this thread who are saying, effectively, “what, me worry?” it appears that you are in the minority, since everyone, from her school where she studied, to her place of employment, have condemned her actions.
I didn’t say cats not wearing a collar must be feral, only that a cat wearing a collar isn’t feral. You see the diference?
It’s not illogical; she likes killing. Not hunting for food, just killing. And I wouldn’t be the only one to think that way - lots of the other customers would too; most people get pretty sentimental about their pets. You do seem to an an unusually logic-bound person, but logic is not the only factor in most people’s decision-making. Logically I think this vet is more likely to lean towards euthanasia than the average vet, and emotionally I wouldn’t want to take that chance with my pet’s life.
And there are other vets that pet-owners can go to; they’re not limited like they would be with some other choices. So her being fired is, in this case, due to a reasonable suspicion that the company will lose business, if they haven’t already.
The arrow is not cruel for an uncaptured feral cat. But in the circumstance you describe, my beloved cat isn’t roaming the neighborhood. It’s in the vet’s office, transported there in a cat carrier. So I would not be in favor of the bow and an arrow to the head in that circumstance: it’s not needed. But since the feral cat was free and roaming and not minded to sit still for a needle, the arrow is defensible.
By the same token, her glee is irrelevant in the case of killing a feral cat, which has no owner to grieve for its death. That same glee expressed to me after killing my pet would be inappropriate.
I can’t answer that exhaustively without knowing what sort of evidence is available. Did the sheriff’s investigation recover the cat’s corpse? Was “Tiger,” chipped? Is there a better, less blurry image of the dead cat? How far apart, in miles, was the doctor’s home and Tiger’s home?
The chipped body would be clearly dispositive. But if I were to learn that the vet’s house was within a mile or two of Tiger’s house, I’d be persuaded that there’s enough to believe the dead cat was Tiger: similarity of markings, disappearance at the same time as the reported death, and proximity.
By the same token, if I were to learn that the vet’s house was ten miles away from Tiger’s home, I’d regard it as unlikely that the two cats were one and the same.
If you’ll read my posts again, you’ll discover not a single one in which I have described the vet’s bow-killing as “ok.” Instead, I have said it’s not cruel.
And that’s a principle I will carry over to other threads, yes: doing something potentially reckless is NOT CRUEL as long as the consequences in a specific case are NOT CRUEL.
I don’t agree with this conclusion. “Everyone” has done nothing. Her school and her former employees have reacted in response to a very vocal outcry of compliant from many people, yes, but a tiny fraction of people. The vast majority of people have not weighed in, and I aver it’s because they don’t particularly care.
This amounts to a sort of “heckler’s veto,” where a speech to a crowd is cancelled because one person disrupts it – and then you point to the cancellation as evidence that the crowd didn’t like the speech.
This comment from her former employers from the Dallas Morning News web site says:
[QUOTE=Washington Animal Clinic]
“We are absolutely appalled, shocked, upset, and disgusted by the conduct,” the clinic posted on its web site. “We do not allow such conduct and we condemn it in the strongest possible manner.”
[/QUOTE]
This suggests to me that they fired her of their volition, and in accordance with their own principles, rather than in reaction to the angry mob.
That’s not to say of course that they wouldn’t have been entirely unswayed by the internet backlash, so my guess is that it’s possible that they fired her for both reasons, rather than either/or.
The problem with this conclusion is that the clinic is essentially boxed in: they can’t release a statement saying, “We’re ambivalent about Dr. Lindsey’s conduct, but we’re firing her because we want to avoid coming under attack from her critics.”
So I give their public statement very little evidentiary value. On the other hand, I recognize that this places me in a position in which there’s very little the clinic could say that would convince me otherwise. Even if they release a statement saying, “Look, we pinky swear – we’re firing her because we want to,” I’d regard that statement with suspicion if it arose in the context of highly negative consequences for the clinic if they DIDN’T release such a disclaimer.
So, which is this, a “heckler’s veto” from a tiny fraction (while the vast majority are ambivalent, at worst), or a groundswell from the masses that the clinic is forced to go along with, against their true feelings?
Surely such a tiny fraction of people wouldn’t impact their business. Heck, their actual clients will all have met this vet personally, and know what a caring and compassionate professional she is. Firing her is more likely to alienate her customers. Whose wishes is a business more likely to respond to; a tiny (but vocal) fraction of strangers, or the people who give them money?
Or, you know, maybe the statement they issued is true.
Indeed her actual customers have – several stories have quoted a customer who left flowers for her at work as a statement of support.
But in this age of public internet shaming, the answer to your question is: the tiny fraction. Because that “tiny fraction” is a fraction of the whole country, and perhaps of the English-speaking world, while the paying customers are only residents of her town.
I disagree. If you think the clinic is operating on purely pragmatic or mercenary motives, one paying customer is worth more than a thousand strangers on the internet. That they’re giving in to the condemnation of this vet’s actions means they likely agree with it.
It would be like, during slavery in the American South, there was a doctor who liked to kill escaped slaves with bows and arrows through the head, and took pictures of the dead slaves with arrows through their heads, while standing next to them smiling (assuming pictures existed).
[/QUOTE]
No, actually it wouldn’t be like that at all.
I dont understand what you want in a citation? We accept your legal expertise, why can you accept a half-dozen posters cat expertise? The cat in the picture is not a feral,it is entirely too well fed and groomed to be a feral cat (do you know the difference between a “feral” and a "stray’? Cat experts say that a tabby cats pattern is unique, like facial recognition.
Next, it matched exactly the pictures of the missing pet Tiger, who went missing a short distance away and the same day. Do you dispute that? There’s a Facebook page where the owners of Tiger have verified that was their pet, including members of the ASPCA and Humane Society. Have you ever had any pets? Cant you identify them by looking at them?
*The killer has been fired from her job. *
So, let’s put it in human terms: A child is killed, the body is not found but the killer posts a photo of the murdered child. A child who matches that description went missing the same day. The parents of the child identifiy that child in the photo, and that is confirmed by child care experts and the kids teachers. Would you honestly say that it’s not the kid in the photo,:dubious: it must be a ventriloquists dummy? :rolleyes:
The woman, clearly, didn’t use enough bow. A bow heavy enough for taking live targets should have totally penetrated and exited the cat’s skull. Further, it has been said repeatedly in this thread that she used a crossbow. The arrow in the picture is not a crossbow arrow. It is an arrow for use from a conventional bow, most likely one of no great draw weight. As much as the arrow is flexing in the picture, it doesn’t have much spine. In addition, the arrow has a field point on it rather than a broadhead. It made a simple puncture wound with minimal bleeding. Looks to me like the woman was target shooting with lightweight tackle and shot at the cat on a whim. I detest half-assery in any endeavor. If she wants to shoot ferals, she should equip herself properly.
A “cite,” would be a link to a cat expert saying that a tabby cat’s pattern is unique, like facial recognition, instead of you saying it.
Yes, I do. The picture of the dead cat (that I have seen) is too fuzzy to permit an “exact match” with any degree of confidence. The “short distance” has not been explained as a number with units. As i said above, if I were to learn that “Tiger’s” home was ten miles away, I’d find it difficult to credit an afternoon’s wandering brought Tiger all that way.
Your first sentence is incoherent. How would the members of the ASPCA and the Humane Society possibly be able to verify it was the same cat?
I have had many pets: cats, dogs, parrakeets, ferrets, salt and fresh water fish. I could identify them by looking at them face to face. I could not necessarily reliably identify them with the aid of a blurry picture.
That’s the result of hundreds of angry callers demanding this result, not a comment on the merits of the charge.
If the photo was so blurry that confident identification was not reasonably possible? I’d say that Identification hasn’t yet been confirmed, which is precisely what I’m saying here.
That’s a cite. It just doesn’t say quite what you said it says.
See, the link is usually followed by a brief quotation from the linked source, showing what in the linked source you’re relying upon.
For example, from your first link:
So they’re not bringing charges – they are recommending to the district attorney that charges be brought.
One of the (many, many) things that bothers me about this case is that this woman saw an apparently well fed, apparently healthy cat and thought “that is a cat that needs killing.” She had *no idea *if it was someone’s pet. Even if it had no collar, or microchip, that isn’t particular persuasive that it is not a pet. And unless she can tell at a distance if there is a chip, or she had the cat scanned before shooting it with an arrow, she had no idea if it truly was a feral.
While articles have quoted ONE person who brought balloons to the clinic in support of the vet, I haven’t seen how many current or potential customers called to withdraw their business. If the vet’s office were the one where I take my animals, I would probably call and request my records to take to a new vet. It would take a truly remarkable doctor (obviously other than her) to change my reaction. So yes, the “tiny minority” has spoken out against this vet. But do we have any idea how much business this clinic actually stood to lose by this woman who considered herself “Vet of the Year”?
OK, so they might be reacting only to the internet backlash. So might the AVMA, when they released a statement that they were appalled by the post and caption. Or it’s possible, even plausible, that they too were appalled.
