Originally posted by: LtPage1
Originally posted by: crt1530
/Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Pics or ban!
||
||
Ban.
Not to give this guy any more attention, but I agree. 2 week vacation minimum, please.
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Originally posted by: crt1530
/Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Pics or ban!
||
||
Ban.
Not to give this guy any more attention, but I agree. 2 week vacation minimum, please.
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Too bad that no one who actually matters gives a shit. I guess you will just have to get over it.
Guess talking about criminal activity is ok and we know you love getting off on any gun stories you badass marine you.
The problem you have is you obviously post out of emotion only. I am stating the facts...if I don't get pissed off at every idiot out there...it would be constant. I simply stated the reasons what he did was wrong.
Obviously I have struck a nerve with you.
You have not struck a nerve with me, it is just that you are too much of a douchebag to realize that what he did was right - not wrong as you claim.
Besides, I love gun stores involving cats - especially feral cats. I try to shoot every healthy one I can find. Maybe one will show itself on the property tonight, I will load up the .410 just for you.
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Outdoor cats tend to have lifespans in the mid single digit range.
.
Originally posted by: sundevb
Gonna take a shot in the dark and say Alkemyst isn't doing too well in Zoology.
In some circumstances, a gunshot may be the only practical method of euthanasia.
Some consider physical methods of euthanasia aesthetically displeasing. There are occasions, however, when what is perceived as aesthetic and what is most humane are in conflict. Physical methods may be the most appropriate method for euthanasia and rapid relief of pain and suffering in certain situations.
an accurately delivered gunshot is a conditionally acceptable method of euthanasia.
Certain cases... (eg, acute, severe trauma from automobiles) may require immediate action, and pain and suffering in the animal may be best relieved most rapidly by physical methods including gunshot
Originally posted by: DrPizza
So, it's humane to put down a cow with a bullet to the head, but it's not humane to put down a cat with a bullet to the head? Care to explain that please?? What isn't humane about instantaneous?
Humane Euthanasia Procedures for sick, injured, and/or debilitated livestock
(yes, alkemyst, I see the word livestock. It's agreed that a .22 is a humane way of dispatching a cow, horse, pig,... The term "livestock" rather than "pet" does NOT change their anatomy to affect the efficiency of such a method. The only reason it's not considered "humane" and that the only "humane" way of putting down a pet is due to emotional issues of those who wanted their legislators to make such laws in the first place. People equate a gunshot with a violent death. That doesn't mean that it isn't preferable to use a method other than a gunshot when available, particularly in a vets office or at a shelter.)
As far as simply because it's against the law, do you ever travel 56 in a 55mph zone?
(I just had to say that, since you kept referring to that as a valid reason.)
For what it's worth, Alkemyst, I spend more money in a year on pets than the average person spends in a lifetime. When given the choice, I'll take a pet to the vet to have it put down. Emotionally, it's a lot easier, especially if I'm really attached to the pet. But, if a pet is run over by a car and is clearly suffering, then I'm going to make the tough choice and end its suffering as quickly as possible.
Oh, another thing you said that hasn't been addressed: "It's a crime in most places as well to avoid treatment of a pet due to it costing money. " No. Neglect is a crime. However, a person may legally choose to have a pet euthanized, rather than pay for an expensive treatment (unless you're considering euthanasia to be "treatment.") If you think a pet owner is obligated to pay $2000 for a life-saving surgery, you're sorely mistaken.
Oh, and lastly, even the Humane Society disagrees with you. They make the exception: "The methods that The HSUS considers inhumane, disapproves of, and campaigns against include... gunshot (excluding properly performed field euthanasia in an emergency situation where safe, humane transport of the animal is not possible)" That is, unless you're going to argue that it's humane to keep a suffering animal alive for as long as a day while arrangements are made to have a vet euthanize it.
Animal sheltering.org
Animal Control Association of Tennessee
Feline Conservation Federation
All agree. (There are many many more, I assure you.) Furthermore, the ASPCA "supports the recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia " Ditto the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (and many other zoological associations.)
American Veterinary Medical Association Report on Euthanasia
In some circumstances, a gunshot may be the only practical method of euthanasia.Some consider physical methods of euthanasia aesthetically displeasing. There are occasions, however, when what is perceived as aesthetic and what is most humane are in conflict. Physical methods may be the most appropriate method for euthanasia and rapid relief of pain and suffering in certain situations.an accurately delivered gunshot is a conditionally acceptable method of euthanasia.Certain cases... (eg, acute, severe trauma from automobiles) may require immediate action, and pain and suffering in the animal may be best relieved most rapidly by physical methods including gunshot
That would be completely in line with my decision to take a pet to the vet if it was an illness that gradually left the animal debilitated, however, I'd dispatch the animal quickly and humanely in an emergency situation such as being run over by a car. They're not referring to vets in the field as the ones to actually shoot the animals. About 80% of our contact with our veterinarians is through housecalls. Vets carry everything they'd need to put an animal down without needing a gun. Heck, they've performed minor surguries on our farm and in one instance, even did a partial autopsy. A gunshot to the head is a reasonable option in emergency situations when a veterinarian isn't immediately available to euthanize the animal in another fashion.
Face it Alkemyst, everyone in this thread disagrees with you. The Humane Society disgrees with you. The American Veterinary Medial Association disagrees with you. And, as much as I hate the group in general, even PETA seems to use the AVMA report as their Bible when demanding changes to euthanasia procedures. Perhaps you just haven't gotten to that chapter yet while you're studying zoology.
p.s. can I get a pwned?
Originally posted by: adairusmc
Originally posted by: DrPizza
So, it's humane to put down a cow with a bullet to the head, but it's not humane to put down a cat with a bullet to the head? Care to explain that please?? What isn't humane about instantaneous?
Humane Euthanasia Procedures for sick, injured, and/or debilitated livestock
(yes, alkemyst, I see the word livestock. It's agreed that a .22 is a humane way of dispatching a cow, horse, pig,... The term "livestock" rather than "pet" does NOT change their anatomy to affect the efficiency of such a method. The only reason it's not considered "humane" and that the only "humane" way of putting down a pet is due to emotional issues of those who wanted their legislators to make such laws in the first place. People equate a gunshot with a violent death. That doesn't mean that it isn't preferable to use a method other than a gunshot when available, particularly in a vets office or at a shelter.)
As far as simply because it's against the law, do you ever travel 56 in a 55mph zone?
(I just had to say that, since you kept referring to that as a valid reason.)
For what it's worth, Alkemyst, I spend more money in a year on pets than the average person spends in a lifetime. When given the choice, I'll take a pet to the vet to have it put down. Emotionally, it's a lot easier, especially if I'm really attached to the pet. But, if a pet is run over by a car and is clearly suffering, then I'm going to make the tough choice and end its suffering as quickly as possible.
Oh, another thing you said that hasn't been addressed: "It's a crime in most places as well to avoid treatment of a pet due to it costing money. " No. Neglect is a crime. However, a person may legally choose to have a pet euthanized, rather than pay for an expensive treatment (unless you're considering euthanasia to be "treatment.") If you think a pet owner is obligated to pay $2000 for a life-saving surgery, you're sorely mistaken.
Oh, and lastly, even the Humane Society disagrees with you. They make the exception: "The methods that The HSUS considers inhumane, disapproves of, and campaigns against include... gunshot (excluding properly performed field euthanasia in an emergency situation where safe, humane transport of the animal is not possible)" That is, unless you're going to argue that it's humane to keep a suffering animal alive for as long as a day while arrangements are made to have a vet euthanize it.
Animal sheltering.org
Animal Control Association of Tennessee
Feline Conservation Federation
All agree. (There are many many more, I assure you.) Furthermore, the ASPCA "supports the recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia " Ditto the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (and many other zoological associations.)
American Veterinary Medical Association Report on Euthanasia
In some circumstances, a gunshot may be the only practical method of euthanasia.Some consider physical methods of euthanasia aesthetically displeasing. There are occasions, however, when what is perceived as aesthetic and what is most humane are in conflict. Physical methods may be the most appropriate method for euthanasia and rapid relief of pain and suffering in certain situations.an accurately delivered gunshot is a conditionally acceptable method of euthanasia.Certain cases... (eg, acute, severe trauma from automobiles) may require immediate action, and pain and suffering in the animal may be best relieved most rapidly by physical methods including gunshot
That would be completely in line with my decision to take a pet to the vet if it was an illness that gradually left the animal debilitated, however, I'd dispatch the animal quickly and humanely in an emergency situation such as being run over by a car. They're not referring to vets in the field as the ones to actually shoot the animals. About 80% of our contact with our veterinarians is through housecalls. Vets carry everything they'd need to put an animal down without needing a gun. Heck, they've performed minor surguries on our farm and in one instance, even did a partial autopsy. A gunshot to the head is a reasonable option in emergency situations when a veterinarian isn't immediately available to euthanize the animal in another fashion.
Face it Alkemyst, everyone in this thread disagrees with you. The Humane Society disgrees with you. The American Veterinary Medial Association disagrees with you. And, as much as I hate the group in general, even PETA seems to use the AVMA report as their Bible when demanding changes to euthanasia procedures. Perhaps you just haven't gotten to that chapter yet while you're studying zoology.
p.s. can I get a pwned?
Here you go.
Originally posted by: MrLee
How about taking it to the vet?
:thumbsup:Originally posted by: Kaspian
LMAO:laugh:
Your post reminded me of this:Originally posted by: DrPizza
The drugs do not take 15 minutes to kill the animal. Unconsciousness is nearly immediate and death occurs shortly afterward. The reasons for lethal injection vs. gunshot to a human are aesthetic and a concern for what is more "civilized." The old firing squads were not humane. A humane shot is one which leads immediately to unconsciousness. Being shot in the chest does not qualify.
Originally posted by: DrPizza
The drugs do not take 15 minutes to kill the animal. Unconsciousness is nearly immediate and death occurs shortly afterward. The reasons for lethal injection vs. gunshot to a human are aesthetic and a concern for what is more "civilized." The old firing squads were not humane. A humane shot is one which leads immediately to unconsciousness. Being shot in the chest does not qualify.