Forget who I'm replying to exactly, forgot to take notes....
To the people who've said it seems less cruel to take the dog out, give it a treat and take it's life without it suspecting anything rather than take it to the vet, shelter, etc. I completely agree. Many of the animals I've had over the years become quiet stressed at the vet's office, the time spent waiting around in a strange environment surrounded by the overwhelming smells of unfamiliar animals is something of a necessary unpleasantness when taking a pet in for vaccination, but unpleasant it still is. On a scale of cruelty to the animal I see the gunshot in a peaceful environment as being less. To Michael himself it is higher, but this is his decision.
To the people who would prefer to see the dog rehabilitated and live out it's life. I don't disagree, my support for Michael's decision is based only on the choice between the options for ending the animal's life.
Lucky, I agree entirely that passing the dog off to the Humane Society (or whoever locally) is wasting the money of others. The first forum I hit here each day is the "Hot Deals" one, but using such a free service unless you have no other options is improper in my opinion. And that's what we're all expressing here, right?
From the description Michael has given, he knows better than to treat an animal like this, there's no moral lesson for him to learn about animal care. About how and whether to end one's life is a lively debate. His GF seemed to have had the dog passed off on her, now where she let it lapse into it's situation she may need the motivation to never seek out or accept an animal unless she's ready to care for it completely. In this, by Michael taking personal action the point may hit home stronger with her, and this would be toward the good.
However, it is my opion based on what's been described that the brother should be brought along to witness the firing of the weapon first hand. If this can be arranged, please consider it.
Sorry to hear about how this animal's life has turned out. Frankly I'm more concerned that another animal be spared 10 years of similar hell than I am about the last few milliseconds ending this one's, especially since I rate Michael's chosen method to be reasonable.
One final note, while it's seemingly accepted that the methods used by the vets are the most humane possible, a factor beyond their control may be preventing this. Perhaps things have changed since I heard the story, but approximately a year ago I listened to what seemed a well documented report on NPR about the shortage of the chemical used by most vets to euthanize animals. So instead they've had to fall back on older, less preferable methods including the decompression chamber. Some other rather unnice methods were mentioned, but in the interest of avoiding a debate about NPR, let's stick to just that one. Argue about the pain involved in it all you like, but even if it's entirely painless what dog would choose to be locked in a small metal chamber rather than standing in the woods eating a treat if given the choice?
--Mc
