Shoot to kill - humane?
A little while ago I heard about something I couldn't quite believe. Yet when the story was investigated it was true.
Here's the exchange of emails...
Hi, a while ago I spoke to you re a story I had been told about the RSPCA shooting dogs in Wales, well at long last I have their reply. Anyway thought I would keep you up to date...
"When people commit suicide, how do they do it? A bullet to the brain most of the time. A captive bolt is the same as that, and how we kill most farm animals. It is not an unethical way to die, provided the person knows what they are doing. I am a practiced killer, and a blow the brain does the job as quick and painlessly as possible. I do not object to a blow to the head. In fact, I think I object to dying almost any other way. "
But then again another contact said:
"Re- captive bolt, use on dogs, personally I'm against it, as dogs have large frontal sinuses and if they move their head you can miss the cranium! So in my opinion on welfare grounds the dogs should have been sedated first, in which case you could then use euthatal injection anyway. Even if you can't dart them all, you could sedate in food. The restraint needed to hold the dogs still would still have been terrifying I would think!..."
and then again...
"I think a captive bolt, properly administered, is a very immediate way to die. And they were killed on their own premises – which is arguably kinder, too. None was killed in front of any of the others."
What do you think? A very upsetting story whatever your view.
Here's the exchange of emails...
Hi, a while ago I spoke to you re a story I had been told about the RSPCA shooting dogs in Wales, well at long last I have their reply. Anyway thought I would keep you up to date...
Thank you for your enquiry. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. We receive a very large volume of enquiries here and have to prioritise to deal with urgent animal welfare issues first.
There has been some misinformation posted with regard to this case. The facts are as follows:
We received a call on 23 June this year from a member of the public relating to 10 German Shepherd dogs at an address in Pontardawe, in south Wales. The caller said the dogs owner, a relative, had died and the dogs had been living on their own.
An RSPCA inspector visited the premises that day and assessed the animals. The inspector took the decision that none of the dogs were at all suitable for rehoming due to concerns about their aggressive behaviour and lack of socialisation with people. The dogs were also suffering from a severe skin condition.
We explained the next-of-kin that they should contact other rescue groups for help. The next-of-kin were made fully aware that if the RSPCA became involved, the dogs would be euthanased.
The owners next-of-kin later contacted the RSPCA again and said they had been turned down by other charities who were unwilling to take on the animals and they signed over the dogs, fully aware of what would happen.
It is the RSPCAs raison d'etre to prevent cruelty to animals, and it was decided this sad, but ultimately necessary, outcome for the dogs was the best way to prevent the animals any further suffering. The decision was not made lightly and, as always, it was made with the best interests of the animal at heart.
Thank you again for contacting the Society.
Kind regards
RSPCA HQ Advice Team
Our contact then asked if the dogs had been shot...
I have to say I am stunned by this story. Now some people I've told this to have been less so - maybe I'm a bit of a softie...Thank you for your further enquiry.
Yes, they were. A decision was made following a discussion between eight RSPCA officers that the most humane form of euthanasia would be to use a captive bolt. This would minimise distress to the dogs, while also being the safest method for those people responsible for dealing with the animals. Restraining the dogs and then shaving a limb to prepare for a lethal injection would have caused these animals unnecessary suffering, due to the animals suffering from a severe skin condition.
Thank you again for contacting the Society.
Kind regards
RSPCA HQ Advice Team
"When people commit suicide, how do they do it? A bullet to the brain most of the time. A captive bolt is the same as that, and how we kill most farm animals. It is not an unethical way to die, provided the person knows what they are doing. I am a practiced killer, and a blow the brain does the job as quick and painlessly as possible. I do not object to a blow to the head. In fact, I think I object to dying almost any other way. "
But then again another contact said:
"Re- captive bolt, use on dogs, personally I'm against it, as dogs have large frontal sinuses and if they move their head you can miss the cranium! So in my opinion on welfare grounds the dogs should have been sedated first, in which case you could then use euthatal injection anyway. Even if you can't dart them all, you could sedate in food. The restraint needed to hold the dogs still would still have been terrifying I would think!..."
and then again...
"I think a captive bolt, properly administered, is a very immediate way to die. And they were killed on their own premises – which is arguably kinder, too. None was killed in front of any of the others."
What do you think? A very upsetting story whatever your view.
Comments
I would expect shooting to be quicker than an injection which from personal experience takes a minute or two or even longer (depending on reason for PTS).
Do we think an injection is kinder because it seems more peaceful?
Recently I read a fictional book based around the death penalty by lethal injection. What I read was very distressing to me when thinking about my own pets, it mentioned research about how the injection can cause great pain (feeling your blood boiling in your veins) but the body being unable to respond.
I've been too afraid to google research into.
Re pain from lethal injection, I'm dubious about pain felt if it's in a vein and think that was probably just fiction to enhance the story. I've read some information on euthanasia and whilst the solution is painful if injected outside a vein (which is why vets often insert a catheter into the vein first), it's not if it's inside the vein, as far as I'm aware. Since there aren't any nerves inside veins I don't see why it should be.
On the face of it, it would seem possible that the skin condition may have pre-dated the owner's death - had they been on their own since the death one wonders if they would have survived long enough for a skin condition to become so severe.
Again one is inclined to wonder why one person was keeping so many large dogs in one establishment and for what purpose?
And then there is the blind faith of people whose attitude seems to be "well the RSPCA said it was ok so it must be." That is not necessarily the case, and if we all constantly allow such things to go unchallenged, we risk handing over tremendous power to an organisation without question.
I recognise that the RSPCA does a great deal of very valuable work. But there are a great many of their policies with which I heartily disagree, and for that reason I no longer support them in any way, financially or otherwise.
They may very well be right, it may be that they took the most humane, and indeed the only course of action open to them.
But I would still like to know why nothing had been done to prevent such a tragic end to the lives of 10 dogs.
But like the many stories I read about social services and the wrongs and rights of the tragedies that have ensued with regard to child protection I do think there is a moral question higher up the food chain before the authorities are blamed for everything.
None of us knows when sadly our own dogs may have to be fostered or rehomed. Any of us can experience life changing circumstances that might force a rehome. And to that extent I feel we all have a moral duty to ensure our dogs are cared for and socialised to the max. Thus making a good rehome very feasible for them. There have been several cases recently where fostering and rehome have been rendered extremely difficult because the dogs in question have serious issues. I would like the keepers of those dogs to reflect on what they could have done differently in the first place before we start blaming the officials who are there as a last resort. And we should all reflect on the dilemma of how we may be contributing to an uncertain future for our own dogs if we don't do what is right by them.
I had a rabbit that had to be euthanased due to a parasite in his brain. He seemed to just nod off into a gentle sleep. Why it was so difficult for this dog I don't know, but any method of euthanasia should be INSTANT. Not prolonged as was that poor dog. If these GSDs were shot and it was instant, that must be better than taking so long to die with the injections?
A big dog like a GSD is potentially highly dangerous and requires a very experienced new owner who is willing to accept quite a restricted lifestyle and who is physically capable of controlling the dog in an emergency.
I have experience of unsuccessful attempts to rehabilitate dogs like this which ended up with them having to be put to sleep (by injection at the decision of the new owners) and it was very upsetting for everyone concerned.
If the use of the captive bolt gun is thought to inhumane then why are many hundreds of thousands of food animals legally killed by this method in the UK?