Out Of A Horror Movie?

[OSoSwift]

I can only imagine that the issue isn't so much whether the operator is a fully trained veterinarian, but more the fact that it is a highly dangerous drug that you would surely need some sort of special requirements met to have it in possession?

You are right, these drugs are potentially very dangerous and would not be released to anyone but a vet.

Shooting is very quick and humane if done properly, not my euthanasia of choice but if I was a reasonable from a vet and had say a dog who had a 1080 bait then I would get the dog shot rather than put them through the symptoms of poisoning and the drive to the vet for euthanasia.

We have a vet 15 kms away and if I have a cow who needs euthing they are shot with a high powered rifle standing in the paddock. If I was to get the vet out I would have to get them into a crush then they would require and IV injection - very difficult with an animal not used to being handled int hat way.

In this circumstance I think the Ranger was an idiot and what he did was completely unnecessary and dangerous.

[LizT]

I can only imagine that the issue isn't so much whether the operator is a fully trained veterinarian, but more the fact that it is a highly dangerous drug that you would surely need some sort of special requirements met to have it in possession?

It takes a fair bit of skill to use a firearm efficiently, bullets are not cheap either. You have to jump through hoops to have a firearms licence these days too, so I can't imagine it is just about the money.

[LizT]

I can only imagine that the issue isn't so much whether the operator is a fully trained veterinarian, but more the fact that it is a highly dangerous drug that you would surely need some sort of special requirements met to have it in possession?

You are right, these drugs are potentially very dangerous and would not be released to anyone but a vet.

Shooting is very quick and humane if done properly, not my euthanasia of choice but if I was a reasonable from a vet and had say a dog who had a 1080 bait then I would get the dog shot rather than put them through the symptoms of poisoning and the drive to the vet for euthanasia.

We have a vet 15 kms away and if I have a cow who needs euthing they are shot with a high powered rifle standing in the paddock. If I was to get the vet out I would have to get them into a crush then they would require and IV injection - very difficult with an animal not used to being handled int hat way.

In this circumstance I think the Ranger was an idiot and what he did was completely unnecessary and dangerous.

I knew a vet who used to keep a handgun in a safe at his office (years ago) if called out to PTS a large animal he would often prfer this method, less risk of convulsions and injury to himself. I wonder however, if said Ranger had been directed to do as he did or whether he was making decisions himself?

[Scales of Justice]

Shooting is very quick and humane if done properly, not my euthanasia of choice but if I was a reasonable from a vet and had say a dog who had a 1080 bait then I would get the dog shot rather than put them through the symptoms of poisoning and the drive to the vet for euthanasia.

We have a vet 15 kms away and if I have a cow who needs euthing they are shot with a high powered rifle standing in the paddock. If I was to get the vet out I would have to get them into a crush then they would require and IV injection - very difficult with an animal not used to being handled int hat way.

I'm sure we would all agree here on this forum that dogs are very intelligent animals. So in that vein, what would the 11th dog waiting to be shot be thinking as all the others meet their fate?

As was showed in the cows in Indonesia footage each cow that came for the kill appeared to be terrified.

Stop for a moment and contemplate the horror.

Edited July 7, 2012 by Scales of Justice

[LizT]

Shooting is very quick and humane if done properly, not my euthanasia of choice but if I was a reasonable from a vet and had say a dog who had a 1080 bait then I would get the dog shot rather than put them through the symptoms of poisoning and the drive to the vet for euthanasia.

We have a vet 15 kms away and if I have a cow who needs euthing they are shot with a high powered rifle standing in the paddock. If I was to get the vet out I would have to get them into a crush then they would require and IV injection - very difficult with an animal not used to being handled int hat way.

I'm sure we would all agree here on this forum that dogs are very intelligent animals. So in that vein, what would the 11th dog waiting to be shot be thinking as all the others meet their fate?

As was showed in the cows in Indonesia footage each cow that came for the kill appeared to be terrified.

Stop for a moment and contemplate the horror.

This is very true, and any animal that is transported before slaughter that is unused to travel, such as cattle make for a tough steak. Home slaughtered meats on unstressed animals are always better.

I would imagine this would also apply to any number of animals being PTS en mass, regardless of the methods applied.

[dancinbcs]

They don't even need a qualified vet to do a humane euthanasia. When I worked for a major shelter in Sydney some years ago, some of the regular staff were trained by the vets to do the daily euthanasias. The vets only came in one or two days a week to do all the desexings. Every afternoon the incoming animals from that day were assessed and any that were not being kept for re-homing were pts by the trained staff in the vet surgery room.

I have no problem with animals being shot in an emergency to save them further suffering but this is a different situation.

[LizT]

They don't even need a qualified vet to do a humane euthanasia. When I worked for a major shelter in Sydney some years ago, some of the regular staff were trained by the vets to do the daily euthanasias. The vets only came in one or two days a week to do all the desexings. Every afternoon the incoming animals from that day were assessed and any that were not being kept for re-homing were pts by the trained staff in the vet surgery room.

I have no problem with animals being shot in an emergency to save them further suffering but this is a different situation.

Yes, just becuase they "used to" club them on the head and throw them in a ditch doesn't mean that practise is still acceptable.

[dancinbcs]

They don't even need a qualified vet to do a humane euthanasia. When I worked for a major shelter in Sydney some years ago, some of the regular staff were trained by the vets to do the daily euthanasias. The vets only came in one or two days a week to do all the desexings. Every afternoon the incoming animals from that day were assessed and any that were not being kept for re-homing were pts by the trained staff in the vet surgery room.

I have no problem with animals being shot in an emergency to save them further suffering but this is a different situation.

Yes, just becuase they "used to" club them on the head and throw them in a ditch doesn't mean that practise is still acceptable.

Who said anything about clubbing anything on the head I was talking about lethal injections being used by approved staff who were trained by the visiting vets. I don't see any reason that a council officer couldn't be trained the same way.

[LizT]

They don't even need a qualified vet to do a humane euthanasia. When I worked for a major shelter in Sydney some years ago, some of the regular staff were trained by the vets to do the daily euthanasias. The vets only came in one or two days a week to do all the desexings. Every afternoon the incoming animals from that day were assessed and any that were not being kept for re-homing were pts by the trained staff in the vet surgery room.

I have no problem with animals being shot in an emergency to save them further suffering but this is a different situation.

Yes, just becuase they "used to" club them on the head and throw them in a ditch doesn't mean that practise is still acceptable.

Who said anything about clubbing anything on the head I was talking about lethal injections being used by approved staff who were trained by the visiting vets. I don't see any reason that a council officer couldn't be trained the same way.

No, you didn't. I was off in my own thoughts about what may have been "normal practise" for some, and wondered if this (the shooting and dumping) was a regular incident for this particualr council, only this time highlighted by a member of the public. Then my OH said to me that once apon a time it was normal practice to "club them on the head and dump them in a tip". Let's hope no one does that nowadays either.

And, yes, it would be great if they could train council officers to do such or at least employ say a veterninary nurse or animal technician to do so.

[Belljari]

I think it is a disgrace Gloucester is NOT the middle of nowhere it is not that far to Newcastle. Why would he have to do this there are plenty of Rescues, Vets and the RSPCA is at Rutherford is not that far.

[nawnim]

This story is also being discussed on the cruelty and abuse forum and I read there that the animals were shot in front of each other. I quote from a post by Sheepia: "Surely it's illegal for local councils in Australia to shoot surrendered dogs (in front of each other). Don't they have to use a vet?" Other posters here have tried to minimize the cruelty angle but I am appalled, and it is not that it was done in normal operating hours either. What sort of a society are we? I am glad the RSPCA is investigating and I hope something useful comes out of it. Those poor dogs and all the others we don't get to hear about.

[Huntia]

Is there a vet within cooee of this place? I know my own council still shoot dogs because the nearest vets are at least 1/2 hrs in either direction and it's a 3 hrs round trip to bring dogs down to the city to the RSPCA or AWL shelters. I'm not saying I like it, but often there isn't a vet on hand. Rescue & adoption programs again are difficult because of the lack of vet close by. I'm frankly torn on which i'd prefer....the dogs shot or the dogs given back out to the local community completely un-vetted? The tyranny of distance so often wins in our vast country.

Gloucester has its own veterinary hospital with at least 3 vets working there. The ranger would have had to nearly drive past the surgery to take the dog/puppies to the tip!!!!

I have emailed Gloucester Council, but I am yet to receive a reply from them on this matter .

The RSPCA or state government or whoever regulates pounds and their procedures should take a very close look at this situation

RIP poor puppies

[Huntia]

This article was released on Friday (6/7/2012) on the online version of the Gloucester advocate. (It is only printed once a weeek on a Wednesday)

http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/animal-shootings-will-cease/2616084.aspx

At least now they will use the vets in this situation. But I would like to know why the council was contacted by police for an animal welfare issue and NOT the RSPCA??

GLOUCESTER Shire Council will immediately cease the practice of euthanising by shooting following widespread public outcry after several dogs were killed at Gloucester landfill last week.

The council has released a statement today saying the practice will be stopped immediately.

Read council’s statement in full below:

Gloucester Shire Council has received a number of complaints in regard to its procedure of euthanising animals under the Companion Animals Act in light of a recent incident raised in the media by a member of the public.

The process has been reviewed and an immediate decision has been made to cease the practice of euthanising by shooting.

Arrangements are being put in place for the local veterinary surgeon to euthanise animals required to be put down, by lethal injection.

Council is still awaiting a response to its report forwarded to the RSPCA prior to finalising its review of the previous safe work method statement.

Council is comfortable that the new approach will not only be more acceptable within the broader community in regard to the welfare of the animals, but will also be inherently of less risk for staff involved with these responsibilities.

Clear new procedures covering all aspects of these responsibilities will be prepared.

It should be appreciated that the recent incident occurred at the request of a member of the public authorised to act in regard to the dogs concerned.

The dogs were some of a large number held on the property, none of which were registered, and for which there were concerns about their welfare.

In response to this request NSW Police requested council to assist with action to euthanise the animals. The tip was closed while this took place.

Over the previous 12 months council has only euthanised four dogs and two cats in accordance with its adopted procedure.

[Guest lavendergirl]

This article was released on Friday (6/7/2012) on the online version of the Gloucester advocate. (It is only printed once a weeek on a Wednesday)

http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/animal-shootings-will-cease/2616084.aspx

At least now they will use the vets in this situation. But I would like to know why the council was contacted by police for an animal welfare issue and NOT the RSPCA??

GLOUCESTER Shire Council will immediately cease the practice of euthanising by shooting following widespread public outcry after several dogs were killed at Gloucester landfill last week.

The council has released a statement today saying the practice will be stopped immediately.

Read council’s statement in full below:

Gloucester Shire Council has received a number of complaints in regard to its procedure of euthanising animals under the Companion Animals Act in light of a recent incident raised in the media by a member of the public.

The process has been reviewed and an immediate decision has been made to cease the practice of euthanising by shooting.

Arrangements are being put in place for the local veterinary surgeon to euthanise animals required to be put down, by lethal injection.

Council is still awaiting a response to its report forwarded to the RSPCA prior to finalising its review of the previous safe work method statement.

Council is comfortable that the new approach will not only be more acceptable within the broader community in regard to the welfare of the animals, but will also be inherently of less risk for staff involved with these responsibilities.

Clear new procedures covering all aspects of these responsibilities will be prepared.

It should be appreciated that the recent incident occurred at the request of a member of the public authorised to act in regard to the dogs concerned.

The dogs were some of a large number held on the property, none of which were registered, and for which there were concerns about their welfare.

In response to this request NSW Police requested council to assist with action to euthanise the animals. The tip was closed while this took place.

Over the previous 12 months council has only euthanised four dogs and two cats in accordance with its adopted procedure.

What sort of dropkick people are on this Council? They are trying to justify this appalling behaviour by saying - oh this was in response to a request by a member of the public and there were concerns for the animal's welfare? Well then lets take them to the tip and shoot them - nothing wrong with that is there Well perhaps other "members of the public" could request that Council members until they acquire some compassion for living creatures.

[nawnim]

This article was released on Friday (6/7/2012) on the online version of the Gloucester advocate. (It is only printed once a weeek on a Wednesday)

http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/animal-shootings-will-cease/2616084.aspx

At least now they will use the vets in this situation. But I would like to know why the council was contacted by police for an animal welfare issue and NOT the RSPCA??

GLOUCESTER Shire Council will immediately cease the practice of euthanising by shooting following widespread public outcry after several dogs were killed at Gloucester landfill last week.

The council has released a statement today saying the practice will be stopped immediately.

Read council’s statement in full below:

Gloucester Shire Council has received a number of complaints in regard to its procedure of euthanising animals under the Companion Animals Act in light of a recent incident raised in the media by a member of the public.

The process has been reviewed and an immediate decision has been made to cease the practice of euthanising by shooting.

Arrangements are being put in place for the local veterinary surgeon to euthanise animals required to be put down, by lethal injection.

Council is still awaiting a response to its report forwarded to the RSPCA prior to finalising its review of the previous safe work method statement.

Council is comfortable that the new approach will not only be more acceptable within the broader community in regard to the welfare of the animals, but will also be inherently of less risk for staff involved with these responsibilities.

Clear new procedures covering all aspects of these responsibilities will be prepared.

It should be appreciated that the recent incident occurred at the request of a member of the public authorised to act in regard to the dogs concerned.

The dogs were some of a large number held on the property, none of which were registered, and for which there were concerns about their welfare.

In response to this request NSW Police requested council to assist with action to euthanise the animals. The tip was closed while this took place.

Over the previous 12 months council has only euthanised four dogs and two cats in accordance with its adopted procedure.

What sort of dropkick people are on this Council? They are trying to justify this appalling behaviour by saying - oh this was in response to a request by a member of the public and there were concerns for the animal's welfare? Well then lets take them to the tip and shoot them - nothing wrong with that is there Well perhaps other "members of the public" could request that Council members until they acquire some compassion for living creatures.

In total agreement lavendergirl. Well put

[Noire]

The original report indicated that the tip was open, as a concerned member of the public reported it, now the council is claiming the tip was closed? regardless, the ranger's actions were unnecessary and unacceptable.

God I hate local government. Incompetent,cruel and self serving.

[Tia]

The original report indicated that the tip was open, as a concerned member of the public reported it, now the council is claiming the tip was closed? regardless, the ranger's actions were unnecessary and unacceptable.

God I hate local government. Incompetent,cruel and self serving.

Agreed, this is just horrible and we'll never know the truth of how many times such incidents took place. Also these dogs were taken from a property under questionable circumstances so it really should have been a RSPCA matter to start with not a ranger.

RIP

[KatrinaM]

How is the ranger standing around grinning in photos if they were taken some time later?

I have ended plenty of suffering with a bullet, I've also found two cats lying injured beside the road in town and taken them into the vets to be euthed.not mine, one was probably feral but it makes no more sense to drive all the way home to put them down with a gun than it does to bring an animal in or get the vet out when suffering needs to be ended as soon as possible. I don't have a problem with him shooting them, he could just show some respect for the animals and the public.

[stellnme]

I have a problem with him shooting them when a vet is so close and no attempt has been made to rehabilitate, treat or work with rescue. It is needless and unacceptable. What happens from now on - maybe they will use a vet but this doesn't address the bigger picture. All in the too hard basket, I fear.

[LizT]

I have a problem with him shooting them when a vet is so close and no attempt has been made to rehabilitate, treat or work with rescue. It is needless and unacceptable. What happens from now on - maybe they will use a vet but this doesn't address the bigger picture. All in the too hard basket, I fear.

Without knowing the breed and history of the dogs we can't say that no attempt was made for rehoming, they may well have been a restricted breed for all the information we have. The point is we also do not know if this is common practice or a "once off" either. We DO know that these dogs deserved a better ending.