On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:57:05 +0000, Charlie Wilkes wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 03:12:39 GMT, Ann > wrote:
>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:43:36 +0000, Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>>> On 24 Jul 2006 12:49:36 -0700, "angel" > wrote:
>>>>Charlie Wilkes wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:20:19 GMT, "cb0928" <[email protected]
>>>> I can't afford to go the vet to have them put to sleep to end
>>>>> >their suffering what can I do?
>>>>> Shoot them in the back of the head, at the base of the skull, with a
>>>>> large caliber pistol, .38 or better. Give each one a treat like a
>>>>> bowl of milk, and shoot him while they is drinking it.
>>>>Remember... two go out.. but only one comes back
>>>>(is an old bugs bunny cartoon)
>>>>I was thinking a .22 would be less messy as the bullet would enter the
>>>>skull but not leave the skull.. it would just bounce around and
>>>>scramble things up. I don't know, you hear things, people talk.
>>> I suspect a .22 might not deliver a reliably clean result, unless the
>>> operation is performed by an expert. I've got a .38 special that
>>> works well, and with an ordinary target/plinking round, it's not
>>> Shooting a suffering animal is certainly not heartless, and it's
>>> arguably less cruel than taking the creature to a vet and obliging it
>>> to live its last moments in a condition of stress and fear.
>>> However, it is deeply unpleasant, which is why having a vet perform
>>> euthenasia is the most common choice, and wholly understandable. But
>>> in this case, we've got an individual who doesn't wanna ride the bus
>>> and figures someone else should pay for a cab. I know lots of people
>>> like that. Don't we all, eh?
>>Of course it could have been a troll, but the OP did appear to be someone
>>who had cared for the dogs for over a decade and is now in limited
>>circumstances ... but wants to do the "right thing". And, even when a
>>poster is a selfish "good-for-nothing", how is it helping the animal to
>>ridicule the owner?
> I doubt if it was a troll. But the OP invoked my wrath by implying
> that I was heartless because I suggested he shoot the dogs or have a
> friend do it. He's on a budget and bullets are cheap, right?
> I used to work with graphic artists. One day I walked into a graphics
> dept. and saw an overturned wastebasket. "What's this for?" I asked.
> "It's covering a mouse on a glue trap, because we can't stand to watch
> it squirm."
> I grabbed a manilla folder out of the supply cabinet, slipped the
> mouse inside and crushed it under the heel of my shoe. After that,
> the girls in the gfx dept. called me "the psycho." I didn't care. I
> played along with the joke. But I privately concluded that these
> bimbos had their heads up their fat, self-centered asses.
> In answer to your question about how my comments help the animal,
My post wasn't about your suggestion to shoot the dogs. But, since you
bring it up. That's usually only practical in a rural area and if the OP
lived in a rural area, I seriously doubt he'd have asked the question.
(That's what would have been done.)
> seems useful to point out that the most important priority in
> euthenasia is to minimize the trauma and suffering of an animal, not
> to appease the squeamishness of the responsible party. Quite a few
> people don't seem to understand that.
But, in my experience, it's usually an argument not worth getting into.
>>As for taking dogs on public transportation, that's usually not permitted
>>except for helper dogs.
> It's a metaphor.