This just makes me sick.

[Sweet72947]

In the state of Virgina, you can shoot a dog to protect your livestock and if it is actively being a danger to yourself or someone else (engaged in attacking, etc.) but you cannot shoot a dog just because you don't want it. So if that guy lived in VA, it would be illegal.

If everyone just shot dogs they don't want anymore, how much death would there be? We rail about the killing shelters do, but at least rescues are able to pull some of the dogs and people adopt some of the dogs. And actually, over the years the number of pets being killed in shelters has gone down. Around 4.5 million are put down, but in the 1970s that number used to be around 12-20 million. If everyone "took responsibility" and just killed what they didn't want anymore, well, I guess that would be less killing in shelters, but it would still be a hell of a LOT of killing, and that doesn't sit right with me. Wow, think of all the beautiful, wonderful dogs I never would have known through rescue if their owners had all just shot them in the head instead of "dumping" them at a shelter!

 

[AliciaD]

I think when you take in an animal, it becomes your responsibility, and you should do what you believe is in the best interest of the animal.

Shooting a dog because it is too rowdy, when your irresponsibility, inattentiveness, etc may have lead to it becoming that way is not in the best interest of the animal. While I don't think a bullet to the brain is the worst way to go, I do think that in this particular instance, the owner had other, better, options.

I am glad this isn't common practice up here. I'm too sensitive to hear stories like this happening in my "backyard".

 

[Kimbers]

It seems a lot of people come from areas with kind of crappy shelters.
Let me stress that that is NOT the case around here. Not only are the dogs adopted quickly in several of the ones I'm thinking of, but they are stimulated, worked with, and socialized very often, especially if they "have issues".
As far as puppies and dogs not being adopted quickly, I haven't seen a pup under two of any breed stay more than five days, especially during these winter months. (At least not at the shelters I stalk.) And yes, these shelters are close to the man, too. He lives at most an hour away from the city.
Sure, the dog may have truly had something wrong with it and ended up back where it came from if dropped at a shelter, but I'm not sure it did. From what I heard, it was killed because it played too rough with the older dog and the older dog couldn't defend itself. None of us know how rough "too rough" was, though. Could have drawn blood a few times or could have just not know it's own weight and tackled the other dog a lot.

 

[chowNcharge]

until recently... the shelters here were shooting dogs as a way to euthanize them.

 

[Lilavati]

Your situation is completely different. Of course, the best course of action was to put the poor thing out of his misery stat. Taking a puppy out and shooting it dead because it's an inconvenience or misbehaved because the owner couldn't be bothered with taking some time to work with it is a totally different story.

I agree with this. I do think people have the right to shoot their dog (assuming its done cleanly, there's no reason why that's worse than taking them to the vet and having them put down) but it doesn't mean I approve of killing an animal because you can't be bothered to train it. And my Dad has shot dogs he owned because the circumstances were such that it would be better for the dog to die right then than to take them to the vet to be put down. But those dogs were badly hurt, very sick, or, in one case, dangerous to handle. But that's totally different than killing a dog because you don't want it, or won't want to work with it.

Notably, I don't think any better of people who have their dogs put down because they don't want it any more or don't want to work with it.

 

[SarahHound]

That is awful, the poor dog, for no decent reason it seems.

I have no issue with people having to shoot a dog if it is in pain and cannot be taken to a vet. Many people don't know my Maddy was shot. It is horrific, but if done properly, it is in the best interest of the animal.

But to shoot an animal because an owner cannot be bothered to train it, as some have experienced in this thread, is just plain wrong, and sad

 

[Shakou]

No, just drop it off at a shelter and let someone else do your dirty work. Dogs and puppies don't get adopted that often, not around here. Taking it to a shelter is like passing the buck. Just let someone else eventually put this dog to sleep. Or heck, just drive it down some old dirt road and pass the buck to nature. Let the dog starve, or get eaten by predators. That's a much nicer way to die.

Because a dog's life is just that worthless and disposable, right? Why take a perfectly healthy dog who simply needs training but is otherwise fine to a rescue or a shelter where people atleast WANT to try and help them, when you can just blow it's brains out and be done with the "problem"? That's cute. And by "cute" I mean f*king disgusting.

 

[Kat09Tails]

Here's the thing, often times in parts of the country the inn is full at the local shelter. I mean full as in there is no room. Period. I have been at a shelter where they literally take owner surrenders - put them in a crate and straight into be euthanized - there were so many that often times the dog sits in a crate for hours for the vet students to get to them to do the injections or sometimes they're carted straight into the gas box (especially kittens), at the lower grade shelters they're put straight into a dumpster- gassed in the dumpster and the next batch of dogs is put in right on top of them to be gassed.

Doesn't matter if they're cute, old, young, fluffy, small, adoptable, unadoptable, purebred or mutt... the inn is full. There is no room and owner surrenders do not have a waiting period as required by law that strays do. So they're the first to go into the gas chamber. It's not pretty but it's reality... and it sucks. Yes, I believe a bullet well placed by an owner in the place they have always known is a far better treatment than sitting for hours in a crate for a stranger to drag them out of the crate and either shove them in a gas box or hold them while someone injects them.

The only time at some of these shelters an owner surrendered dog has a shot is if they happen to fit into the narrow parameters for a rescue and a volunteer makes a phone call that someone has until 4pm to get there to save the dog.

It's not sexy, but there it is. That is one of the prices we pay for breeding dogs the way we do in this country. I was watching a story from the UK recently that was appalled that they killed 3,000 dogs a year at a single shelter. I've been at shelters in the USA that kills that many in two months or less.

 

[RD]

I wholeheartedly agree with Charliedog.

Completely.

Do I think it's acceptable to shoot/euthanize a dog because it's "rowdy"? Nope. Especially not when living on a ranch, where you have tons of space for a young, hyper dog and probably lots of time for that dog to mature. That said, I don't know the entire situation. But really, how many people have gotten a dog that is too much dog for them, that they can't handle, so they get rid of it?

Do I think that it's inhumane to kill a dog yourself that would likely waste away or die in a shelter anyway? NO. If anything, I RESPECT that guy for stepping up to the plate and taking care of his dog HIS OWN **** SELF, rather than dumping it at a shelter to let the shelter workers probably euthanize it days or weeks or months or years later. The dog died instantly at the home it knew and loved, not after spending time in a loud, cold, empty cell.

How sickening is it that people in urban areas can just dispose of their dog by dumping it off at a building that facilitates the execution of thousands of dogs every year? How sickening is it that these people are able to drop off their rowdy dog and delude themselves into thinking that it'll get adopted, so they actually feel GOOD about themselves for doing it?

How the hell is that not sickening? At a kill shelter or at a farm, that dog would likely still have died. Is the sickening part that the dog died from a projectile to the head out in the woods rather than a massive overdose of drugs on a sanitary table? Either way, the dog's still dead before it can feel any pain.

Seriously, quit being so condescending and acting like you/where you live is so **** enlightened. People in urban areas treat dogs like they are JUST as disposable, they just have government-funded buildings called animal shelters to kill their dogs for them.

 

[Dekka]

I wholeheartedly agree with Charliedog.

Completely.

, rather than dumping it at a shelter to let the shelter workers probably euthanize it days or weeks or months or years later. The dog died instantly at the home it knew and loved, not after spending time in a loud, cold, empty cell.

How sickening is it that people in urban areas can just dispose of their dog by dumping it off at a building that facilitates the execution of thousands of dogs every year? How sickening is it that these people are able to drop off their rowdy dog and delude themselves into thinking that it'll get adopted, so they actually feel GOOD about themselves for doing it?

The OP pointed out puppies of all breeds in her area are adopted out in a day or too. Its like that here too. Not all places mean death. Dogs here tend to move in a timely fashion. Taking a dog to a shelter generally means (assuming healthy, not senior, and friendly) a quick adoption.

For example I live outside a city of 80k people with about double that in the surrounding area.. Our local humane society 'services' 160k people. We have about 20 dogs (we get in maybe 2000 animals in a year... not high numbers) in the shelter (and its no kill) right now. http://www.peterboroughhumanesociety.ca/find-dogs.htm Our private shelter has a whopping 3 dogs listed...

Yes I agree if the pup is going to sit in a cage till someone else kills it... that sucks. But if the dog could easily have found another home why not? Some people want to adopt rambunctious puppies... Here its rare to find puppies in the shelter at all.

Killing this dog was simply the lazy way out in this case.

 

[Kimbers]

I wholeheartedly agree with Charliedog.

Completely.

Do I think it's acceptable to shoot/euthanize a dog because it's "rowdy"? Nope. Especially not when living on a ranch, where you have tons of space for a young, hyper dog and probably lots of time for that dog to mature. That said, I don't know the entire situation. But really, how many people have gotten a dog that is too much dog for them, that they can't handle, so they get rid of it?

Do I think that it's inhumane to kill a dog yourself that would likely waste away or die in a shelter anyway? NO. If anything, I RESPECT that guy for stepping up to the plate and taking care of his dog HIS OWN **** SELF, rather than dumping it at a shelter to let the shelter workers probably euthanize it days or weeks or months or years later. The dog died instantly at the home it knew and loved, not after spending time in a loud, cold, empty cell.

How sickening is it that people in urban areas can just dispose of their dog by dumping it off at a building that facilitates the execution of thousands of dogs every year? How sickening is it that these people are able to drop off their rowdy dog and delude themselves into thinking that it'll get adopted, so they actually feel GOOD about themselves for doing it?

How the hell is that not sickening? At a kill shelter or at a farm, that dog would likely still have died. Is the sickening part that the dog died from a projectile to the head out in the woods rather than a massive overdose of drugs on a sanitary table? Either way, the dog's still dead before it can feel any pain.

Seriously, quit being so condescending and acting like you/where you live is so **** enlightened. People in urban areas treat dogs like they are JUST as disposable, they just have government-funded buildings called animal shelters to kill their dogs for them.

Yes, we don't know all the details.
Yes, dropping a dog in a shelter isn't much better, sometimes at all.
As far as me acting condescending, maybe I worded something a bit offensively, but I never meant that other people live areas that are bad with pets; the place I live just happens to have several very nice shelters and I was trying to point out that I don't think the dog necessarily suffers as much as some people have been stressing in a shelter. I'd agree that the dog didn't suffer while shot, I just think that a life, no matter what kind, is an awful thing to waste if it can be avoided.

 

[Sweet72947]

I like how people's solution to killing is more killing.

There are shelters all over the US working to end the killing and make themselves actual SHELTERS in the true meaning of the word where dogs and cats will be safe from harm. www.no-killnews.com

In my area the shelters aren't horrible, and rescues pull a lot of dogs from them all the time, and people also adopt from them all the time. In my observations, yes dogs do stress at the shelter. Very few of them actually stress out to the point of severely affecting their health, and if you'd ask them, I think they'd tell you they'd rather live with some stress and find a good home than be made dead.

 

[lizzybeth727]

I like how people's solution to killing is more killing.

Oh, I don't think anyone here's saying that's the "solution." Unfortunately, it's just reality for a lot of places at this time.

I totally believe in the no kill solution, I've seen it work in my county and another large county next to mine.

But I've also seen shelters - in large urban areas - that literally have half their runs empty, euthanize owner surrenders 10 minutes after they're dropped off. My county has something like a 95% save rate, while the county adjacent has a 25% kill rate. THAT's sickening. But until shelter employees and communities get determined to change things, unfortunately, this will continue to be reality.

 

[sillysally]

I'm not saying I agree with what he did, but a clean shot is going to cause FAR FAR less stress on the dog that being dropped off at a probably overcrowded rural shelter.

We preach that people need to be responsible for their pets, and yet when someone makes the decision that they can't handle the dog, and decides NOT to pass the buck off on someone else, but to deal with it the way that it was dealt with for generations, they catch hell for it.

I suppose I don't feel that killing something because it is inconvient to you is responsible. If shooting is less stressful, should rural shelters then just make it a policy to shoot all animals that are dropped off there rather than giving them the chance to find homes? I mean, if it's less stressful and all...

As far as I am concerned the "it's been done this way for generations" is a BS excuse used to justify backward, lazy, borderline barbaric behavior. Shooting a healthy, non-dangerous dog is a world away from putting an ill, injured, or highly dangerous dog out of its misery. Shooting a cattle dog for being rowdy is like shooting a lab because it keeps retrieving things when you don't ask it to.

Why not just rehome the dog? Shelters don't have to be involved at all. Thousands of dogs get new homes without the involvement of a shelter or rescue. Put an ad in the paper, "1 yr old male cattle dog, $50." It was just probably too much effort to be worth it to him when a bullet could take care of the job immediately.

To me, this is not a regional issue. Imagine the reaction if someone came on here saying they were having their dog pts at the vet because it was rowdy?

 

[Gypsydals]

I agree with CD and Skittle. We don't know the whole story, we just know part of the story. There might have been other things leading up to him being "rowdy" with the older dog. And being "rowdy" with the older dog was the straw that broke the camels back sort to speak. We don't know he tried to work with the dog or not.
I'm not saying what he did was right or wrong. I can't, I don't know the whole story.

 

[cloudcandy]

I think the difference between shooting the dog and taking it to a shelter is that the dog still has a chance to live. @Charliedog ,those shelter's sound awful,and I can see why it may seem preferable to shoot your dog then put it through that stress before death.
However we don't know if he tried to re home it first,or went to a shelter.He could have gone to the shelter to see how likely it was the dog would be put down or re homed.I guess we don't know if he checked to see what his option's were.
I would like to think that a responsible owner would exhaust all other option's before killing their dog.

 

[OutlineACDs]

Because a dog's life is just that worthless and disposable, right? Why take a perfectly healthy dog who simply needs training but is otherwise fine to a rescue or a shelter where people atleast WANT to try and help them, when you can just blow it's brains out and be done with the "problem"? That's cute. And by "cute" I mean f*king disgusting.

I guess I don't see the point in being a martyr and trying to save every dog that comes along. There are hundreds upon thousands of healthy problem-free dogs out there. You don't know the backstory at all. We are assuming quite alot based on what little information was given.

Like I said, it's not my preference to do that to a dog, and had he been mine I would have worked to solve the problem, but I'll be damned if I ever dump one of mine into a shelter. I have one now who is dog/people reactive. Through almost 6 years of work her problem is manageable, but 6 years is a long time, and I thought, more than once of just putting her out of her misery. Had she ever had the chance to bite someone or maul someone else's pet I would have probably made the decision to put her down. She's a liability and always will be.

This kind of ties into the whole animal rights debate as well. If we don't have the right to do with our own pets as we see fit, what will happen next. Like I said, I don't necessarily think the guy was right, but his animal, his right to do with him what he wants. It's not like a well placed shot is abuse. The dog dies instantly.

 

[Kimbers]

OutlineACDs- I think there's a fine line between putting a dog out of it's misery because it would be extremely hard for it to live a proper life and killing it because you're being lazy.
We don't know which was the case here. Sure, the dog could have been extremely aggressive and had horrible dog aggression. (I never heard anything about it being aggressive with people. Just other dogs.)
In this particular case, I guess I'd agree that none of us know enough to make a decision right off the bat, but I just think the likelihood of the dog's problem being so great that the owner knew it couldn't live peacefully anywhere else is kind of slim. I wouldn't expect someone who's not as in to their dogs to spend days or weeks looking for a new responsible home, but, if you really really care about the well-being of your dog, it's definitely possible.

EDIT: As far as the right to do what you wish with your pet... I think it's definitely a good thing for responsible owners, but then you get angry ass-holes like my dad who just can't control their anger and decide to shoot the family dog when the rest of the family is away. Again, where do you draw the line?

 

[Dekka]

I just have to say I am thrilled that Sports (multiple) owners when they decided he was rowdy/crazy didn't just shoot him. He is the perfect dog for Darien, crazy or not. He was just under a year and had been adopted out twice from the shelter.

 

[Lilavati]

As far as the right to do what you wish with your pet... I think it's definitely a good thing for responsible owners, but then you get angry ass-holes like my dad who just can't control their anger and decide to shoot the family dog when the rest of the family is away. Again, where do you draw the line?

That's largely why I think people have a legal right to shoot their own dog, as long as they do so humanely. Its too hard to draw the line, and I don't want the state deciding where that line is. There are too many people who simply would not understand that sometimes shooting the dog is by far the best thing to do . . . and I really can't stand the hypocrisy involved in thinking that a bullet to the head is just horrible but a needle is just dandy. The dog is dead either way and should not have suffered in either case.

(Obviously, all things being equal, I'd have a dog that needed to be put down euthanized by lethal injection. But things aren't always equal if you have a long trip to the vet (or no quick access to one), or a terrified, badly injured animal that it would be torture to move, or an animal that is too dangerous to handle.)