Gory Death Details Heard in Sentencing for Man Who Killed 100 Sled Dogs in Whistler B.C. (2010)

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
The whole farce is typical of the nosey good for nothings decrying what has gone on for ever in the North.
People havent experienced the harsh reality of life for decades....
Like when is the last time you killed and prepared a chicken for supper?
The cull of these animals may be shocking to the supposedly civilised world, yet the Innuit people have done similar as well....
And for the same reasons.....
It behooves these so called animal rights activists to get a life, and maybe they could do some protesting over all the CHILDREN shot and killed, bombed and maimed this month alone!
But no they chosse to gang up on some poor guy trying to deal with these 100 dogs nobody wanted......
Typicalky misapplied priorities.......I really think these people do this because it makes them feel morally superior to others......
It has nothing to do with the aimals themselves, just the egos of the activists....
Shame we cant even send our own children to bed with a full stomach, or move swiftly to prosecute and jail child molesters.......
But i guess these dogs are much more important to them........not




posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Too many city boy hipsters here commenting about things they dont understand. The man did what had to be done but he did it incorrectly so fine him and the company thats it end of story. Natives do this many times when the salmon season is low and there is no food to give a hundred dogs.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by fenian8
 


What is the difference between a business man having an animal killed to save money, when he didn’t need to. And a consumer having an animal killed so he can eat it, when he doesn’t really need the meat to survive?

It’s all a mater of degrees.

You are just trying to draw hard lines between them so you can try to stoke outrage where little, to none, is warranted.

That is the standard method of hard-line animal rights activist. If the shoe fits, it fits.



Because life is more important than business and profits and what I saw was an illumaniti sacrifice. I don't believe any dog sledding business should have been set up without strict provisions for what to do year round with the dogs or how to survive a slump in business that did not include killing the dogs.

And any laws that allow this need to be changed.

As far as food goes. That opinion of yours is something TPTB work very hard to instill in people. There is a group amongst them that want to kill people off to save their earth and resources when she isn't in trouble except for what they do.

However while some uber healthy may be OK vegan, I have rheumatoid arthritis and was trying to stick with chicken, already have my health collapse when its vegan. But found out that the thing that helped me walk more easily again and not be stuck being pulled of chairs by the kids, is the diet most grandparents had: Lard, Good Fats, (they are WRONG on fats by the way, you need them for immune, bones, teeth and brain). You need soup bones with marrow, and some red meat.

Lots of people need red meat.

Its the wheat and some other things that are culprits.

They're very very wrong in what they're trying to program into people.
edit on 23-11-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Was this man an inuit????? did he humanely euthanise the dogs NO. Yes if you have to survive by killing an animal for food that is perfectly reasonable imo, as for been a city hipster and been a militant animal rights activist pmsl ridiculous i eat meat if an animal is seriously wounded i would put it out of its misery however just because i eat meat etc does that mean that i am not aloud to feel angry when i hear of animals been killed and mutilated for monetary benefits????? Am i not meant to be angry if i hear about sick people who put animals through unnecessary pain and are left there to die slowly. And please all this we`re from the north, you city hipster militant activist. Nooooooo, none of them sorry just don`t like to hear about animals that suffer unnecessarily at the hands of some one who hasn`t got a clue what hes doing. If he thought what he did was right why doesw he say he feels remorse? and this has nothing to do with the inuit people. Stop trying to pigeon hole me and make out you have any clue about me, your doing exactely what your saying militant activists do am just a normalish person who found this story nasty. I eat beef but do i agree with bull fighting No. simple really.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by papazen
Too many city boy hipsters here commenting about things they dont understand. The man did what had to be done but he did it incorrectly so fine him and the company thats it end of story. Natives do this many times when the salmon season is low and there is no food to give a hundred dogs.


Excuse me sir, but when is it okay to get a bunch of sled dogs for the purpose of entertaining people over the Olympics and then destroying them afterwards?

The company knew it was not going to be a viable business in the long run, only in the short term. This was all calculated behind closed doors.

To me, they knew the dogs would have to be destroyed afterwards and did the very least possible to hand these dogs out.

By the way, sled dogs need to be kept exercised, how many people in Vancouver have enough time and land space to do this with the sled dog? NONE.
edit on 23-11-2012 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

If he thought what he did was right why doesw he say he feels remorse?


It is called, accepting your responsibility in life.
It called, doing what you know needs to be done, not what you want to do.

It’s nice to know you have lived in a padded cell all your life where you have never had to make a hard decision. Where you have never been forced to make a decision that you knew you had to make, but hated to the depths of the earth, none the less.

The rest of us are not so fortunate.

An example. A family dog that got grievously injured. That dog was a friend for countless years. But you know his injuries are way beyond what a vet could deal with. You know that if you do nothing, he will die slowly and painfully over the night. It’s the night so there is going to be no vet available to put him down. So you have to get the gun and make his pain end. The longer you contemplate the situation, the longer he will suffer. You regret doing it with all your heart. But you do it regardless because you know it’s the right thing to do. When you got the dog, you accepted the responsibility to take care of him, in life, or in death. Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t mean you can run away from it. It’s called, being an adult. It’s called accepting your responsibility to that dog, no mater how much you hate it.

When he got into dog sledding, he accepted the responsibility that comes along with it. One of those responsibilities is that sometimes you have to put dogs down. Everything is nice and fun when all is good. But you can’t just run from the situation when it gets bad. For good, or for bad, it is still his job, and he will do what he has to do.

If a person can not accept the responsibility and do the bad things when it is required, then he should not be in that job in the first place. For he is not mature enough to handle his job.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
In a civilized county, a dog should be humanely euthanised by a licensed veterinarian when there is no other solutionfor the animal (except for example a very powerfull breed attacking people and its self defense)
This obedient worker who slaughtered the dogs AND his boss should go to jail and rethink what they have done.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


Mr Tranny, you seem to assume you know so much about me, i have seen lots of this world and if you read my posts properly you will see i stated if i saw an animal suffering of course i would do the correct thing and put it out of its misery, as i unfortuantly have had to do in the past, so you rambling on about vets and having to man up or whatever and kill the animal is well just silly really. I`m sorry you can`t force me to change my mind on this issue, i have said what i think about op, i think it could actually be you who needs to get out of his padded cell and accept you can`t try and force someone to believe what you do by trying unsuccessfully to mock them and make judgements about them which are so off the mark its just nonsense. Did a sled dog bite you as a child? The way you make out, is that your some kind of rambo tough guy survivilist type figure who`s spent years slaying rabid sled dogs and no doubt fighting grizzlies barehanded while anybody who thinks what happened to the dogs is wrong are soft idiots who know nothing about life and are militant animal rights activists. Well all knowing wise one i think what happened to those dogs was definately not done out of pure necessitie or in any way humanely and most definately is not in the same league as me eating a chicken sandwich. That is my view. Been good having the banter with you. Peace



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahamarlin
In a civilized county, a dog should be humanely euthanised by a licensed veterinarian when there is no other solutionfor the animal (except for example a very powerfull breed attacking people and its self defense)
This obedient worker who slaughtered the dogs AND his boss should go to jail and rethink what they have done.



You may want that to be the case, but that is not the law.

The point is it’s not the question as to whether it is legal for him to euthanize animals. It is not even the question of using a gun to do it. The question is as to whether he embarked on something he was unable to properly perform as a result of inexperience. The answer to that is YES. For his failure to properly inquire as to the best way to do it, he should be held responsible for that, and that alone.

The legalities of him killing the dogs is irrelevant to the discussion, because there are no legalities to it. It is accepted practice. The question is not that he killed them, it’s how he done it.

That is why the government, and many agencies have websites and literature to educate people how to properly do it, on their own, Which as I stated, is perfectly legal…


www.equisearch.com...


Since only veterinarians can legally possess euthanasia drugs, many veterinary experts suggest that the best way to carry out that plan is with a well-placed bullet. It's a practice regularly used on farms and ranches across America, and widely used in Europe as the euthanasia of choice. (If you don't have a gun, try to recruit a policeman.)

Why A Gun?
The emotional and social baggage of firearms on this continent may make it difficult for you to accept that a violent weapon can be used for a humane purpose. But in Europe, learning how to perform euthanasia via gunshot is part of the official veterinary curriculum. Veterinarians there are exempted from gun-control restrictions. When proper technique is employed, many veterinarians report having fewer problems with this method than with lethal injection. They say it's faster, with none of the lingering that's often evident with injected agents.



vbs.psu.edu...


There are basically 2 acceptable methods for humanely euthanizing livestock that do not
involve injecting lethal drugs (or combinations of drugs) and these are by means of a gunshot or the
use of a penetrating captive bolt pistol (followed by exsanguination). These methods can be
administered inexpensively and effectively and can be readily learned with minimal training. Care
must be taken to abide by all legal regulations when purchasing, carrying, or discharging
firearms. (Personnel who euthanize animals, especially on a regular basis, should be monitored
carefully for their attitude and level of comfort with carrying out the procedure. It is possible that
they may begin to develop a careless or callous attitude toward animals, or emotional discomfort
may begin to show as a result of euthanizing many animals. In these situations it is important to
quickly provide the proper support for the affected person and to delegate the responsibility for
humane euthanasia to another person, at least for a period of time.)


answers.yahoo.com...


It's humane, quick & painless for the dog IF it is shot by someone who knows how to use a gun & where to place the bullet.

In my opinion it's generally easier for an owner to watch a dog die by lethal injection that be shot, because it sanitizes the process & makes death easier to handle.

While I would opt for euthanasia by injection because it would be easier for ME, if I knew how to use a gun & my dog was suffering, I would shoot it because that would be in its best interest.


answers.yahoo.com...


"She's my dog. Why would I have someone else kill her?"

He said it with respect and honesty. He was trying to tell me that after 15 years together and all they had been through, he owed it to her to be the one. Why should he shirk from that duty?


icwdm.org...


Shooting can be the most painless and is sometimes the only available method to humanely dispose of an animal. However, a number of factors need to be considered prior to the discharge of firearms:


The last link shows where to shoot.. you guessed it… A dog.
edit on 23-11-2012 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Got the fourth link mixed up…
www.outdoorlife.com...


"She's my dog. Why would I have someone else kill her?"

He said it with respect and honesty. He was trying to tell me that after 15 years together and all they had been through, he owed it to her to be the one. Why should he shirk from that duty?



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Well I guess this ruling sets the bar for another well profiled case in the lower mainland of Brian Whitlock the Kitsilano owner of a dog named Captain found beaten and dying in a dumpster.

Captain

Although I find what this Fawcett charactor did appaling, what this Whitlock fellow had his hands in is outright disgusting so hopefully he will get the same, although the Captain incident was only one dog the grusume beating the animal took makes me shudder, more than an animal, that with bullets would have died almost instantly. As I said above not that I condone Fawcetts actions but the sickness of this whitlock case has me right fired up about the treatment of animals.

In closing I feel that the punishment handed out in the sled dog case was slight considering how many animals and some of the details involved. Yet saw what I think was a judge who looked at the state of our legal justice system and the punishments handed out for Murder, and other such crimes and probably did all they could within the framework of the laws involved. As the news stated it could have been much more, but in my mind weigh that with some of the light sentences handed down in this province, and the judgement seems applicable. Heart still oges out to all those dogs a bloody shame in the end.

SaneThinking



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
If we humans don't respect Mother Nature and her wild animals, why should humans deserve any respect from our Mother Nature?

To this end I am not surprised that Mother Nature throws Earth disasters upon us to rid of this disgusting species we call humans. I am also not surprised mankind has an inevitable world disaster event coming up. For one, I hope an asteroid hits this guy square in the face.


Payback is a b****
edit on 23-11-2012 by Skywatcher2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF THE MEMBER
edit on 30-4-2013 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by anon4m05
 


Wow short, sweet and too the point, loved it thank you. No truer words had I said in my head in verse than what I read there.

SaneThinking



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Thank you, friend. Glad you share the same sentiments, and am pleased to hear you enjoyed the poem. Sometimes poetry says much more than the cold, dead language of an argument, where our choice of words (in the interest of specificity) actually confuses the issue much further, and ironically renders the entirety of it ambiguous (for example, we have different understandings of even the smallest of things, like the definition of a word. Using these words whilst operating on definitions which differentiate from each other, whether in morality, ethics, truth, etc, can make a mess of things).

Cheers
edit on 23-11-2012 by anon4m05 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
This is yet another case of people acting on their emotions when it comes to things like this. Do any of these people realize that thousands of dogs each year in the US are euthanized?

This whole idea of sentencing a man to death is completely irrational(for any crime). An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.- Ghandi.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Kang69
 


No ones sentanced a man to death and hundreds of animals not just dogs are euthanised every year all around the world not just the us. still it does not justify what happened to these dogs, simple!!!!



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
The killing of a dog should be punishable by death. It is worse than killing a human. Dogs are always innocent.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join