Outdoor Adventures in Whistler Slaughters its Sled Dogs

[sillysod]

Vancouver Sun (http://www.vancouversun.com/sled+dogs+slaughtered+Whistler+when+tourism+slumped+Report/4196610/story.html)





The SPCA is launching an investigation following a report that a dogsled tour company in Whistler, B.C., ordered the killing of 100 dogs when bookings slumped after the Olympic Games in Vancouver.


Vancouver radio station CKNW reported that documents it obtained from WorkSafeBC, the agency that monitors compliance with the occupational health and safety regulation in the province, show an employee of Outdoor Adventures Whistler was granted compensation after developing post-traumatic stress disorder for allegedly being forced to kill the dogs.


The radio station reports the dogs were either shot or had their throats slashed before being buried in a mass grave.


"It wasn't always a clean, one-shot kill," lawyer Cory Steinberg, who is representing the employee, told CKNW. "Inevitably, he ended up seeing and having to put the end to some horrific scenes."


Outdoor Adventures Whistler has not contested the WorkSafe injury claim, according to CKNW, which has not been able to elicit a comment on the case from the company.


Marcy Moriarty, head of cruelty investigations at the B.C. SPCA, told CKNW her organization is launching an investigation.

© Copyright (c) National Post


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sled+dogs+slaughtered+Whistler+when+tourism+slumped+Report/4196610/story.html#ixzz1Cd1uW22U

[1barA4]

It's not in that article, but on the radio today they mentioned that the company is not denying it; in fact, they corrected an earlier statement that said "70 dogs" to "100". :nut:

No wonder that guy has PTSD, they were saying that some were still alive when they were thrown in the mass grave and somehow it was his responsibility alone to kill all 100 dogs....just messed up.

[Redlyne_mr2]

Here is their website... what a horrible act. I'll make sure they never see any of my business.
http://www.adventureswhistler.com/

[Seth1968]

an employee of Outdoor Adventures Whistler was granted compensation after developing post-traumatic stress disorder for allegedly being forced to kill the dogs.

I guess the boss held a gun to the employees head.

:facepalm:

[Kloubek]

You don't need a gun pressed to your head to be forced to do something.

If you feel your job is on the line and you aren't going to be able to feed your family, you'd be surprised at what people can do.

[mazdavirgin]

Would there be so much uproar if this had been a farmer who put down 100 head of cattle because he couldn't afford to feed them any longer?

[Kloubek]

...if the animal's lives went to waste for no good reason, yes - I'd think so. But at least cattle can generally be butchered as food so they are not wasted. Dogs, not so much. Unless you live in China.

Clearly, this company had too many dogs for the amount of business. They should have either not had that many dogs in the first place, or they should have given them away to someone who could have used them. Simply playing with an animal's life like it is an object you toss away when it is no longer useful is not cool at all. Someone should be made responsible for this.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Kloubek
You don't need a gun pressed to your head to be forced to do something.

If you feel your job is on the line and you aren't going to be able to feed your family, you'd be surprised at what people can do.

That might hold merit if it occurred in Africa.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Seth1968


That might hold merit if it occurred in Africa.

So if your employer told you that your two choices are either killing some animals and being able to feed your family and keep a roof over your head or lose your job and not be able to do these things what would you do?

Keep in mind that Whistler is pretty much dependent on tourism and is getting hammered right now.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by FraserB


So if your employer told you that your two choices are either killing some animals and being able to feed your family and keep a roof over your head or lose your job and not be able to do these things what would you do?

Keep in mind that Whistler is pretty much dependent on tourism and is getting hammered right now.

Thing is, the consequence you posted of feeding your family is hypothetical, and most definitely NOT the only choice.


The man who shot 100 sled dogs and filed a Workers Compensation claim stating he suffered post traumatic stress is not getting much sympathy from the head of the BC SPCA cruelty investigations division.
 Marcie Moriarty said the man, who was the general manager at the time with Outdoor Adventures in Whistler, could have simply said no.
 "I've no doubt he has suffered post traumatic stress but there's a thing called choice. I absolutely would not have done this and he could have said no. This is a criminal code offence and to have just stopped."
 But Moriarty said the man chose to shoot and kill the dogs over two days on April 21 and April 23 inhumanely.
 Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/sled+dogs+slaughtered+Whistler+when+tourism+slumped+Report/4196610/story.html#ixzz1CdaS5VER

[crewchaud]

I am having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that this actually happend... :barf:

I am told that these types of dogs can not be domesticated and/or are not suitable as a pet.

Can anyone verify this?

[Kloubek]

^ I am no expert, but I would suspect that would be correct. A dog is only as good as it has been raised, and I would think a sled dog has not had the proper love, attention, human socializing and training that would make it suitable for a pet. Perhaps it might be ok as a farm dog though.

Either way, one must assume there were better options than a mass killing.

And yes, I understand that with our social system in place there is a good chance that the guy had other options. Still, I remember being hard up for cash when I worked for Zellers many years ago, and some of the things they had me doing at the time were very questionable and went against government rules. But I shut my trap and did them because I could not afford to get fired.

When you are placed in a situation like that, it is quite a dillema.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by crewchaud
I am having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that this actually happend... :barf:

I am told that these types of dogs can not be domesticated and/or are not suitable as a pet.

Can anyone verify this?

Untrue, they're like Greyhounds in that respect, after retirement they can still be adopted and rehabilitated. It's not easy, but very possible.

[Freeskier]

I can verify that. I know a few sled dog guides. The dogs they use are much more akin to a wolf pack than to a group of domestic dogs. They are quite often treated in ways that look violent and abusive, but are in keeping with a dominant alpha dog maintaining order in the pack.

I should clarify that they can still make pets, just as wolf crosses can make pets. But the effort and steps you need to take to integrate a dog like this into a household, especially if little kids are around are much more strict and intensive than training your average labrador.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Kloubek
...if the animal's lives went to waste for no good reason, yes - I'd think so. But at least cattle can generally be butchered as food so they are not wasted. Dogs, not so much. Unless you live in China.

Wonder if they considered selling/giving them to China or Korea?

As a dog lover, it's still not right but it would be less of a PR issue.

[Ven]

It's tough for people, especially the metro types, to understand killing animals for the sake of business. These aren't pets, they're money making or money losing livestock. Culling the sick/old and non-productive is typical for any operation that deals with livestock. Coming from a cattle operation background I sometimes need to remind the metros that their meat doesn't come from Superstore.

I read elsewhere that a shotgun was used, and that's just wrong, even with sabots. Having the right firearm and method is crucial to prevent suffering. .223 clean to the head or breadbasket is humane, partial amputation via shot blast is not. But I suspect the article is sensationalized for better impact, so I'll wait for better details and facts.

The article is really a Liberal wet dream. Guns, dead dogs and emotional trigger words galore!! Great low hanging fruit for the media and the emotionally fragile manicured latte idealist types.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Wonder if they considered selling/giving them to China or Korea?


Not sure I would be any more happy with that solution. Ship them overseas and put them in the hands of (more than likely) inhumane people who will probably kill them by beating them until dead. Nothing like making their last days a horrible mess.

I totally understand putting down an animal that is sick or old Ven. But that isn't the issue here. The issue is putting down perfectly capable animals because someone didn't have the foresight of maintaining proper animal inventory. And metro boy or not (I grew up in the countryside), that's just wrong.

[Freeskier]

Originally posted by Ven
It's tough for people, especially the metro types, to understand killing animals for the sake of business. These aren't pets, they're money making or money losing livestock. Culling the sick/old and non-productive is typical for any operation that deals with livestock. Coming from a cattle operation background I sometimes need to remind the metros that their meat doesn't come from Superstore.

I read elsewhere that a shotgun was used, and that's just wrong, even with sabots. Having the right firearm and method is crucial to prevent suffering. .223 clean to the head or breadbasket is humane, partial amputation via shot blast is not. But I suspect the article is sensationalized for better impact, so I'll wait for better details and facts.

The article is really a Liberal wet dream. Guns, dead dogs and emotional trigger words galore!! Great low hanging fruit for the media and the emotionally fragile manicured latte idealist types.

How Dare You! They are cuddly little angels!

[syeve]

Originally posted by Ven
It's tough for people, especially the metro types, to understand killing animals for the sake of business. These aren't pets, they're money making or money losing livestock. Culling the sick/old and non-productive is typical for any operation that deals with livestock. Coming from a cattle operation background I sometimes need to remind the metros that their meat doesn't come from Superstore.

I read elsewhere that a shotgun was used, and that's just wrong, even with sabots. Having the right firearm and method is crucial to prevent suffering. .223 clean to the head or breadbasket is humane, partial amputation via shot blast is not. But I suspect the article is sensationalized for better impact, so I'll wait for better details and facts.

The article is really a Liberal wet dream. Guns, dead dogs and emotional trigger words galore!! Great low hanging fruit for the media and the emotionally fragile manicured latte idealist types.
That's pretty funny considering your picture. Anyways, emotionally fragile metro's?

I always get a kick out "country bumkins" having to learn all us city folk on the way of things.

I know where my meat comes from, I have visited all the farms I buy from. Killing dogs because you overestimated the market demand is no excuse, and I would imagine the authorities will act accordingly.

[sillysod]

More info.... the problem isn't the actual euthanizing it is the method from what I can tell.






Chortyk says the decision to kill the dogs was purely economical, and the company resorted to allegedly slaughtering the dogs after a veterinarian refused to put down the perfectly health sled dogs.


According to Chortyk, the scene was one of “sheer terror and chaos” for the dogs as they were shot one by one in plain sight of each other. The hectic scene meant it took multiple shots to kill some of the dogs, and some needed to have their throats slit. They were then dumped into mass graves, according to the SPCA.


“It’s not illegal to kill your own animals, but it has to be done in a humane way,” said Chortyk. “Based on the circumstances described in the document, this was far, far from being humane.”


Metro has contacted Outdoor Adventures Whistler through phone and email, but has not been able to reach the company for comment.


Whistler RCMP is assisting in the investigation, according to Staff Sgt. Steve LeClair.


“We found out about this today and have opened a police file,” LeClair confirmed. “We’ll certainly document all of our involvement, but this is an SPCA-led investigation. They have the power to recommend charges.”

metro news (http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/canada/article/759108--alleged-whistler-sled-dog-slaughter-sheer-terror-and-chaos-spca)

CTV News with News Video (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110131/bc-sled-dogs-killed-110131/)

[tobypaddock]

Originally posted by Kloubek

I totally understand putting down an animal that is sick or old Ven. But that isn't the issue here. The issue is putting down perfectly capable animals because someone didn't have the foresight of maintaining proper animal inventory. And metro boy or not (I grew up in the countryside), that's just wrong.

This.



Originally posted by syeve

Killing dogs because you overestimated the market demand is no excuse, and I would imagine the authorities will act accordingly.

i wish this were true, but i unfortunately think there will be a slap on the wrist. They should have their business license revoked and not be allowed to open up another business that deals with animals, the right to own personal pets should also be revoked IMO

[Ven]

Originally posted by syeve

That's pretty funny considering your picture. Anyways, emotionally fragile metro's?

I always get a kick out "country bumkins" having to learn all us city folk on the way of things.

I know where my meat comes from, I have visited all the farms I buy from. Killing dogs because you overestimated the market demand is no excuse, and I would imagine the authorities will act accordingly.

Ranchers cull animals because they've overestimated market demand. If there's no market and no money to sustain the livestock they get written off and disposed of as a capital loss. If you can't maintain the livestock but chose to keep them alive they will suffer. The operators family will come well before the animals will. Every year we hear of starved horses on the news, that is not ethical, destroying the animal is ethical after other options have been exhausted. It seems as the owners of the sledding company had tired to explore other avenues of getting the livestock off their books. The SPCA will investigate, they will find some evidence of unethical slaughter, there will be a small fine, the company will write off the capital losses of the livestock they culled, and when the hype is over they will resume business as normal. These "dogs" are livestock, not pets, livestock. One step up above coyotes because they're not pests and have a job.

I rarely laugh out loud when reading. But your comment about visiting the farm like it makes you some kind of expert was pure gold. If you want some real ranch experience PM me and I'll get you set up to work with 30,000 head during calving season, we'll see how you are with the green veal.

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

[Ven]

Originally posted by sillysod
More info.... the problem isn't the actual euthanizing it is the method from what I can tell.







metro news (http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/canada/article/759108--alleged-whistler-sled-dog-slaughter-sheer-terror-and-chaos-spca)

CTV News with News Video (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110131/bc-sled-dogs-killed-110131/)

Agreed 100% as I mentioned in my first post. That's not the way.

[CMW403]

Originally posted by Ven
It's tough for people, especially the metro types, to understand killing animals for the sake of business. These aren't pets, they're money making or money losing livestock. Culling the sick/old and non-productive is typical for any operation that deals with livestock. Coming from a cattle operation background I sometimes need to remind the metros that their meat doesn't come from Superstore.

I read elsewhere that a shotgun was used, and that's just wrong, even with sabots. Having the right firearm and method is crucial to prevent suffering. .223 clean to the head or breadbasket is humane, partial amputation via shot blast is not. But I suspect the article is sensationalized for better impact, so I'll wait for better details and facts.

The article is really a Liberal wet dream. Guns, dead dogs and emotional trigger words galore!! Great low hanging fruit for the media and the emotionally fragile manicured latte idealist types.

Excellent post, but why do the dogs need to be shot?

This whole media/public outburst could have been avoided if they put the dogs down normally. Obviously they couldn't afford that method, but that doesn't give them the excuse to grab a .223 or a box of birdshot and start pumping rounds into a cage full of dogs.:thumbsdow

[tobypaddock]

Originally posted by Ven

One step up above coyotes because they're not pests and have a job.

I rarely laugh out loud when reading. But your comment about visiting the farm like it makes you some kind of expert was pure gold. If you want some real ranch experience PM me and I'll get you set up to work with 30,000 head during calving season, we'll see how you are with the green veal.

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

redneck post if I've ever seen one. He didnt claim to be an expert.

[jdmXSI]

Maybe not all of the dogs could have been adopted, i am sure that not all 100 dogs needed to be slaughtered...:barf: That makes me sick.

Here is a good exapmle of a proper way to cut your losses and what do you know its right here in Red Neck Alberta!

http://www.snowyowltours.com/adoption.htm

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by CMW403


Excellent post, but why do the dogs need to be shot?

This whole media/public outburst could have been avoided if they put the dogs down normally. Obviously they couldn't afford that method, but that doesn't give them the excuse to grab a .223 or a box of birdshot and start pumping rounds into a cage full of dogs.:thumbsdow

You don't put down livestock you shoot it in the head... Do you think they cull cattle with the help of a vet and put them to sleep? At the end of the day if a ranch hand had put down a 100 head of cattle in the manner described in the article we wouldn't have even heard about it... I guess it's only a problem when they are cute, cuddly, 'family members'.

[desi112]

that boiled by blood, there are plenty of other ways to "dispose" of these animals.

But shooting them.

I never knew a owner can kill their animal without purpose in canada.

[Ven]

Originally posted by CMW403


Excellent post, but why do the dogs need to be shot?

This whole media/public outburst could have been avoided if they put the dogs down normally. Obviously they couldn't afford that method, but that doesn't give them the excuse to grab a .223 or a box of birdshot and start pumping rounds into a cage full of dogs.:thumbsdow

They can kill and dispose of their stock anyway deemed fit according to their local laws. That said I would suspect they're also in violation of disposal if they were going to bury the animals in a mass grave. Major bio-hazard. Can't even do that on the farms anymore, everything to the processors now.

[Ven]

Originally posted by tobypaddock


redneck post if I've ever seen one. He didnt claim to be an expert.

:facepalm: His implication was that he knows where his food comes from because he's visited the farm. My point is that it's a LOT different going to visit the farm than have to work it. I'm about as redneck as Bill Gates, but you're welcome to your opinion.

[syeve]

Originally posted by Ven


These "dogs" are livestock, not pets, livestock. One step up above coyotes because they're not pests and have a job.

I rarely laugh out loud when reading. But your comment about visiting the farm like it makes you some kind of expert was pure gold. If you want some real ranch experience PM me and I'll get you set up to work with 30,000 head during calving season, we'll see how you are with the green veal.

Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

Don't worry about offending me, almost impossible.

Yes, I have been to every farm I buy my meat from. What would you prefer? Me to go and work at a farm working 30,000 head with guys that don't learn books so good? No thanks.

I hope you are wrong about the "slap on the wrist"...we shall see. Just in case you think you had me pegged, I hunt for a lot of my meat.

[sillysod]

I do a lot of work in the packing industry - on the kill floor and everywhere in the plants - and it is absolutely disgusting. The bigger the plant the more inhumane it is. Just because something "can" be done doesn't mean it should be done.

There is a correct way to kill animals and it varies from species to species, you don't kill a pig, cow and chicken all the same way. That being said there is a standard method that is used for putting down dogs.... but for some reason they decided to start shooting them.



As far as the business goes, unfortunately for them, they are finished. This has completely destroyed their reputation and there is no amount of advertising that will bring it back. Especially in a small place like Whistler. Chances are that the owners of this operation will find themselves having a hard time getting service etc in town. Whistler is not Picture Butte, people there are "green" and "pro animal". This will destroy that business.

[tobypaddock]

Originally posted by Ven

I'm about as redneck as Bill Gates, but you're welcome to your opinion.

thank you for your permission



Originally posted by sillysod


As far as the business goes, unfortunately for them, they are finished. This has completely destroyed their reputation and there is no amount of advertising that will bring it back. Especially in a small place like Whistler. Chances are that the owners of this operation will find themselves having a hard time getting service etc in town. Whistler is not Picture Butte, people there are "green" and "pro animal". This will destroy that business.

happy to hear it, i just hope they dont relocate/re-open under a different name or location with the same morals/decision making.

[Kloubek]

^ I hope it does. I guess it depends on how much media exposure it gets and whether or not it creates an animal rights and public uprising. Horrible shit happens all the time around us, but until a group of people get together and really speak out about it, so many issues remain quiet and forgotten.

[Ven]

Originally posted by tobypaddock


thank you for your permission


You're welcome. See, everyone can get along here.

[sillysod]

Originally posted by tobypaddock

happy to hear it, i just hope they dont relocate/re-open under a different name or location with the same morals/decision making.

They would have to relocate completely. The town is too small and everybody knows everybody so just re-opening under a different name won't do anything.



On another note, looks like the "Work Safe" claim that was filled out has a lot of details in it. Not going to pan out well for the owners.

Vancouver Sun Update (http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/puppylove/archive/2011/01/31/100-sled-dogs-slaughtered-wake-up-call-regarding-sled-dog-industry.aspx)


Susie's death didn't come quickly among the 100 sled dogs slaughtered after they had outlived their usefulness to Outdoor Adventures, which had used them as sled dogs to entertain the Olympic visitors in Whistler. The general manager who had been ordered to do the killings had shot out Susie's left side of her cheekbone but she didn't die. Instead, with her eyeball hanging out of its socket she tried vainly to escape after the man made the mistake of letting go of the leash and she was able to run off. The unidentified employee then had to track the Husky down using a scope on his firearm to end this poor animal's life.

Then there was Nora who the manager noticed crawling among the 10 or more dead dogs about 20 minutes after he shot her outside the company's compound and buried in a mass grave. The man had to climb down into the pit to "put her out of her misery."

[r3ccOs]

There is no way that this can be rationalized... this was a barbaric act of which innocent Animals had to lose their lives over an act of what some here are calling: "good business sence"... how is it good business sence to risk such awful publicity?

WHO here can honestly shoot 100 animals, let alone dogs, to death in a inhumane fasion and not suffer any emotional recourse?

I hunt... (well used to), but there is a difference between a Hunt and firing off some 10 guage buckshot into a "caged animal"?

The hunt is a different situation, which honestly mimics our hunter/gathering scenerios for the sport... but also for consumption.

No, not all options were exhausted obviously... sled dogs typically are malamutes from a VERY exclusive lineage and are typically coveted, as any funcitonal pure line are usually from the north.

They could be used for further working purposes, or studding... I gaurantee it wouldn't be hard to offer up these dogs, regardless of their training.

[sillysod]

Originally posted by r3ccOs

No, not all options were exhausted obviously...

all they had to do is get a vet in to euthanize them. it's simple.

the dogs worked hard, made the company money etc. if it's part of business then they should have budgeted to have them properly put down. Animals get put down all the time because of various reasons. I can understand them not having the time or resources to adopt out the dogs, but there are organizations that would do it.

I am sure if they called ARF and told them that they will have a vet out to euthanize 100 sled dogs the people at ARF would figure something out. If not, atleast have the decency to put them down properly.

[derpderp]

I guess I can see why shooting them might seem a bit harsh but I wouldn't really punish the company for putting the dogs down.

They should have been economic experts, or at least one on staff and a person who can see the future so they would have known exactly: that the tourist industry was going to suffer as a result of the slowing international economy, due to the meltdown of the housing and credit markets in the USA and internationally, due to poor decision making by banks and government regulators internationally.

THOSE BASTARDS FOR NOT KNOWING!

[C_Dave45]

Gonna play devil's advocate here. And remember...I'm the guy that spent over $6,000 on my dog when she got hurt. So I'm not condoning what happened in any way.

But...as regards the OP;

Whats the difference between this story and the tens of thousands of perfectly good pets that the SPCA puts down every single year because responsible owners couldn't be found? Because it was all at once? Because it was by a "non-professional" vet? Every year, thousands of perfectly cute dogs and cats are put to sleep because owners didn't want them anymore, returned them, abandoned them. If the company owner had given them to the SPCA for adoption, I doubt the outcome would have been much different. It just would have meant the SPCA had 100 more animals to find a home for...above and beyond the already hundreds of animals they can't find homes for.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by sillysod
all they had to do is get a vet in to euthanize them. it's simple.

If my rifle can kill a cow in one shot what makes you think the vet is more humane? The fact it costs 300$ a head?

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


If my rifle can kill a cow in one shot what makes you think the vet is more humane? The fact it costs 300$ a head?

It's not the exact cause of death, it's that the guy was shooting them all one by one, in each cage, so they all were going nuts and could smell the death/fear of the rest of the dogs.

Would you rather die in a cage watching your friends get shot one at a time and buried half alive (reminiscent of the Nazis) or rather by injection in a comfortable room and bed? That's why we call it treating them HUMANely

[atgilchrist]

I went zip lining with this company in September. Random.

An unfortunate and unpleasant result of working with animals, but the way the company went about it was probably not the wisest.

[Redlyne_mr2]

This reminds of one of those deadbeats who can't take care of an animal because they're lazy, poor, stupid etc so they drown their dog in a bucket. Same thing on a larger scale. This is no where near the same as putting down livestock (parents owned cattle for years). This company needs to be punished to the fullest extent.

[Ven]

Were they killed in a cage? I can't find that data. I think they were held outside on a leash and shot.

They were shot for the same reason a slaughter house uses a captive bolt and blade, it would be astoundingly cost prohibitive to use a vet to euthanize your hamburger. As for shooting, if it's done right it's an acceptable and ethical kill. They botched some of them and it got to the media. Happens every hour in and around the city with more politically correct animals.

[Ven]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
This is no where near the same as putting down livestock (parents owned cattle for years).

How so? How is one animal, who's purpose is to provide a product or service, more valuable than another?

I understand dogs are accepted in our homes, play with our children, there's even movies about them. We've created that, so it's understandable it's an unpleasant and difficult thing to stomach. But from a logical, not emotional point these animals are livestock, and the herd was thinned based on a business situation.

I didn't want to perpetuate an argument here, only present another view, so I'll leave you guys to it. I can fully appreciate the horror expressed by posters here as a dog owner and lover.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by derpderp
THOSE BASTARDS FOR NOT KNOWING!

My understanding is that they stocked up for the Olympic rush. So if you're trying to imply that they wouldn't know the Olympics would end, then I'm just gonna have to shake my head at that.

In *any* case, do you seriously think ONE HUNDRED dogs is a small overestimation of their needs at this point in time? I could understand ten. Maybe 20. But 100?!

[Freeskier]

Well thats an overestimation by ~ 8 sleds, with 12-16 dogs per sled. Still alot, dunno how many they have for normal operations.

edit: just got off the phone with a friend who's just got her cert to run dog sleds, she's super choked about it (also a hippy haha) but she said the dogs are viewed more as tools rather than pets. Compared it to horses in the chucks?

[Kloubek]

According to his own statement, he said it was about half the herd which was culled.

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/michael_platt/2011/01/31/17104521.html

I'd say for them to no longer require half the herd, there had to be some sort of gross overestimation of needs from the beginning - or a blatant "I don't give a shit" attitude which dictated they'd have the dogs for the Olympic rush, but with the intent they would need to kill them afterward. Either way, I think better choices could have been made.

Regardless, even *if* I could get past the fact this happened (and thusfar I cannot), I still can't look past the way that they were killed, and made to suffer. I'm not expecting them to bring every dog into the vet (though it is a nice thought), but killing them in front of each other, and from the sounds of it, not being particularly successful in some of the attempts is a little barbaric, imo.

[Ven]

Originally posted by syeve

Just in case you think you had me pegged, I hunt for a lot of my meat.

I don't understand how you killing animals for sport and food has any relevance to your inability to grasp the similarity between canine and bovine species providing a saleable product or service, and the unfortunate fates they may have at the end of their profitability cycle. Unless you're experiencing a strictly emotional reaction because of your mental image of what a dog is. It's status quo and I get it 100%. And that's OK too man. I'm not bugging you, or trying to piss you off. Pardon me if I was harsh in other posts.

[tobypaddock]

Originally posted by derpderp
I guess I can see why shooting them might seem a bit harsh but I wouldn't really punish the company for putting the dogs down.

They should have been economic experts, or at least one on staff and a person who can see the future so they would have known exactly: that the tourist industry was going to suffer as a result of the slowing international economy, due to the meltdown of the housing and credit markets in the USA and internationally, due to poor decision making by banks and government regulators internationally.

THOSE BASTARDS FOR NOT KNOWING!

this is unequivocally the worst argument/post i have read on Beyond, EVER.

Truly :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: worthy

[J-hop]

Originally posted by FraserB


So if your employer told you that your two choices are either killing some animals and being able to feed your family and keep a roof over your head or lose your job and not be able to do these things what would you do?

Keep in mind that Whistler is pretty much dependent on tourism and is getting hammered right now.


I don't know the employer/employee contract with this company but regardless an employer can not force you to do anything you believe is morally wrong. I guarantee if you were given this choice, you chose not to do it and the employer fired you, you could go and sue the shit out of him for wrongful dismissal. On top of that, make your story public and the public will rally behind you the whole way.


I realize its a tough choice and I don't view sled dogs as a type of pet. However to go out and start pumping shotgun shells into a group of dogs isn't exactly the most humane thing to do. And from the sounds of it, it was a messy job with many dogs suffering needlessly and many maimed in the process.

I would have been fine with this if it was done in a humane way (lots of pounds/adoption agencies have to euthanize their dogs when they can't adopt them out). But this was done in a horrible manner and I hope they rot in hell.

[sillysod]

I realize that it is a business and the animals are merely "tools" for them. However, that being said they are in the service industry.

There is no way that a vet would charge $300/head to put that many dogs down. It is something that should be factored into the business plan and treated as an expense. The dogs were used to generate revenue and if disposal is required then it should be planned for.

This business caters to outdoors type people and their clients will respond accordingly with their wallets.

The spca puts animals down with a needle for a reason. We do some work in chicken plants and they take the sick ones and just fire them into a grinder alive. I've seen them smash ones that run away with a shovel or just kick them. If the spca started driving over animals with a forklift to put them down there would be outrage.

We don't live in some village in Africa we live in a 1st world country and this is in very poor taste.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by Xtrema


As a dog lover

^^ Chinese or Korean?

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by FraserB


So if your employer told you that your two choices are either killing some animals and being able to feed your family and keep a roof over your head or lose your job and not be able to do these things what would you do?


Why did this need to be a false dilemma?

Why do people need to treat the world like its populated by a bunch of f*cking third graders?

While bosses are quick to make unreasonable, unconsidered demands, they may also reconsider these if offered alternatives, or asked to make outlandish requests in writing.

It sucks the employee was put in this position, but he didn't need to respond like a robot, either.

[SKR]

Originally posted by Kloubek
You don't need a gun pressed to your head to be forced to do something.

If you feel your job is on the line and you aren't going to be able to feed your family, you'd be surprised at what people can do.

I think if I was put in charge of liquidating half my company's assets, I'd take that as a sign that the company wasn't doing well and that there would be a pretty good chance there wouldn't be a job to go to anyway. I don't know why, throughout the entire procedure, it never occurred to the employee that things weren't going well within the company and that maybe it was time to look elsewhere.

[autosm]

^ 770 news said the individual that did the killing was in charge of the day to day operations of the company?

Vancouver SPCA apparently has a no kill policy so I assume they may have taken these dogs and would not have killed them.

I am almost sure someone in the north would have had a use for these dogs as sled dogs. I would bet someone would have picked them up free of charge. Maybe even paid for them?

[Mys73ri0]

Since A LOT of people didn't take the time to read the articles here are some quotes:


Attempts were made to adopt the dogs out, but to little success so the employee was ordered to kill 100 of them April 21 and 23, 2010.

"He was essentially told to figure out a way to make (the business) more cost effective. They just had to have less dogs. So he did everything he could finding homes for them, having them adopted, every which way that he could," lawyer Cory Steinberg told CKNW.

A veterinarian was contacted, but refused to euthanize healthy animals. Attempts were made to adopt out the dogs with only limited success.”

What would you have the guy do? Vet refused to euthanize them, and no one was willing to adopt. Walking away from the job would only mean someone else (probably with even less xp in dealing with this situation) would have to deal with it.

I'm sure a lot people are stepping up and saying they would totally adopt one of these as a pet, but talk is cheap. Almost certain none would actually go through with it.

[5.0]

Originally posted by tobypaddock


this is unequivocally the worst argument/post i have read on Beyond, EVER.

Truly :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: worthy

Haha :werd:

[syeve]

Originally posted by Ven


Unless you're experiencing a strictly emotional reaction because of your mental image of what a dog is. It's status quo and I get it 100%. And that's OK too man. I'm not bugging you, or trying to piss you off. Pardon me if I was harsh in other posts.

No worries, I can say with 100% certainty it an emotional reaction, and yes I have what I would describe as an extreme weak spot for dogs. I have seen first hand how good dogs can be and how little they ask of us. I am fully aware that this type of activity happens all the time, I just hope there is a day in my life where the seperation between man and beast is marginal. We will always depend on animals for food, transportation etc but it in now way gives us the right to treat them the way we do, with little regard and no dignity.

Good write up from the show this morn...

"This is embarrassing… for Canada. Our country’s animal welfare laws are about as slack as Jenna Jameson after a morning shoot. In a lot of cases, the liberties taken are just as messy.
This latest case ain’t no dog dragged behind the car. The Whistler dog cull is the case of a man looking to capitalize on a tourist boom by procuring more dogs than he could look after should the business prospects dry up. Essentially, he made a bone-headed decision and took it out on 100 of his employees – sorry… property animals.
In Canada, animals are property. If you torch your neighbours car, the long arm of the law will punish you more than if you torch your neighbours pet. When’s the last time you got an insurance quote based on the bluebook value of your labrador retriever?
The fact is, Canada lags ages behind the progressive and respectable animal rights laws of many European nations. Animals should still provide food and labour for humans, but senselessly suffering horrific indignities and abuse is, frankly, unnecessary.
It is long past time that Canada write some laws to ensure basically humane treatment of animals from puppy mills to abattoirs. Isn’t it the least we can do for beings that provide us so much and incur so little wrath?
And as for the Whistler’s canine Khmer Rouge… don’t embarrass us by letting him off with a slap on the wrist."

[mazdavirgin]

I still can't get over the idea that people think shooting something in the head is somehow less humane than having a vet put the dog down... Oh and FYI if you ask a vet to put a cow down for you odds are they are going to be using a rifle. So yeah exactly what is the point of having a vet put down the dogs versus putting a round in their head?


Originally posted by syeve
And as for the Whistler’s canine Khmer Rouge… don’t embarrass us by letting him off with a slap on the wrist."

:facepalm: Can anyone say misanthrope? That is disgusting. I like how putting down some dogs is now being equated with the systematic execution, torture, and starvation of 1.5 million humans.

[syeve]

Originally posted by Mys73ri0
Since A LOT of people didn't take the time to read the articles here are some quotes:




What would you have the guy do? Vet refused to euthanize them, and no one was willing to adopt. Walking away from the job would only mean someone else (probably with even less xp in dealing with this situation) would have to deal with it.



How about take responsibility for the choices he made when he bought 100 dogs including the costs associated with that choice?

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
I still can't get over the idea that people think shooting something in the head is somehow less humane than having a vet put the dog down... Oh and FYI if you ask a vet to put a cow down for you odds are they are going to be using a rifle. So yeah exactly what is the point of having a vet put down the dogs versus putting a round in their head?


Yeah, the report from the employee totally sounds humane...


The report states the employee had killed more than a dozen dogs when he came to Suzie, the mother of his family’s pet dog, Bumble. The blast from his gun wounded her horribly, and her screams of pain made him drop the leash. Eventually he had to use a gun with a scope to finish her off at a distance. Other dogs attacked him when he went to retrieve the body.

The employee told WorkSafeBC he performed what he described as “execution-style” killings, where he wrestled the dogs to the ground and stood on them with one foot to shoot them.

Incidents on April 23 were worse, the report says. About 20 minutes after he shot a dog named Nora, he noticed that she was crawling around a mass grave he had dug for the animals.

Yeap... shot but not dead for at least 20 minutes... totally humane.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
I still can't get over the idea that people think shooting something in the head is somehow less humane than having a vet put the dog down... Oh and FYI if you ask a vet to put a cow down for you odds are they are going to be using a rifle. So yeah exactly what is the point of having a vet put down the dogs versus putting a round in their head?



:facepalm: Can anyone say misanthrope? That is disgusting. I like how putting down some dogs is now being equated with the systematic execution, torture, and starvation of 1.5 million humans.

Agreed (only in part though), I don't know if anyone here has had to have their dog put down at the vet but it is a far from stress less event for a dog. We recently had to put our dog down and she dreaded going to the vet so she was already really stressed when we got her in. Then they had to come back 3 times to inject her with an anesthetic because it wasn't working. She started hyperventilating and convulsing twice, until the third time when they injected her with a mass dose of anesthetic. The actual poison was probably painless but the build up to that wasn't at all and she was crying the whole time (actually was a pretty horrible thing for me to witness).

A straight shot with a rifle to the head would have been a much quicker and less stressful event for her (definitely more traumatic for us though).

But the company didn't do that so I'm not trying to claim what they did was right, they slit the dogs' throat and sprayed them with shotgun fire, not killing them in one shot, that is far from humane.

[Supa Dexta]

Vets use a .22 close range to kill a cow.. Seen it a number of times, and have done it myself several times.

[SKR]

Originally posted by Supa Dexta
Vets use a .22 close range to kill a cow.. Seen it a number of times, and have done it myself several times.

Really? We've had to use a .22 on a cow and it took 5 shots just to get her to go down, and a .308 to finally kill her.

[J-hop]

yea a .22 sounds a bit small lol. I have a 22 gauge pellet gun. (yea i know pellet != bullet but still that is tiny as hell.

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by syeve


How about take responsibility for the choices he made when he bought 100 dogs including the costs associated with that choice?
^^^

This...
Again I'll reiterate, this company took the lazy, broke ass, irResponsible road. I don't believe for a second that there isn't an organization out there or a tribe for that matter that would have taken these dogs in a heartbeat. True, there may have been some costs involved with bringing them up North but that's the price you pay for doing a piss poor job at running your business.

[SmAcKpOo]

What appalls me most about this whole subject is how lax Canada's animal rights laws are.

My dog is like my child, seriously. I do not have kids but my dog is the fucking world to me. It scares me to know that someone could kill/harm a member of my family (a child in my eyes) and get a slap on the wrist.

:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Back on topic, did anyone see the interview of the spokesperson for outdoor adventures on the national last night? Total fucking prick. Showed zero remorse and laid all the blame on the employee.

[autosm]

The cost to this company and its owners is going to exceed many times what it would have to deal with these dogs the right way.

SPCA said they would have taken these dogs and found homes for them.

[sillysod]

In Canada it is illegal to kill and eat a dog... comparing a cow to a dog is not the same regardless if it is a business tool or not. My uncle is a dog man for the RCMP and has had a lot of dogs. His dogs are NOT adoptable when they are finished with the service, but he doesnt take them behind the station, tie them up to his cruiser and start blasting.

furthermore does anybody think that his lawyer would not say that they used this as a last resort? I assure you if ARF or the SPCA was called and informed the dogs would be shot they would arrange something. (I also do work with SPCA and the Humane Society)

Like I said before this should be a cost of business. there are disposal fees for everything in business from getting rid of chemicals to laying off people and still having to pay them 2 weeks.

Autosm is right on, I guarantee you that the owners of this business now realize that the costs of properly disposing/adopting these animals would have been far less then what is unfolding.

[KrisYYC]

I have a hard time believing that with the power of the internet they couldn't have found somebody to take the dogs. I'm sure Husky groups all over North America would have gladly taken them. They're just making excuses.

And the guy who shot them claiming he was forced... get real. We don't live in Rwanda, it's not THAT hard to find other employment in this country that shooting 100 dogs is the easier choice FFS.

I'd rather lose my job and have to panhandle and steal copper to support myself than kill 100 dogs to keep my job with a company that's on its road to bankruptcy anyway. This idiot deserves his PTSD.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by sillysod
In Canada it is illegal to kill and eat a dog... comparing a cow to a dog is not the same regardless if it is a business tool or not. My uncle is a dog man for the RCMP and has had a lot of dogs. His dogs are NOT adoptable when they are finished with the service, but he doesnt take them behind the station, tie them up to his cruiser and start blasting.

furthermore does anybody think that his lawyer would not say that they used this as a last resort? I assure you if ARF or the SPCA was called and informed the dogs would be shot they would arrange something. (I also do work with SPCA and the Humane Society)

Like I said before this should be a cost of business. there are disposal fees for everything in business from getting rid of chemicals to laying off people and still having to pay them 2 weeks.

Autosm is right on, I guarantee you that the owners of this business now realize that the costs of properly disposing/adopting these animals would have been far less then what is unfolding.

I have a tough time believing the SPCA would have taken the dogs. The reality is IMO the SPCA taking on 100 un-adoptable dogs which likely could not be housed with other dogs seems unlikely to me.

I know some dogs likely could be domesticated, but not a single reputable animal rescue agency (like SPCA) will adopt out a dog that shows any type of aggression towards either humans or other dogs so I find it unlikely they will be willing to just house 100 dogs.

Granted there has to be other ways of getting rid of the dogs without euthanizing them but I think the SPCA is making a claim they never would have lived up to.

[Ven]

Originally posted by sillysod
In Canada it is illegal to kill and eat a dog... comparing a cow to a dog is not the same regardless if it is a business tool or not. My uncle is a dog man for the RCMP and has had a lot of dogs. His dogs are NOT adoptable when they are finished with the service, but he doesnt take them behind the station, tie them up to his cruiser and start blasting.

Gonna need to see a document stating that. My understanding is an owner can't kill a registered pet within municipality it is registered to without greater purpose (euthanize due to old age sickness, behavioral problems, ect). The method of acceptable euthanization is dependent on the locality. In Calgary you'll probably want to bring the animal to the vet to be put down once you've decided that action. However, perhaps in Thornhild County it would't be odd to shoot your own pet once the decision has been made. I won't comment on the eating part simply because there's a significant amount of other livestock species that are killed and never eaten.



Originally posted by sillysod

Autosm is right on, I guarantee you that the owners of this business now realize that the costs of properly disposing/adopting these animals would have been far less then what is unfolding.

They already understand shooting the dogs is a normal course of action since that seems to be a common method in dealing with these sled pullers, as is being revealed now from various credible sources. But they won't admit that. I'm sure the hundred that was killed via this outfit is a fractional amount for this industry. If the culling wasn't botched it never would have made the news and we'd still be busy recoiling in horror at the baby seals getting bludgeoned.

I'm still not finding the info stating they're in trouble for killing the dogs. Only for allegedly failing to kill some of them humanely. If it were illegal to shoot their dogs there would have already been charges and arrests. But this seems like a case of animal abuse regarding the claimed suffering, and the RCMP and SPCA need to prove which and if any of them did suffer, and the guy talking is the one who did the shooting and now he has PTSD, the "crazy" sickness. Additionally his or anyones objective never was to inflict suffering on these animals. I don't think anything of significance will come of the dogs being killed. Depending on the location I can see them getting more heat for the firearm discharge and the mass grave.

[Ven]

Originally posted by J-hop


Granted there has to be other ways of getting rid of the dogs without euthanizing them but I think the SPCA is making a claim they never would have lived up to.

Agreed. Some would have been saved, some not.

[sh0ko]

I see exactly why this guy took the course of action he did. But as for those of you saying this particular case was humane is just ignorant.

The fact that he took shots at pt blank range and missed the head boggles my mind. I mean one dog was running away with her eyeball hanging? If the vet dosent wanna put em down and this idiotic GM dosent know how to operate a fucking rifle at pt blank range,,, hire someone that can.

Can someone tell me how many vets they approached and were denied. Or was it A vet. Singular.

[Supa Dexta]

Originally posted by SKR


Really? We've had to use a .22 on a cow and it took 5 shots just to get her to go down, and a .308 to finally kill her.

Where the hell were you shooting it, in the stomach? Maybe dont do jobs you can't handle to do right the first time. Thats rediculous..


Originally posted by J-hop
yea a .22 sounds a bit small lol. I have a 22 gauge pellet gun. (yea i know pellet != bullet but still that is tiny as hell.

HAHA LOL!
:rolleyes:

Can you guys even read, I've done it personally, they drop.. Hell heres a video and its not even close range. I'm talking a shot within 5 ft.

5qyHsA0Kpl4

And for good measure, a discussion on it>

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=390160

[LongCity]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
I still can't get over the idea that people think shooting something in the head is somehow less humane than having a vet put the dog down... Oh and FYI if you ask a vet to put a cow down for you odds are they are going to be using a rifle. So yeah exactly what is the point of having a vet put down the dogs versus putting a round in their head?

Ummmm... I would imagine being shot in the head and surviving is quite painful compared to being anesthetized. So yes, it is less humane than putting it down.

[D. Dub]

Originally posted by SKR


Really? We've had to use a .22 on a cow and it took 5 shots just to get her to go down, and a .308 to finally kill her.

Holy crap. 6 shots? Are you legally blind?

[tobypaddock]

Originally posted by Ven

I'm sure the hundred that was killed via this outfit is a fractional amount for this industry.

great point, so its definitely ok then :facepalm:


Originally posted by Ven

If the culling wasn't botched it never would have made the news and we'd still be busy recoiling in horror at the baby seals getting bludgeoned.

yeah, what senseless idiots we all are.



Originally posted by Ven

Additionally his or anyones objective never was to inflict suffering on these animals.

since when did objective matter? is involuntary manslaughter of a human not a crime?

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by tobypaddock

since when did objective matter? is involuntary manslaughter of a human not a crime?

You're comparing killing a human to killing an animal? Great analogy. :facepalm:

Wiping out all emotion, here are the facts, afaik...

1; It was legal to kill the dogs

2; those dogs are unfit as adoptive pets

3; Vets were asked but refused to do it.

Other than the sloppiness of the job, I don't see any difference than the 10's of thousands of animals that are put down every year by SPCA, Owners, Breeders, etc.

Not to mention other animals like coyotes, beavers, and of course our food source.

[tobypaddock]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


You're comparing killing a human to killing an animal? Great analogy. :facepalm:

Wiping out all emotion, here are the facts, afaik...

1; It was legal to kill the dogs

2; those dogs are unfit as adoptive pets

3; Vets were asked but refused to do it.

Other than the sloppiness of the job, I don't see any difference than the 10's of thousands of animals that are put down every year by SPCA, Owners, Breeders, etc.

Not to mention other animals like coyotes, beavers, and of course our food source.

I am not comparing the two, thats why i stated "manslaughter OF A HUMAN" learn to read:facepalm:

i was saying OBJECTIVE doesnt matter, if you involuntarily put an animal through unnecessary torture it doesnt make it okay.

as for your points

1. true

2. some of them may have been not all of them though.

3. i havent heard anything stating multiple vets were contacted, if only one was and refused then more calls should have been made before pulling out the rifle and bowie knife

[J-WESS]

I do not believe that this company made much of an effort to find alternative solutions for these dogs. I mean, why wouldn’t they contact other dog sled companies (for example, Howling Dog Tours in Canmore) and ask if they would take the dogs? I saw on Global that Howling Dogs in Canmore wasn’t even approached

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/Contact+Us/Canmore+sled+company+owner+frightened+safety/4206288/story.html

[D. Dub]

I think it's absolutely ludicrous that the news anchor in that story uses the term "mass grave" with a deeply sombre & serious tone of voice... for a bunch of dead dogs.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by tobypaddock


I am not comparing the two, thats why i stated "manslaughter OF A HUMAN" learn to read:facepalm:

i was saying OBJECTIVE doesnt matter, if you involuntarily put an animal through unnecessary torture it doesnt make it okay.

ahh...gotcha now. Sorry..had to re-read between the lines and the quotes. I understand your point. valid.

So onto the other points.

You agree with #1

On #2....if you understood the industry, sled dogs do not make good pets. Period. Besides that fact, the SPCA's are already not able to find homes for adoptable pets...so putting another 100 dogs into the mix will somehow find more homes??

On point #3. If it was legal...and one (or more, that fact doesn't matter) Vet would not do it..then why not do it themselves? It's legal and that is what is done in that industry. Just like race horses, racing dogs, etc are routinely put down after their use is no longer needed. No difference here.

People keep putting emotion into this equation. Sure its sad. Sure it wasn't done in a proper manner. Would finding a FEW homes then have made it okay? If they had found another sled company to take a FEW dogs off their hands, THEN it would have been okay? There's no way they would have been able to place all 100 dogs. It's legal. It's the way that business is. Anything else is just pure emotion talking. You might as well say all sledding should be made illegal. As well as horse racing, dog racing, the fur trapping industry....while we're at it, lets all join PETA.

[syeve]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


You're comparing killing a human to killing an animal? Great analogy. :facepalm:

Wiping out all emotion, here are the facts, afaik...

1; It was legal to kill the dogs

2; those dogs are unfit as adoptive pets

3; Vets were asked but refused to do it.

Other than the sloppiness of the job, I don't see any difference than the 10's of thousands of animals that are put down every year by SPCA, Owners, Breeders, etc.

Not to mention other animals like coyotes, beavers, and of course our food source.

Another great religious revelation - the separation of man and beast. One day stupid fucking humans will realize that we are all not so different.


To your points;
1. To be determined - I am not sure on this one - I am hearing lots of interpretations of the law but nothing solid so far.

2. Not true - As well, several other dog sledding operations from around Canada have said they would have been happy to take some or all of them on as well as hand selecting a few that would suitable for pets.

3. One vet was asked to do it for free - he said no.

I am 100% opposed to the needless humiliation and killing of non-food related hunting. Including sport hunting...don't see the point in it and I never will. The good thing I suppose is the people that do enjoy it are shrinking. Good riddance.

The reason the SPCA has to put down animals is exactly the same as this. It has 100% to do with stupid fucking people that put little value in the life of an animal. That is it. No other reason.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by syeve
said: blah blah blah

Now all you're doing is debating the use of animals. Fine...go join PETA. Start another thread.

I'm discussing a sled company killing dogs it no longer needs. That is all. It was legal. And it is whats done in the industry.

I don't agree with it (the dog sledding business). You obviously don't agree with it..so what? Some people don't agree with me eating a steak. Again...so what? It's all moot.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by LongCity
Ummmm... I would imagine being shot in the head and surviving is quite painful compared to being anesthetized. So yes, it is less humane than putting it down.

The size of hole you put in an animals head at point blank range doesn't really lend itself to survival frankly. Hell your precious vets will come to your farm and shoot your animal for you if you want to pay them an atrocious amount of money.


Originally posted by syeve
Another great religious revelation - the separation of man and beast. One day stupid fucking humans will realize that we are all not so different.

:rofl: Yeah it has nothing to do with the fact that animals are not capable of the same level of thinking as humans. Nope that sea anemone is equivalent to a human with a conscience and who is capable of grasping the concepts of the past, present and future. Yeah I was right. You are a misanthrope.

[tobypaddock]

Originally posted by C_Dave45

ahh...gotcha now. Sorry..had to re-read between the lines and the quotes. I understand your point. valid.

So onto the other points.

You agree with #1

On #2....if you understood the industry, sled dogs do not make good pets. Period. Besides that fact, the SPCA's are already not able to find homes for adoptable pets...so putting another 100 dogs into the mix will somehow find more homes??

On point #3. If it was legal...and one (or more, that fact doesn't matter) Vet would not do it..then why not do it themselves? It's legal and that is what is done in that industry. Just like race horses, racing dogs, etc are routinely put down after their use is no longer needed. No difference here.

People keep putting emotion into this equation. Sure its sad. Sure it wasn't done in a proper manner. Would finding a FEW homes then have made it okay? If they had found another sled company to take a FEW dogs off their hands, THEN it would have been okay? There's no way they would have been able to place all 100 dogs. It's legal. It's the way that business is. Anything else is just pure emotion talking. You might as well say all sledding should be made illegal. As well as horse racing, dog racing, the fur trapping industry....while we're at it, lets all join PETA.


"sled dogs do not make good pets. Period." this isnt true - for the most part they dont make good pets, but stating that they are bad pets. Period. is completely untrue - snowy owl adopts out some of their sled dogs that they feel would be better suited to life in a home.

and i understand what you're saying about #3 i think most peoples concern is that not every avenue was exhausted AND the dogs were put through unnecessary stress and pain - surely would have been much less with properly administered euthanization after all other options were explored and as many dogs as possible were placed within homes, other companies or other rescue organizations.


Im sure that had this gone public beforehand many organizations would have stepped up around north america

[C_Dave45]

More interesting information coming out:


The 38-year-old employee of Outdoor Adventures who killed 100 sled dogs in Whistler approached the BC SPCA on two separate occasions asking for its help in finding adoptive homes for some of the company’s dogs, The Vancouver Sun has learned.

Both times he was rebuffed.

Officials at the animal protection agency said they didn’t realize the dogs would be brutally slaughtered. But they said they told the man the dogs would not make good pets and were not adoptable.


“ I spoke to an animal behaviorist who is also a vet and she spoke with an expert in the [United] States who said [the sled dogs] weren’t adoptable,” said Drever.

Asked if she told the man the SPCA would not help place the dogs last spring she answered, “I believe so.”

The second time the man approached the SPCA was through an email dated Sept. 10, 2010 — nearly five months after the cull — asking if the SPCA would take some of the remaining dogs in the pack, which before the cull numbered about 350.

The Sun has obtained a copy of that documentation, which states: “I understood from Joey that there were to be some dogs going to you for adoption? Is that indeed happening? Or should I just show up with a truck full so they can get off the chain and get some attention, exercise, stop fighting, etc....I am happy to bring some down to stop cruelty they are going through here.

“This is me as a bystander (I am off due to injury to both arms). I am the only one who has made any effort to move dogs. We still have almost 60 dogs too many, and a new litter of pups to be given away. Can you please give me a call so I know something can be done. It’s breaking my heart.”

Drever replied five days later, apologizing for taking so long to respond as she had not been in the office.

In her email, dated Sept. 15, 2010, she wrote: “I just informed Joey that after consulting with an animal behaviourist/veterinarian we have reached the decision these dogs are not adoptable....”

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/killed+sled+dogs+asked+SPCA+help+separate+occasions/4211079/story.html#ixzz1CpfLlnpP


Looks to me like the man who did the culling did everything he could, aside from the only option left, to find them homes.

As for other dog-sledding companies saying they would have taken all 100 dogs...uh huh...Riiiiiight. Easy to say after the fact, and get free publicity for being the "white knight".
:rolleyes:

All these keyboard warriors calling for this man's head need to grow up a bit. (I'm referring more to the comments on the newspapers' forums...not beyond's)

[tobypaddock]

Originally posted by C_Dave45

All these keyboard warriors calling for this man's head need to grow up a bit. (I'm referring more to the comments on the newspapers' forums...not beyond's)

though it sounds like he was remorseful i find it hard to feel sorry for this guy.
I couldnt pull the trigger on one dog, let alone a hundred short of someone holding a gun to one of my family members head, and it would still be the hardest thing Ive ever had to do in my life. I guess some people are built differently tho.

[desi112]

I"m sorry, I can't find any justifcation for culling 100 dogs.

But I can find justification for culling livestock.

Like livestock these dogs were used to earn a living, and when that failed, all efforts should have been made to find them a home.

I just wrote out exactly what I am thinking, literally. Dogs are not like livestock, I'm sure they could've found homes for these dogs, or contacted pawsitive match or an orginization like that.

[syeve]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


blah blah blah

We shall see if it was legal.

And to Mr. Virgin...

I was not comparing humans to anything. Only suggesting that the social awareness and thought processes of animals like dogs are only now being explored. And as for being a misanthrope, I disagree...I simply have respect for all walks of life, especially those walks of life that ask very little of us and in return give us everything. It doesn't make them any less valid.

I don't see why any person would disagree with having some basic respect for the things around us? Does it make you cool to disregard other life around us and believe that humans are the beginning, middle and end on earth. The blatent dis-regard and comments like "this is just how it's done" are a sad excuse.

from Carl Sagan...smarter than you and I.

"Humans -- who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals - -- have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, wear them, eat them -- without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.

In the annals of primate ethics, there are some accounts that have the ring of parable. In a laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so -- 87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow. Macaques who had themselves been shocked in previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain. The relative social status or gender of the macaques had little bearing on their reluctance to hurt others.

If asked to choose between the human experimenters offering the macaques this Faustian bargain and the macaques themselves -- suffering from real hunger rather than causing pain to others -- our own moral sympathies do not lie with the scientists. But their experiments permit us to glimpse in non-humans a saintly willingness to make sacrifices in order to save others -- even those who are not close kin. By conventional human standards, these macaques -- who have never gone to Sunday school, never heard of the Ten Commandments, never squirmed through a single junior high school civics lesson -- seem exemplary in their moral grounding and their courageous resistance to evil. Among these macaques, at least in this case, heroism is the norm. If the circumstances were reversed, and captive humans were offered the same deal by macaque scientists, would we do as well? (Especially when there is an authority figure urging us to administer the electric shocks, we humans are disturbingly willing to cause pain -- and for a reward much more paltry than food is for a starving macaque (cf. Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental Overview). In human history there are a precious few whose memory we revere because they knowingly sacrificed themselves for others. For each of them, there are multitudes who did nothing."

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by desi112
I"m sorry, I can't find any justifcation for culling 100 dogs.

But I can find justification for culling livestock.

Like livestock these dogs were used to earn a living, and when that failed, all efforts should have been made to find them a home.

I just wrote out exactly what I am thinking, literally. Dogs are not like livestock, I'm sure they could've found homes for these dogs, or contacted pawsitive match or an orginization like that.

Why? Cuz one is cute n cuddly, and the other is dumb and ugly? Talk about being a hypocrite.

As for your pawsitive match suggestion;

"Hello, Pawsitive Match? Yeah...I have 100 hundred fully grown dogs. They've spent their entire life outside on a chain. Often fight with other dogs, hardly any human contact. The SPCA and an animal behaviorist say they're unadoptable....can you find me 100 homes on top of all your other dogs you're having a tough time finding homes for?"

Let us know how that would go. ;)

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by syeve
http://lpmuds.net/teal_deer.jpg

Wow....you're not related to Ingrid Newkirk are you?
Maybe you're right...we should be like India. Let our children starve and lay out a red carpet for the cattle.

[syeve]

^^:D India is starving because it has 1.2 BILLION people, nothing to do with the cows.

And I am having steak tonight. A big one.

[desi112]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


Why? Cuz one is cute n cuddly, and the other is dumb and ugly? Talk about being a hypocrite.

As for your pawsitive match suggestion;

"Hello, Pawsitive Match? Yeah...I have 100 hundred fully grown dogs. They've spent their entire life outside on a chain. Often fight with other dogs, hardly any human contact. The SPCA and an animal behaviorist say they're unadoptable....can you find me 100 homes on top of all your other dogs you're having a tough time finding homes for?"

Let us know how that would go. ;)

do you even know what pawitive match is? haha don't talk if you don't know, they exist to make the unadoptable adoptable.

Love when people talk out of their asses.

[Kloubek]

Actually, I think desi has a point. Most of their dogs come from mexico, and were totally abused and abandoned - not typically easy dogs to put in standard environment.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by desi112


do you even know what pawitive match is? haha don't talk if you don't know, they exist to make the unadoptable adoptable.

Love when people talk out of their asses.

"Gotta mint?"

Nope...no clue about them. Never looked at their website, never talked to them at all. I know nothing about them. So what? Are you their spokesperson?

There's no way anyone would have found homes for these 100 (and counting) dogs. You sound like all the other 12 year-olds commenting on the newspaper forums.
"wahhhh...they could have found them homes"
"wahhhh...they didn't try"
"wahhhh....they're all cute n cuddly animals...the shooter should be put in jail, covered in acid, dropped in boiling oil...wahhh...wahhhh...wahhh....."

Pssst.....here's a tip. In Canada, there are probably 5,000 dogs killed yearly...some humanely, some not...shall we all go on a crusade for them as well?

[J-hop]

Originally posted by desi112


do you even know what pawitive match is? haha don't talk if you don't know, they exist to make the unadoptable adoptable.

Love when people talk out of their asses.

big claims, the amount of man power it would take to re-habilitate 100 (extra!!!!) dogs like that would be ridiculous. I don't know what the situation is like out there but in calgary adoption agencies are over run with dogs. My GF's family knows one of the people that runs Pound Rescue in calgary and they are completely over run with animals. My GF's sister has temporarily fostered a dog to help out one of the people that run it because their house is already full and my GFs family is looking at taking on a dog or two to help out.

I think people are avoiding reality. Yes there has to have been a way to get rid of the dogs without euthanizing them (as I stated before) but no it is not as simple as some of you trying to make it out to be.

I don't understand that some people here can claim they have "worked with" rescue agencies, or "know a lot about" rescue agencies, but yet they think its as simple as throwing the dogs in a truck and dropping them off on the rescue center's doorstep, when the reality is a lot more complex then that (ie: you need space to house the dogs, you need man power to take care of and re-habilitate the dogs, you need man power to start paper work for the animals, you need people to start looking for homes and advertising, you need funding for food and incidentals like collars/tags, food and water dishes, and most importantly vet bills.