Euthanizing pets in the country

**stressed** · 04-15-2010 05:23 AM

Is either of the two following cases common for people who live in the countryside?

- A vet shooting an old dog instead of using injection, claiming it is faster and better for the dog.

- Having over 10 kittens and giving one to your child to throw it at the rocks to "kill it quickly", because you cannot afford to keep them all, have a family and nobody you know wants them. (talking about doing this in the 70's).

I'm not familiar with countryside lifestyle but even though I was shocked to hear about both cases I don't find it that unusual as to how certain people can act like that. I've just had a discussion with someone who was totally against both and couldn't understand the reasons behind it.

I wouldn't want to do either of the two, at all, but I think I can understand why some would do it. Am I wrong?

**Texinator** · 04-15-2010 10:22 AM

I know some folks in rural areas will shoot a pet to euthanize it rather than take it to a vet. Some people in the city will even do it if the laws allow for it.

I can understand some of the reasons. Maybe the pet is in such poor health that taking it to the vet would just cause more unnecessary stress. A few people also feel it is more 'personal' this way.

It's not a problem if you know what you're doing. Then the death is instant and painless and the animal doesn't suffer. But if you're not sure.. it's still a better idea to take it to the vet or even have the vet come to you if he does house calls.

But throwing kittens at rocks is another thing. That's a cruel death. It should always be over in an instant, whether you're putting down a pet, hunting game, or killing varmints. Plus asking a kid to do it is fifty million different kinds of messed up.

**p3375** · 04-15-2010 10:31 AM

Stressed:
I'm not a vet, but am a 'country girl'. Have humanely euthanized more animals than .... well.. a bunch. The key here is the word humanely.

Let me say right here that having anyone throw rocks at any animal in order to injure it in my presence would result in a fight. The legal stuff (animal cruelty charges) would come later. In my state (Virginia) it is a class III felony to deliberately mistreat or injure a 'companion animal', and I expect is same in most places in the U S . In my experience, country folks are generally more gentle w/ animals 'cause they live/work/depend on them almost daily. The very idea has me grinding my teeth.

Now, about humane euthanasia. Yes, dear, a bullet to the brain is quite humane. Remember, the animal is not in fear, cause it doesn't know what is coming. It is pretty much standard practice on large animals and causes instant oblivion. Now - ya gotta know what youre doing - know to put it in the right place to hit the brain. That said, it isn't rocket science and does not take extrordinary skills.

Why euthanize? To end suffering. I once read as story 'bout a kid whose grandmother died, he asked his mom why his granny had to die and mom replied: When a person or gets too old or too sick or too hurt to ever get better, God let's her die so she won't hurt any more. I'd say that covers 'bout all the bases.
P

**rcoreyus** · 04-15-2010 01:56 PM

Shooting an animal if it needs to be euthanaised doesn't sound particularly cruel. On a farm killing animals for food is normal. People also kill unwanted pets all the time.

OK having said that, I could not stand to see it done. It is completely hypocritical – I'm not a vegetarian, but harming animals causes an violent irrational anger in me. The thought of killing kittens....argh.

As I said, I'm not defending how I feel, I know its unreasonable, but because of that I could never live on a farm.

**stressed** · 04-17-2010 02:59 AM

Do you think I should be 'concerned' about those who gave kittens to their children to 'euthanize them quickly' by throwing them? Like I said, they did that in the 70's, but I was shocked to learn about it, and it doesn't sound particularly 'quick'.

Thank you for the answers, I know it's a difficult subject but there's a reason why I ask...

**p3375** · 04-17-2010 03:36 AM

stressed:
First, if my earlier post sounded ammm brusque or angry, please don't think it was directed toward you. I try to never answer e-mails or post messages when p.o'd , but did it the other day. I was upset by the idea of stoning animals, not with you...

So, yes, I'd be concerned about both the parents and the kids. There are pretty strong links between cruelty to animals and cruelty(abuse,violence) to humans. I believe it's well recognized to be a progressive thing.

And no, that kind of thing is not quick. Is appropriately called torture.

Are you sure it's ended?
P

**WildChild** · 04-17-2010 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by stressed

Do you think I should be 'concerned' about those who gave kittens to their children to 'euthanize them quickly' by throwing them? Like I said, they did that in the 70's, but I was shocked to learn about it, and it doesn't sound particularly 'quick'.

Thank you for the answers, I know it's a difficult subject but there's a reason why I ask...

Personally I would be concerned about anyone who engaged in such behavior. This could be a touchy area if it was the parents who encouraged such behavior, how could a child who was replused by it refuse without risking being hurt themselves? What a horrible posistion to put your child in. Either they would come to accept such behavior - very concerning or they would be traumatized to some extent.

Pleasure in or acceptance of torturing or hurting others is in my opinion, a very dangerous pathway to travel. Historically humans have done a great deal of it. There are cultures and religions today which actively promote such behavior. Islam being a major world religion which incorporates stoning people to death, flogging and removing limbs as punishment for "sins". You can find video of all these on YouTube - it is horrible to see a woman buried standing to her waist or higher being stoned to death (women are Far more likely to suffer this punishment than men).This belief system also believes dogs to be unclean and I have talked with people who grew up in those societies who said that as kids they were encouraged to stone dogs whenever they saw them.

In India death by burning, often claimed as an accident and usually the victim is a woman, is still far too common. Look at what we tollerate in the US in the media, vicarious, vicious acts still affect us. We many not ever consider performing them but they affect us and our tollerance levels. Many Christians practice symbolic, ritual cannibalism and blood drinking. What does it take to move people to tear away the veil of symbolism and move into actualizing the act?

Stressed, my answer is, yes, I would be concerned about anyone who encouraged or required this behavior of a child. Personally I would work not let them in my life.

**lilylavendar** · 04-18-2010 01:00 AM

I support the ASPCA, that's all I have to say on this.

**eleni** · 04-18-2010 05:05 AM

i live in the countryside
and often farmers will euthanize something by shooting it.
especially if its something they love
because it causes much less stress to the animal to be with the person it loves, having something nice to eat and just being where its comfortable.
my grandad did that to all the animals that needed to be put down
and i have to say that i think it was the best thing he could have done for them.

as for throwing kittens at rocks, thats not okay.
i've known people to break the kittens necks
mainly when its a farm cat, especially when its been a particularly hard time for the farmers and theres just no money.

i hate doing it,
often round here you'll have to do it to badgers/rabits/foxes who have been badly injured on the road and left but its the way we were raised and i think if an animal is in pain and its going to cause more stress to it to take it to the vet then you just do what needs to be done yourself.

this is probably unhelpful but i just wanted to add in what i've experienced.