The municipal animal shelter in Bristow, OK has announced that they inend to use gunfire as a means of euthanizing animals in those cases where an animal has otherwise met all criteria for euthanization. This has caused some controvery, spawning a change.org campaign and a FB propaganda war.
My wife and I support a couple of animal rescue/rehab groups and one of those groups has made a strong call, in the name of the organization, for all supporters to oppose the shelter's move. Here is where my question comes:
- I have repeatedly asked for a clear explanation of why they oppose this method of euthanization IF they don't oppose all euthanization (since in that case it is obvious).
- I have gotten vague replies about ", "barbaric", "backward ass", "cruel", etc but little more.
- When I ask for specifically what makes gunfire worse than say lethal injection, I have only heard one good answer - namely that a botched shot could lead to a suffering animal - which to me suggests taking risk mitigation steps not banning.
- Mostly though I have been told I am "backwards", "part of the problem", that I must hate animals, etc.
It seems to me that most of these people are using their adrenal glands not their frontal lobes to reason out this issue but I am still open to good arguments, all I seem to have gotten so far is highly emotional hyperbole and insults.
So...am I a cruel, animal hating monster? Am I well meaning but badly misguided dupe of the gun lobby?
Is there a good argument that simply isn't being presented? (Let's hear it - sincerely)
Or is this one of those issues where people don't want to think becuase it is too laden with feelings/emotions so I am expecting too much?
I now submit to have your wisdom wash over me...
My wife and I support a couple of animal rescue/rehab groups and one of those groups has made a strong call, in the name of the organization, for all supporters to oppose the shelter's move. Here is where my question comes:
- I have repeatedly asked for a clear explanation of why they oppose this method of euthanization IF they don't oppose all euthanization (since in that case it is obvious).
- I have gotten vague replies about ", "barbaric", "backward ass", "cruel", etc but little more.
- When I ask for specifically what makes gunfire worse than say lethal injection, I have only heard one good answer - namely that a botched shot could lead to a suffering animal - which to me suggests taking risk mitigation steps not banning.
- Mostly though I have been told I am "backwards", "part of the problem", that I must hate animals, etc.
It seems to me that most of these people are using their adrenal glands not their frontal lobes to reason out this issue but I am still open to good arguments, all I seem to have gotten so far is highly emotional hyperbole and insults.
So...am I a cruel, animal hating monster? Am I well meaning but badly misguided dupe of the gun lobby?
Is there a good argument that simply isn't being presented? (Let's hear it - sincerely)
Or is this one of those issues where people don't want to think becuase it is too laden with feelings/emotions so I am expecting too much?
I now submit to have your wisdom wash over me...
